Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• 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.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

January 4

00:47, 4 January 2025 review of submission by 96.227.67.98

• 96.227.67.98 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Derek Hook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m struggling to understand what I need to do to have this page approved. I believed that the topic—the work of renowned psychologist Derek Hook—and the sources I used to develop the page met all the requirements. However, it seems like I’m missing something important, and I could really use some support to get through this last hurdle. Thank you for your help! 96.227.67.98 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the reviews on his books and the commentary that followed the incident in which he was involved are good sources and might be evidence of notability. However, this solid sourcing is drowned in a lot of primary sources (many references are from works published by Hook himself, which should only be used very sparsely) and less reliable sources like tweets and university profiles. Pointing out three best sources that follow WP:GOLDENRULE could help future reviewers assess notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

02:11, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Cnevers

• Cnevers (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Carter Nevers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It won’t submit the first box it says error Cnevers (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you attempted to submit another user's userpage (User:United States Man) instead of your draft (Draft:Carter Nevers). Also, I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Autobiography if you want to create that article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

05:20, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Babbarakali

• Babbarakali (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rurki Khas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please explain why my contributions to this page are being declined. This page is for a village which exists but does not have a page dedicated for it yet. The demographic facts mentioned are from sources published by the government of India. The biographies mentioned on the page reference historical texts which go into depth regarding the subjects mentioned. Babbarakali (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Babbarakali: if this draft is about a human settlement, it should be about that, and no other subjects. There should be no 'biographies' in it at all. And in any case, our definition of 'notable residents' is ones who have Wikipedia articles, which none of the ones mentioned in your draft seem to do.

Other than that, you've resubmitted the draft, so you will receive feedback when it is reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

06:45, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Chuhwakgeorge

• Chuhwakgeorge (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AIG IGWEH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help in creating the above page as I am a new editor, how to add up links and secondary sources. Chuhwakgeorge (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chuhwakgeorge: drafts must be based on reliable published sources, which must be cited as references (inline, in the case of living people). You must also show that the subject meets our notability requirements, typically per the WP:GNG guideline. Your draft cites no sources.

You can find pretty much everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

06:55, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Porpisith

• Porpisith (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Leak Lyda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

He's a LD Entertainment KH's CEO and film director from Cambodia. Porpisith (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Porpisith: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Not all CEOs and directors merit articles. Directors need to be shown to meet the definition of a notable creative professional; CEOs would need to be shown to meet the more general notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

08:25, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Sarah Paula Roberts

• Sarah Paula Roberts (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Blake Lively (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have edited parts which might have been biased. This is a very neutral edit. Please publish it as a person has negative qualities along with its positive ones so that viewers have a clear conscience. Sarah Paula Roberts (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have edited parts which might have been biased. This is a very neutral edit. Please publish it as a person has negative qualities along with its positive ones so that viewers have a clear conscience. Sarah Paula Roberts (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sarah Paula Roberts: this help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process. The Blake Lively article is almost 20 years old. If you need help with that (or any other aspect of Wikipedia editing in general), you can ask at the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In case your question is about User:Sarah Paula Roberts/sandbox, where you have written a section of an article, it is still unacceptable for Wikipedia. It is so negative in tone that it is a borderline violation the policy on biographies about living people, it coontains personal opinions, and it has no sources. I see that an IP user (presimably you – don't forget to log in!) has posted the same two paragraphs to Talk:Blake Lively. That is the place where you can suggest changes to the article, since the article itself is semi-protected. But you need to explain that it is a proposed new addition to the article, you can't just dump the text there without explanation. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

11:56, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Stephan dasa

• Stephan dasa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hareesh Mohanan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Stephan dasa (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed @Stephan dasa. Did you have a question about that? Verifiability is the key policy on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

12:57, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Stephan dasa

• Stephan dasa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hareesh Mohanan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Stephan dasa (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stephan dasa Please do not create multiple topics about the same draft. Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stephan dasa The key word you need to attend to is "adequately". IMDB is not an acceptable reference. Times of India is not reliable in many cases, but only contains a passing mention of Hareesh Mohanan. I'll leave a further comment on the draft, but why did you not ask the declining reviewer to explain their rationale? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

13:08, 4 January 2025 review of submission by NEWMOONFilmpro

• NEWMOONFilmpro (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Melissa Lahti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my second wikipedia article. When I submitted it the notification says it'll take up to 2 month so after I sent in my first article I went ahead and started my second draft and submitted it probably too quickly. You are rejecting while I am editing though and not giving me enough time to finish. NEWMOONFilmpro (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NEWMOONFilmpro, if you get unblocked please only submit for review once you have finished editing the draft and you are happy for it to be reviewed by a reviewer. It's rather like telling a teacher "Why did you mark the homework I gave to you, it was only half finished?".

I would also really recommend reading our policies on Wikipedia:Notability since both drafts you submitted were not showing evidence of notability yet. qcne (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@NEWMOONFilmpro I have looked at the request you made in the edit history that it be not reviewed, and have "unsubmitted it" in order to help you, assuming your block is appealed successfully. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: the OP is Aleshia Battle, and as far as I can see, was created with that name five hours ago. NEMOONFilmpro is a chimaera, because they first created their user page at that title.

Aleshia Battle, new editors who immediately try to create an article often have a frustrating and disappointing experience. Would you enter a tournament when you only just picked up a tennis racket for the first time? 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. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

14:04, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Sophia2030

• Sophia2030 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Damola Ayegbayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a COI on the article but need assistance for another reviewer because two editors, intended to accept it including an administrator that later advised me to Resubmit it after I provided 3 sources to prove its Notability at the Tea house. Sophia2030 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sophia2030 Do you have a simple WP:COI or do you need to declare under WP:PAID, please? I see yiu have declared the COI already, thank you. I will ask ther paid editing question on your user talk page shortly. Please answer it.

This draft has been rejected Before it can be considered further you need to ask the rejecting reviewer if they will consider lifting their rejection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent:, Thank you for your guide, the editor has lifted the rejected on the draft. Sophia2030 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sophia2030 I'm pleased that your efforts have borne fruit. I hope the subject of the draft is notable. Excellence of referencing is the fundamental way of proving this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent:, Thank you once again, I have adjusted the reference as adviced. Sophia2030 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent:, I have adjusted, is it ok now as you advised. Sophia2030 (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sophia2030 I am assuming you have resubmitted it for review. Now here's the thing. We do not review on demand. I addition you are paid for your work and reviewers are volunteers. Do you see a disconnect here?

Your payment needs to cover 100% of your learning how to create acceptable articles. I take the view that anything paid editor is paid to be able to submit an article for review and have it pass the second review. I see that five reviews have led to a decline.

I have assisted you all I am going to. Please earn your pay. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

14:55, 4 January 2025 review of submission by 2603:7080:B400:D721:41B2:8A36:91A2:C3CB

• 2603:7080:B400:D721:41B2:8A36:91A2:C3CB (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Miral Kruh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Redacted) The information contained in this submission is not accurate. Please delete any and all records of this submission. Thank you. (Redacted) 2603:7080:B400:D721:41B2:8A36:91A2:C3CB (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

We can delete it from the public, but we cannot delete "any and all records"; only an oversighter can do that, see WP:OVERSIGHT for instructions. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've requested oversight. qcne (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in that draft that requires suppression. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be deceptive. Something seems awry with this request. I agree with Primefac that there is nothing revealed in this draft that might require oversight (I am not an Oversighter, but I often report the need for it to those who perform this service), nor is there in any other contributions of the creating editor. Of there is mischief afoot, might not the mischief maker be the IP reporter? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It is/was an unsourced draft that gave zero indication that there is any notability. Regardless of the motivations of the IP, there really isn't anything to do, either to the draft or any of the involved parties (at least until G13 rolls around). Primefac (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

16:12, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Opnicarter

• Opnicarter (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sukoon (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first submission of my draft was declined but the Draft was fully referenced and it was all with Reliable sources as the sources i have provided are their articles also have in Wikipedia. I have fix some errors in References and Resubmit the draft. Can anyone tell that is the Draft is now correct and ready? Opnicarter (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This ain't the place to ask for reviewers. Be patient. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

19:42, 4 January 2025 review of submission by 2407:D000:503:2A06:357C:5E8B:BFCA:D7A3

• 2407:D000:503:2A06:357C:5E8B:BFCA:D7A3 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:About pakistan best journalist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you make it non promotional I tried hard 2407:D000:503:2A06:357C:5E8B:BFCA:D7A3 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if we could, this is an essay, which we do not accept. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Your draft is an opinion piece that bears no resemblance to an neutrally written encyclopedia article. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

20:40, 4 January 2025 review of submission by GeorgiosTzaralis

• GeorgiosTzaralis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • I can't submit for review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"{{subst:submit}}" doesnt work There is no publish for review button https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%CE%9A%CF%85%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C_%CE%B6%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF_%CE%BD%CE%AC%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF GeorgiosTzaralis (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @GeorgiosTzaralis, that is the Greek Wikipedia, a separate project. This is the English Wikipedia. Templates that work on the English Wikipedia may not work on the Greek Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for you asnwer. What should I do in order to get my article reviewed? I can't find anything on Greek Wikipedia... GeorgiosTzaralis (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GeorgiosTzaralis.It's unlikely anybody here can tell you. It may be that the Greek Wikipedia does not have a process like AFC. Certainly there is currently no Greek page linked to WP:AFC. I suggest you ask at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Βοήθεια χρηστών. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

January 5

00:41, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Coreymo

• Coreymo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Coreymo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone assist with getting the article approved and published Coreymo (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and their books. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

11:28, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Naveedahmed14700

• Naveedahmed14700 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lofi Biosphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i think there is much reference in this article as it is a new channel Naveedahmed14700 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Naveedahmed14700: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been declined, and is now awaiting speedy deletion. It is purely promotional, with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

12:26, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Pedrohcs8

• Pedrohcs8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mobilygen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to create this article for two months and got it declined for notabilty policies, something that was true about my sources at first, now i switched all to government sources, the company itself (which could be the reason) and a VentureBeat press release. I would like to know if this article is being declined by any of my sources or the notability of the company itself, as it has very little news coverage. Pedrohcs8 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pedrohcs8: the sources are the evidence of notability, so in that sense those two are the same thing. Primary sources do not establish notability, and this includes the company itself, any press releases etc. material it puts out, as well as most government sources. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (mainly print and broadcast media) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If it has "little news coverage" that is a strong indicator it is too soon for an article about it. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

14:02, 5 January 2025 review of submission by LemmaMe

• LemmaMe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Trinetix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! Could you please suggest which sections or elements of the Trinetix page draft need improvement to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines? Your guidance would be helpful. Thank you. LemmaMe (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

LemmaMe What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

The draft just summarizes the routine activities of the company and tells its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

17:45, 5 January 2025 review of submission by King George Henry

• King George Henry (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:King George Henry/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I need understand Moodle king Charles son? King George Henry (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@King George Henry: I don't know what you're asking, but your draft was declined because it is blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

22:14, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Visualartiste

• Visualartiste (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Night Riders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm just wondering what sources I have used that are not reliable here? I have used information from the book itself and comments made from the author himself in interviews. Visualartiste (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, those are not appropriate. Interviews are not an independent source, and the book itself is only useful for certain information as a primary source. An article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the book, showing how it is a notable book. For a book, that is usually reviews by professional reviewers. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Visualartiste. 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 entirely 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) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

22:21, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Greenotter24

• Greenotter24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hal Oskarsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

is the issue the lack of sources or that the person is not notable enough? it would be great too get clarification Greenotter24 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please disclose your connection with this person, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. I see that you took an image of them.

The issue is that the sources you have do not establish that they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

January 6

00:46, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 94.192.23.171

• 94.192.23.171 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emmanuel Kofi Nkansah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emmanuel_Kofi_Nkansah

I dont know why this keeps being declined. There are no other sources to add. The record is as accurate as it can get. I do have pictures of his diplomatic passport to add to enrich content but I have looked at other bios and this is the same as theirs. I have referenced external sources but it keeps getting declined?

I disagree with the reasons supplied for the rejection. Check the sources and you will find his name in there. He was a Deputy Minister. Records are very very difficult to come by but those I could get my hands on I have referenced and noted. I will be updating this with his passport and resubmitting but it is unfair to reject based on your reasons submitted.

I can be reached on (Redacted).

Many thanks.

Derek 94.192.23.171 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There is unreferenced information which needs to be supported.

Some of your citations don't seem to support anything, eg. ref #1 comes after this person's name, and is a newspaper cutting – what is that meant to verify? Similarly, ref #4 apparently supports the statement that this person ran a post office, and to support that you are citing a source that gives the said post office's contact details and opening hours – how does that verify anything other than that such a post office exists?

Also, many of your references are links to other Wikipedia articles. You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia.

In short, the referencing is a mess, and the draft was correctly declined.

And no, we have no need for pictures of this person's passport. In fact, it is quite inappropriate to upload personal documents like that to Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

01:04, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31

• 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gladiator Film Series Duration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gladiator (2000) we have 155 minutes & 171 minutes. Gladiator II (2024) we have 148 minutes. Gladiator III (2026) we have 169 minutes.

2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

01:14, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31

• 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gladiator Film Series Duration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gladiator III film is 169 minutes. 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a question about your draft? cyberdog958^Talk 05:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia does not host original research, nor is it a collection of data. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about a topic, and little else. Unless you can find several articles (in reliable sources) specifically about the durations of Gladiator films, this is a non-starter. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

03:55, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:56B:3FFF:DB0C:EDCB:E6CD:207C:43CA

• 2001:56B:3FFF:DB0C:EDCB:E6CD:207C:43CA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Muhammad Irfan-Maqsood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Muhammad Irfan-Maqsood is well documented in all Iranian media, has been invited twice to national Iranian TV Channel and and is among the three non-Iranians who are listed by the vice president of Iran office as most talented non-Iranian in Iran. Please check the updated references in draft. 2001:56B:3FFF:DB0C:EDCB:E6CD:207C:43CA (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

05:59, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Huythedev

• Huythedev (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nguyen Binh Khiem High School for the gifted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft. I am eager to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Could you kindly point out the specific errors or areas needing improvement? For example, if there are issues with neutrality, sourcing, formatting, or content depth, please let me know. Your feedback is invaluable, and I’m committed to making the necessary corrections. I appreciate your assistance in helping me refine this article. Thank you! Huythedev (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Huythedev: this draft was declined for lack of evidence that the subject is notable. The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. That tells you what sort of sources we would need to see. (Note, however, that the vast majority of schools are not notable, so if you struggle to find sufficient sources, it may be that they simply don't exist.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the notability guidelines, but I wanted to ask if there could be any exceptions for schools with strong local recognition or specific achievements that may not be covered by traditional sources. Is there a possibility for schools like mine to still be considered notable under such circumstances? I would appreciate any advice or suggestions on how to proceed. Thank you for your time! Huythedev (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Huythedev: no, there can be no exceptions, every organisation must satisfy WP:ORG. If appropriate source aren't available, then the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

08:00, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Diane Nik

• Diane Nik (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Irakoze Ariane Vanessa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From all drafts I created, none has been approved. How can I write this article so that it can be approved and published? Kindly help. Diane Nik (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Diane Nik: you need to be a bit more specific than asking how to write an acceptable draft. This draft was most recently declined for insufficient evidence of notability. The relevant guidelines that you need to satisfy are either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR ones; study them, and provide evidence that either one is met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

09:02, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Gyzouka

• Gyzouka (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Solomon Pavliashvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it is already in Georgian and now we are simply publishing it in English https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%A1%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9A%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9B%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C_%E1%83%9E%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98%E1%83%90%E1%83%A8%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98 Gyzouka (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gyzouka: this draft has been rejected outright, so clearly you're not publishing it here. Each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project. An article existing in one version has no bearing on its acceptability in another. To be included in the English-language Wikipedia, a subject must meet our notability etc. requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

09:18, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Managementfirestone

• Managementfirestone (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hung Wins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how do you get the actor page Hung Wins up? Managementfirestone (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Managementfirestone: we have no 'actor pages', but it may be possible to publish an article on this actor if you can demonstrate that they meet either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR notability guideline.

IMDb is not a reliable source.

You also must write in a neutral, non-promotional tone.

While you're here, could you please explain the meaning of your username? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Would this work as a neutral tone?

"

Hung Wins is a Vietnamese-American actor, producer, and entrepreneur, best known for his roles in the television series Bosch: Legacy (2022), Lodge 49 (2018), and This Is Us (2016). He has also appeared in films such as As Luck Would Have It (2021) and Drug Warz. Wins brings a cultural perspective rooted in his heritage of Vietnamese, Chinese, and French descent. He is fluent in Vietnamese, which influences both his personal life and professional work.

Born in a Red Cross refugee camp, Wins immigrated to the United States in 1994 and settled in the Kings Gate area of Sharpstown, Houston, Texas, an environment marked by economic challenges and crime. His early experiences have informed his dedication to his career and his work as a producer and entrepreneur.

In addition to his work in entertainment, Wins has a background in martial arts. He holds a blue belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu from Macaco Gold Team and a red belt in Muay Thai under Cyborg of Chute Boxe. He applies the discipline and focus gained from martial arts to his career and other ventures.

Academically, Wins graduated with high honors from the University of Houston with a B.A. in Psychology. He later earned a Master's in Positive Psychology from Indiana Wesleyan University and is pursuing a second Master's degree in counseling, with the goal of obtaining LPC licensure in Texas.

Wins is also involved in youth development and real estate, focusing on creating opportunities for young people and contributing to his local community. In his personal life, he enjoys writing, cooking, and spending time in nature. He owns a country property in Wharton, Texas, which serves as a retreat for relaxation and reflection." Managementfirestone (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I've cited every TV show primetime slot he has been in along with the exact media coverage and press and articles hes been in how does this not satisfy the conditions for " Entertainers

Shortcuts

1. • WP:ENT
   • WP:ENTERTAINER
   • WP:NACTOR
   • WP:NMODEL For guidelines on musicians, ensembles, composers, and lyricists, see Wikipedia:Notability (music). This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if:
   1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
   2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Managementfirestone (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"Would this work as a neutral tone?" Absolutely NOT and it has zero sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Managementfirestone.

Quick summary to writing a successful article about Hung Wins:

1. If you have any connection to him, read and abide by WP:COI. If you are in any way employed or paid in connection with writing this, you must follow the process in WP:PAID.

2. Find reliable independent sources that show that he meets either the criteria in WP:NACTOR or those in WP:GNG. Sources do not have to be in English, but they must be reliably published. Ignore almost anything written, published or commission by Wins or his associates, or based on interviews with him or press releases: Wikipedia is basically not interested in what he and his associates say or want to say. see WP:42.

3. If you can't find at least three such, give up.

4. If you can, forget every single thing you know about Wins, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

10:35, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Hans Muller 90

• Hans Muller 90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ideoon.ch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I wanted to ask way me wiki page has bin declined? Hans Muller 90 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hans Muller 90: your draft (such as it is – a tag line and an external link) was declined because it is in German, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload it in English? And then on German on German wiki page? Hans Muller 90 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hans Muller 90: this is clearly not a viable article draft, regardless of the language. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

13:49, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Keiraphillips

• Keiraphillips (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Corrine Almeida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there any suggestions you have to improve notability? Keiraphillips (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keiraphillips: only to say that the notability criteria for academics are enumerated at WP:NACADEMIC, and you need to find the necessary evidence to show that one or more of them is met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keiraphillips Notability cannot be improved. A subject either is notable or is not notable. The only thing that can be improved is the demonstration and verification of any notability by dint of excellence of referencing.

This draft was rejected and will not proceed further unless you appeal to the rejecting reviewer and justify why they should consider overturning the rejection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

15:52, 6 January 2025 review of submission by SKELETRAP

• SKELETRAP (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • SKELETRAP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my page was declined

SKELETRAP (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@SKELETRAP Please do not submit blank submissions. I am somewhat unclear regarding the reason you feel you need to ask about this. The decline rationale could not be more clear. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There's actually some confusion here about the user's userpage (since tagged for deletion) and their blank sandbox, which is likely secondary to the issue of an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I've tried discussing more on the user's talk page. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

16:08, 6 January 2025 review of submission by UpwindPlaning

• UpwindPlaning (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yare and Bure One Design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article keeps getting rejected.

It has better sources than many other articles but it keeps being rejected for poor sources. If you look at existing articles for sailing boats eg. RS200 dinghy, you will see that much of what is written is uncited, but this article is fully cited. If it's the quality of the sources that matters, what qualifies as a good source?

In the reliability article it says that self published sources (in this case class association websites) can be used as a source of information when talking about themselves, but elsewhere it says sources must be "independent of the subject", which is conflicting information.

Or perhaps it's because people see it's been rejected so many times and so simply refuse to accept it.

Please help. UpwindPlaning (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

UpwindPlaning Please see other stuff exists. There are many, many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia that have gotten past us, for varying reasons(the biggest being that the submission process has not always existed). This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you could identify these other articles you have seen, we can take action so other editors like you don't see them. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@UpwindPlaning: the apparent conflict may be because high-quality self-published sources can be used to verify information, but they cannot be used to establish notability; for the latter, sources must (in most cases) be entirely independent of the subject.

We don't decline drafts because they have been declined previously already; that would mean that you would have to get a draft accepted on the first attempt. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

More than happy to accept this if re-submited. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

17:51, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Disnewuisux

• Disnewuisux (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:South Ferry (Shelter Island) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey folks! I recently got this draft rejected for not having enough reliable sources. I wholeheartedly believe that this topic should be covered on Wikipedia, but I simply cannot find Wikipedia-grade sources for the content I need cited. WP:Notability says to merge it into a broader article that it fits into, but I do not believe that such an article exists. I understand the guideline that no reliable sources means it's not notable enough, but I believe that it does meet all other notability criteria in this case. If someone could point me in a direction to get this draft published, that would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Disnewuisux (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Disnewuisux: actually, this was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which is kind of related to but not quite the same as "not having enough reliable sources". We normally need to see three sources that satisfy every aspect of the WP:GNG standard. Your draft cites only two sources, one of which is just an operational update provided by the ferry operator. We need more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing thanks, I'll see what I can do. Disnewuisux (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

18:09, 6 January 2025 review of submission by AvaMalone

• AvaMalone (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Avamalone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why was it deleted? this is clear information about an existing and evolving individual who not only has her knowledge panel but Google is having trouble with adding information because the information about this individual was incorrectly cited and needed to be rewritten AvaMalone (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@AvaMalone: I assume you are referring to User:AvaMalone/sandbox which was deleted as unambiguously promotional. What Google does or doesn't do is irrelevant to Wikipedia, and the mere fact of existing is not a criterion for notability – and Wikipedia articles are created about notable topics only. --bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@AvaMalone: the draft was entirely promotional, as well as entirely unreferenced, meaning it wasn't based on independent and reliable third party sources, in turn making it, if possible, even more promotional.

What is your relationship with this subject? You had uploaded all the photos in this draft as your own work, so you are clearly collaborating with the subject in a fairly close manner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

21:02, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 73.229.252.223

• 73.229.252.223 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Christina Lecuyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I've been working on this article for months and was told by various people, including one of our editors that the topic was notable. I removed the "peacocking" terms and streamlined the text, but in doing so I've now been declined for not being notable. Every sentence has a citation and many of them are from media outlets. The individual was on national TV and played professional golf...I don't understand how that isn't "notable" or worthy of being on wikipedia. 73.229.252.223 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This person is even mentioned in this wikipedia page, which I had intended to link to/from once the article was approved: The Big Break Gottulat (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you link to where you were told the person is notable, or say who told you that?

Mere appearance as a professional golfer is not inherently notable, the things most likely to make a golfer meet the notable person definition are at WP:NGOLF. Participation in a TV show isn't inherently notable, either.

The draft mostly discusses her activities, not what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about her. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The editor that told me it was notable is Utopes. I was in the suggested chat forum (forget the name of it) that is always recommended after an article is declined. Utopes was also in there and we had a long chat about the article and what changes should be made. Utopes told me that there was clearly space for this subject on wikipedia and that it was good I hadn't been declined for notability purposes since the point when they had reviewed the article.

I guess I am unsure what I'm missing...listing out what reliable sources say is important/significant/influential is subjective and not necessarily fact based. Just because one outlet says she is a "top confidence coach" doesn't mean I should put that in the article, right?

Additionally, I saw this article of Lori Atsedes was accepted, but it has 1 citation. Lori competed in the same season of The Big Break as my subject and if you read the content of the page, it even mentions my subject... I've spent a great deal of time researching the subject and am just trying to figure out how to do this properly as this is my first foray into wikipedia content. Gottulat (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gottulat: The article on Atsedes predates the drafting process entirely (first edit: 2007/03/12). Even if it had been drafted, you cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other articles to argue for your own. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jéské Couriano. I didn't realize the article I referenced predated the process, that is good to know. Do you have any other suggestions on how I can improve the article? Gottulat (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gottulat. Thank you for pointing us at the essentially unreferenced and therefore (in Wikipedia terms) worthless article Lori Atsedes. Its sole reference meets none of the three criteria of being independent, reliable, and containing significant coverage of Atsedes, and therefore contributes nothing whatsover to that entirely unreferenced article. I have tagged the article accordingly. Whether or not Atsedes actually meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability I have no idea.

The article was created in 2007, long before we had the AFC process. ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Glad I could help, although that wasn't really my intention. I'm trying to figure out what other articles have that mine doesn't. Any guidance would be helpful. Thank you! Gottulat (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Utopes Any clarification you can offer would help. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I have some recollection on this conversation in IRC. At the time I was waiting for some assistance of my own, and during the wait I took to chatting and a look at the draft as the user was seeking feedback for. I do remember saying that "luckily the first draft was not declined for notability, so there may be space on Wikipedia for this subject". I may have also said that the subject "could be notable"; I don't believe I said it was notable with certainty. If I said it was, I would have been inclined to make the necessary changes and pass it myself if I had confidence in it, but I ended up declining the draft for POV reasons as the biased peacock-term usage was jumping out to me immediately and would not have been close to passing in its current state. If I said something that implied the draft was "looking good notability wise", that was a mistake on my part. I do believe I was optimistic in my verbiage though, and that "there is a chance" because "the good news is it was declined for verification, which is easier to fix than a notability-decline". That's about all I can remember. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like I misread the decline reason, as it seems to have been declined for notability on the first go; my memory is failing me. It did seem like the article had improved after the first declination though, to be triple the original length and with formatted citations by the time I glossed over it, so I was hoping to stay positive on IRC waiting room and speak towards the forward progress being made. It seemed at the time that something could work for this topic. Unfortunately it seems not, sorry. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Utopes Hi! Yes, you were very optimistic there was space on Wikipedia for the article, so I pushed onward and made more necessary adjustments to fix the tone and peacocking. I never really tried to further address the notability as I felt there was substantial citations, such as what I outlined here in this conversation below.

At this point is the article just "dead" and I need to move on? I'm not sure the official process of writing content on Wikipedia as this is my first attempt. I would like to learn and make this subject matter what it needs to be to get approved as I feel there is general notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Gottulat (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@SafariScribe You've recently rejected my article. I saw that you updated your status to let everyone know you are stressed and dealing with real life matters. I hope all is well in your world. When you get a moment, can you please give me additional guidance on how to improve my article? I see that you rejected it on the premise that it doesn't meet wikipedia's notability standards, but I would beg to differ. Although my subject doesn't quite meet the criteria for subject specific notability (It is very close!), I believe it does meet the criteria for general notability.

I've found significant coverage of the subject in all forms of media (I have 20+ citations) and many of them are reliable and independent sources:

This is mainstream media: NBC Sports (The subject was televised on two seasons of The Big Break) - all of the seasons can still be watched on GolfPass (https://www.golfpass.com/watch/big-break/episode-1-hit-the-ground-running) - I didn't include this link because it requires a subscription, but if someone thinks it is worth including, please let me know.

This is a television news broadcast station: KNWA FOX24

These citations are local newspapers: Edmonton Sun, The Sentinel Record, Arkansas Democrat Gazette

These are magazines: Arkansas Money & Politics, ScoreGolf

And these are golf associations/tournaments: Southlands and LPGA

What else is needed to establish notability? Gottulat (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gottulat: I haven't looked at your sources, I'm only making a general point: it's not enough for the sources to be secondary, reliable and independent, they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. If it's just passing mentions such as reporting tournament results, that's not enough. Also bear in mind that interviews don't count, since they are the subject talking (ie. primary source, and not independent). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks for the info! I definitely have some interview style citations. Could those be hurting the article and thus should be removed? I thought more content is better... If the article was written by a local newspaper but they asked for a comment, that wouldn't be considered an interview would it? Gottulat (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gottulat: it may seem counter-intuitive, but I would actually say that less content is better. When I'm reviewing a draft that has a few short paragraphs that are straightforward and purely factual, and this is supported by a handful (say, 3-5) solid sources, I can review that in a matter of minutes, and hopefully accept it straight away. If you then add to that ten times more content and ten times more sources, the same acceptable content and the same few sources that establish notability would still be there, but I would have to work so much harder to find them. (And lazy as I am, I would be tempted to just groan and move on to another draft instead.) So no, don't add unnecessary sources that don't either contribute towards notability, or that aren't required to verify information; they could indeed be 'hurting' the draft.

Generally speaking, someone commenting on things does not contribute to their notability, because they are talking about something else. We need to see sources that are talking about this person, not reporting what this person has said about things. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, this is disappointing news. I can definitely see how making editors work harder to find the sources could backfire. Maybe I will try to clean up the content a bit more as I definitely over-cited, and in many instances I have numerous citations for the same piece of information. I guess I don't even know if I can clean it up and resubmit it though...it's been rejected, so it seems the piece is no longer eligible for review. Gottulat (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

January 7

01:17, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Jeanmari1

• Jeanmari1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tomorrow's Women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Could you please provide guidance as to how I can rewrite this in a way that would fit Wiki guidelines? Jeanmari1 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that, due to restrictions on editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict(see your user talk page) if ever accepted, you could not directly edit the draft until you have 500 edits.

If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

The draft reads as if it were on the organization website, just telling what they do and about their personnel. An article about this 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. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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 entirely 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. Consequently, "rewriting" this draft would involve discarding what is there and starting again, from independent reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

03:50, 7 January 2025 review of submission by BPxwz

• BPxwz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bintang Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can I get more guidance on how to improve the drafting so that it will be accepted by wikipedia for publishing? In the current draft, we have cited and made reference to several independent and reliable sources like news sites. It would be great if you can provide more detailed feedback for us. Thank you. BPxwz (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@BPxwz Looks your draft failed on notability because your sources don't demonstrate it. I would read WP:42 it's a good intro to what we look for in sources in order for drafts to demonstrate notability. Hope this helps! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

07:28, 7 January 2025 review of submission by MexFin

• MexFin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Disinformation research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello team!

I am writing to understand more about the decision to reject the draft of disinformation research. I am writing this here because the template used to reject the submission is a bit unclear, and I would like to have more clarity on the precise issue so I can correct it. The template emphasizes three problems with the draft: Informal writing, neutral point of view, and reliable sources.

- Informal writing. Could you please help me understand what exactly you see as informal writing? I would like to know how to correct it.

- Neutral point of view. I even included a section on criticism of this line of research precisely to make it neutral.

- Reliable sources. Could you help me understand which sources are not reliable? I included 38 academic references, all of them from peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

Thank you so much for your help.

MexFin (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MexFin: the decline templates don't always provide a perfect fit, for instance in this case it could be that not all three issues apply to this draft; for that reason, I'm pinging the reviewer @TheTechie: for any comments they may be able to share.

Part of the problem could be (and I'm mostly guessing here) that, thanks to the subject matter, the terminology is quite 'buzzy', with fake news and filter bubbles and echo chambers etc. This is also perhaps written in the manner of an exposition, discussing recent research, suggesting 'alternative perspectives', etc., rather than as a purely descriptive encyclopaedia article.

Anyway, I won't speculate further; let's wait to hear what TheTechie has to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer! I agree that the nature of the article is really about all these buzzy words, but this is precisely what the research field is all about. I would like to hear the recommendations so that i can fix it! :) MexFin (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing @MexFin Yeah the buzzword-type language and some informal text was why I declined. Though I don't remember saying anything about reliable sources though (see this for context). TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @TheTechie and @DoubleGrazing for taking the time. I really appreciate it. I will do my best to make the article use less buzzwords. However, the reason why I am using these words is precisely because they represent the phenomenon that "disinformation research" is studying (See table 2 of this research article). You can see in this publication how researchers are trying to make sense of all these partially overlapping terms, for example in Caroline Jack's Lexicon of Lies. The concepts look like peacock terms because these are the words used to discuss them in policymaking circles, academic research, and news media. We read these terms in the news all the time, and academic researchers study the phenomenon using precisely these terms.

I will make the article more neutral, but I kindly ask you to consider that these terms are the part and parcel of the nature of the article.

On a separate note, thank you for your gatekeeping efforts. I truly value the unpaid work of editors just upholding the values of the old Internet. Just be aware that the disinformation field may be closer to Wikipedia than it has ever been when now even individual Wikipedia editors are targeted by trying to make them/us look like agents spreading disinformation. This technique has been used against journalists but never before against Wikipedia editors. MexFin (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@MexFin: thanks for your kind words, and for the note of caution. Yes, when billionaires turn their guns on the likes of Wikipedia, and sack entire fact-checking departments, it makes for unsettling mood music.

RE this draft, I don't think there's any reason not to use terminology that comes with the territory, so to speak, as long as it is done to label and discuss the concepts, and not just for 'buzzword bingo' purposes. Which I'm sure was the case here anyway. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

08:55, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Cibra100

• Cibra100 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oleg Ibrahimoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I recently submitted a draft article titled Draft:Oleg Ibrahimoff, which was declined for not meeting the notability criteria. The reviewer mentioned that the references do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This article is a translation of an accepted French Wikipedia article, and I have included references in French. Could you please review my draft and provide suggestions for improving it so it aligns with the English Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you for your help. Cibra100 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cibra100: you're asking us to review this draft, but it was reviewed already, and declined. Are you saying that the reviewer got it wrong... or you just didn't like the outcome? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

10:05, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Lawrence Chen

• Lawrence Chen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lawrence Chen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking assistance with the Wikipedia page of Lawrence Chen because the submission was rejected due to concerns over not meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like guidance on how to better demonstrate his notability by citing reliable, third-party sources and providing more verifiable information to support his inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lawrence Chen (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Lawrence Chen You say "I am seeking assistance with the Wikipedia page of Lawrence Chen" as if you are not him, but your username is his name. If you are not him, you need to change your username immediately via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.

THe draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. The article(the preferred term, not "page") should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It should not merely be a summary of his activities, accomplishments, and qualifications. What do sources say is important about him/you? 331dot (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I also note that you claim to have personally created and own the copyright to the very professional looking image of Mr. Chen. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concern about my username and will take the necessary steps to change it as per your instructions.

Regarding the article draft, I have already provided independent, reliable sources from reputable news outlets such as Lianhe Zaobao, The Straits Times, and Business Insider, which cover my career and achievements. These sources offer significant coverage and highlight key aspects of my professional journey. I will ensure the article focuses on what these third-party sources have emphasized as important to meet Wikipedia's notability standards.

As for the image, I would like to clarify that I do own the copyright to the image, but I will ensure it is properly sourced and complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines for image usage.

Thank you for your help, and I will make the appropriate adjustments moving forward. 118.189.41.27 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback Request for Draft on Ludmila Yamalova

Moved from Draft talk:Ludmila Yamalova

Hi everyone,

I’m working on a draft for a Wikipedia article about Ludmila Yamalova, a US-qualified lawyer and businesswoman based in Dubai. She is the founder and managing partner of a law firm and has been featured in various media outlets for her legal insights.

I have tried to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability guidelines, but I’d like some feedback to confirm whether the draft is ready for resubmission. The article includes:

• Her early life, education, and career highlights.
• Media contributions and recognition (e.g., features in The New York Times and Financial Times).
• Specific achievements, like founding one of the first legal podcasts in the MENA region.

Here’s a link to my draft: Draft:Ludmila Yamalova

It would be great help someone could heladdresse following in the context of the draft:

1. Does the article establish notability based on the sources cited?
2. Are there sections that might still come across as promotional or lacking neutrality?
3. Are the references sufficient, or do I need stronger independent coverage? (I have exhausted all the references)

I would greatly appreciate your insights or suggestions to improve the draft before resubmission. Thank you so much for your time! 😊 ~~~~ Aishanijoon (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aishanijoon: you would get feedback if you submitted this for another review. That's what the AfC process is there for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote this here because I was suggested to get feedback from editors through Teahouse. But as a new editor, I am unable to post there, and this was the recommended method. I was hoping to get feedback before I resubmit for the third time. :( Aishanijoon (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, promotional, non neutral and not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aishanijoon: my point was, in order for someone to give you feedback, they will have to effectively review the draft. So by asking for feedback, you're asking us to review, but to do so out of process and bypassing the pool of c. 1,800 other pending drafts.

Anyway, now you have feedback, above.

And in terms of feedback to your boss who set you this very challenging task, you may want to show them this: WP:BOSS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aishanijoon: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• We can't use https://lovin.co/dubai/en/latest/pda-allowed-in-uae-tiktok/ (unknown provenance). We also can't use the Tiktok video it's citing (connexion to subject, too sparse).
• We can't use https://www.cosmopolitanme.com/career/tiktokers-that-will-help-you-advance-your-career (too sparse). Listicle.
• I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/greathomesanddestinations/03iht-redubai03.html (walled). Someone with an NYT subscription will need to assess this source.
• https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/global/07dubaibuild.html is useless for notability (too sparse). All it really says about her is she's bringing a lawsuit against Dubai real-estate developers.
• I can't assess any of the Financial Times or Bloomberg articles (walled). Someone with subscriptions to those sources will need to assess them.
• https://www.khaleejtimes.com/coronavirus-pandemic/covid-19-can-uae-employers-force-staff-to-take-the-vaccine is useless for notability (too sparse). Stuff She Says; no actual discussion of her.
• https://www.arabianbusiness.com/startup/academy-focus-on-employment-565065 is useless for notability (too sparse). The whole article verges on being too-short-to-cite, but Yamalova is merely mentioned and not really discussed.
• https://gulfnews.com/living-in-uae/safety-security/uae-introduces-new-domestic-violence-law-stronger-protections-for-victims-tougher-penalties-for-abusers-1.1728559248234 is useless for notability (too sparse). Stuff She Says; no real discussion of her.
• https://gulfnews.com/living-in-uae/ask-us/new-uae-cybercrimes-law-do-you-know-what-can-land-you-in-trouble-1.1652280765797 " " " " (" "). " " "; " " " " ".
• https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/money/2024/10/10/what-to-do-if-your-bank-blocks-end-of-service-gratuity-owing-to-an-unlisted-employer/ " " " " (" "). " " "; " " " " ".
• https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/2024/02/02/changes-to-eviction-notices-put-dubai-tenants-on-alert/ " " " " (" "). " " "; " " " " ". I'm really not a fan of straight rows of ditto marks.
• We can't use Facebook or any other form of social media (no editorial oversight). At best, these can be used to verify things she said on social media, but they're utterly worthless as a notability citation.
• https://thefinanceworld.com/top-100-expat-business-leaders-in-the-uae/ is borderline. It's a listicle, but the sections are by themselves just big enough to help for notability.
• We can't use https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/events-and-conferences/second-day-of-knowledge-summit-tackles-development-of-knowledge-economy-balance-in-times-of-crisis-and-fight-against-global-poverty-vaklvabd (no editorial oversight), and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (too sparse). Clearly-labeled press release; Yamalova is only mentioned in passing.

What I can assess isn't any good for notability save for The Finance World. However, given there's five sources that I can't touch, I can't say authoritatively that you haven't met the burden of notability as we define it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

14:39, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Mwalimuwakwanza

• Mwalimuwakwanza (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Bio mwalimuwakwanza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i need assistance to upload images and certificates as extra resources. also how to separate the content. thanks Mwalimuwakwanza (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Mwalimuwakwanza/sandbox

@Mwalimuwakwanza: you can request files be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload or follow very closely the instructions at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. However, please keep in mind that certificates and images won't be considered independent, reliable sources sufficient to demonstrating WP:Notability and the first focus of the draft should be establishing this for your topic. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mwalimuwakwanza. I'm afraid you're in a very common situation for editors who try the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent much time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you enter a tournament the first time you ever picked up a tennis racket?

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.

To address your specific concerns: Bobby has answered you about how to upload images, but I want to point out that images are 100% irrelevant to getting a draft accepted. Furthermore, I can think of almost no circumstances where uploading an image of a certificate would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

A Wikipedia article about Mdundo should be a summary of what people who have no connection whatever with him have chosen to publish about him in reliable places - major newspapers, books from reputable publishers etc. That's all. What he says, what his associates say or want to say, what you know about him, are all irrelevant, unless they have been reported on by independent sources.

To write an article about him, your job begins with finding such published sources. Every source should meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you cannot find several such sources, then I'm afraid he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you are wasting your time trying to write an article about him. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

16:00, 7 January 2025 review of submission by CarriageFilms

• CarriageFilms (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joe Pirro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I am trying to create a new page for a film producer who has produced a number of films, been nominated for the top American independent film award, and has been quoted a number of times discussing his projects in independent trade publications like The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, and Variety, but for some reason the page keeps getting rejected for not being a significant enough figure to warrant a Wikipedia page. How can I improve the article to get it approved? I've been looking at other producers' pages of a similar caliber and cannot figure out what I'm missing. CarriageFilms (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@CarriageFilms: the relevant notability guideline is given at WP:FILMMAKER. Which of the criteria does this person meet, and what evidence supports that?

Alternatively, you can establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Note that Pirro "discussing his projects" does not qualify as independent or secondary.

It is pointless comparing this draft to existing articles (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument). Drafts are assessed by reference to current policies and guidelines, which all new articles must meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

17:50, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Nadeem7044

• Nadeem7044 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Voice Of Afghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I submitted a draft about VoiceofAfghan.com, a news website providing content in Pashto and Dari. It was rejected .

Can someone guide me on:

Improving notability with better references. Writing in a neutral tone. Meeting Wikipedia’s requirements for such topics.

Thank you! Nadeem7044 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nadeem7044: The lack of sources is the most fatal issue. Without sources, you don't have an article. (The subject themselves does not count.) A Wikipedia article should be based solely on what third-party reliable sources have written/said about the subject, with citations to those sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Nadeem7044 I'll note that it was "declined", not "rejected". The word "rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, it means that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

20:46, 7 January 2025 review of submission by VelvetEcho 21

• VelvetEcho 21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shlomi Raz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help me publish this article VelvetEcho 21 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @VelvetEcho 21, start by reviewing Help:Your first article. Then, conduct research on the topic and collect sources that are independent, secondary and reliable. Once you have those sources, cite to them inline. See the instructions Help:Referencing for beginners. Presently, your draft is void of inline citations, so it appears that you have written the article backwards and thus will have a difficult time improving it. See the guidance at WP:BACKWARDS. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@VelvetEcho 21: This is so blatantly promotional that I will be tagging it for deletion under G11. Other than that, you don't properly cite your sources, and your sources are all useless (most are profiles, one is an interview). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

21:07, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Ivinlivin

• Ivinlivin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:3-Sjøersløpet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone check the sources used in this article? I just got notified that it's not properly sourced. Can someone double-check this? Ivinlivin (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hwllo, @Ivinlivin.

Which three of your sources are the best, i.e. the ones that are all three of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject? - see WP:42 for more explanation. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say all of the newspaper sources are good sources; however, most Norwegian newspapers don't have open access. Besides the newspaper ones, I would say:

https://issuu.com/distancerunning/docs/distance_running_2021_edition_3 (see page 20 in this magazine)

https://3sjoers.no/en/ (the home page is pretty good coverage, even though its a primary source)

https://worldsmarathons.com/marathon/3-sj-ersl-pet#about (race information)

https://www.kondis.no/3-sjoerslopet-med-sterke-vinnertider-og-solid-deltakerrekord.6694596-127676.html (one of the newspaper ones, however as mentioned, most of these are not open access) Ivinlivin (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The Distance Running piece might be OK, but I have a couple of concerns. 1) it's not clear how independent it is, and 2) it has no byline, which is often a red flag for reliability. Is it a reporter's own research, or just reproducing information from the organisers? How can one tell?

The second and third links above, no matter how good may be their coverage, are not independent, and therefore cannot contribute in the slightest to establishing notability.

So it comes down to the newspaper sources - as you say, they may be good (meet all three criteria of WP:42), but they are behind paywalls, so I haven't looked at them.

I suggest you ask @SafariScribe, who was the reviewer who declined the draft. ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for replying @ColinFine. Then I ask @safariscribe to look through these sources more closely? Ivinlivin (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

23:44, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Slapback79070

• Slapback79070 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amber Nova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which of my sources are not reliable so i can change them Slapback79070 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Slapback79070: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. Notability requires sources to be reliable, among many other things, but this was not declined specifically for unreliable sources.

But since you ask, user-generated sources are generally not considered reliable. In this case that includes YouTube, Wix-based websites, as well as onlineworldofwrestling.com and thesportster.com. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

January 8

02:14, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Smdelj

• Smdelj (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nebojša Delja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear editors, would appreciate your assistance as I work to get an article approved. It was declined becaue I need to add footnotes. The article already has a significant amount of inline citations to reliable sources. What is the difference between inline citations and footnotes? This may be a fairly straightforward edit -I want to get it right and get this article launched! Thanks for your guidance. Smdelj (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smdelj: The issue is you have claims that are unsourced, mainly most of your bulleted lists. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

03:54, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Harshit Singh Rajput King

• Harshit Singh Rajput King (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Late Babu Gauri Shankar Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my draft rejected Harshit Singh Rajput King (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Harshit Singh Rajput King: because it was purely promotional, which is also why it was deleted. Not to mention that it was entirely unreferenced, and barely legible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

09:25, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Melodydove

• Melodydove (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pogoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I submitted a draft that was rejected on the basis of sourcing issues, I'm unsure of the reasoning. My article is a collation of translations from other wikimedia projects which I was going to note on the edit summary or talk page. The sources included were a Ukrainian encyclopedia on folklore and mythology and another 2 books on slavic mythology, all of which were written by academics. The only problem I can see is that the sources might not be in-depth enough on this specific slavic god (or maybe too indiscriminate?) but 1 page - multiple pages of these books give information on the topic. Please advise on what kind of source I would need to use to make this article valid. Melodydove (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Melodydove Note that it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to make sure that the content they are translating meets the requirements of the Wikipedia they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than other versions. I don't think it's the sources themselves that are the issue, but that you don't have the sources need to establish notability. It may be notable, but you haven't established that yet. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Melodydove: note that offline sources must be cited with sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification purposes; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.

Another point, now that you say this is "a collation of translations from other wikimedia projects": be careful that you don't stray into synthesis territory. I know that's not quite what you said, but I thought I'd mention this nevertheless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

11:18, 8 January 2025 review of submission by HeiLouSimp

• HeiLouSimp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Simpson Sovereignty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At this stage, my draft article has been rejected due to a lack of cited resources and tone. Do you have any suggestions on how I should proceed with this project? Is there someone who can collaborate with me or who has knowledge of the real Simpson family? There is a significant amount of information available online and official records that have not yet been published through Wikipedia. If you have any tips about the subject and how to improve the article I would greatly appreciate it. HeiLouSimp (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@HeiLouSimp: To start with, you do have to base the draft on reliable, secondary and independent sources that discuss the topic in some detail. Currently, there is only one reliable source, and that doesn't mention the topic at all so it is no help to us. Don't start by writing a long draft based on what you know and then look for sources that support it – that's going about it backwards. Secondly, it is very unclear what the topic of the draft really is, for instance what it has to do with sovreignty. It consists of a number of separate sections where some but not all describe historical persons called Simpson – and you have copied several sections from other Wikipedia articles (which is not actually allowed unless you attribute it correctly). Since the text is also written in a non-neutral tone, there is very little of it that could be used in Wikipedia, even if there were sources. It looks like your aim with this draft and your other edits is to tell the world about the Simpson family and its marvellous history – but that is not what Wikipedia is for. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

11:20, 8 January 2025 review of submission by AntonTok

• AntonTok (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Cybersexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear all, I was trying to add article regarding newly invented concept of cybersexuality - newly emerged sexual orientation actually syntethized by myself based on investigation of users of my AI Dating project. There is was no such definition previously. Nevertheless my article was turned down because of lack of reliable source - however, there cannot be any sources describing this emerged concept except current article itself AntonTok (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@AntonTok: if there aren't sources, then you cannot summarise what they say, and therefore you cannot create a Wikipedia article at this time. Synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia, and "newly invented" pretty much is alternative spelling for WP:TOOSOON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

AntonTok Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first, because Wikipedia summarizes what others say about a topic. You'll have to get sources to notice this topic and write about it first, so there are sources to summarize in an article. It's far too soon. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

17:33, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Haydar Lassoued

• Haydar Lassoued (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emergency Hamburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you help me understand why I got declined as I have made an article before on Wiki, but it also got declined, For times, may you please explain? Haydar Lassoued (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You have no sources; an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Your draft just tells about the game and its gameplay. Most articles about games discuss reviews of the game that are written by professional reviewers. I think it unlikely that this game within Roblox is notable; if you just want to tell the world about it, a website with less stringent requirements would be better suited. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Haydar Lassoued: on the bottom of the draft it says "Written By: Haydar Lassoued and Demir Zayifoğlu"; the former name is the same as your username. I interpreted "written by" as referring to the game, and rejected this on that basis, but perhaps it only referred to this draft? If so, then I'm happy to revert my rejection and only decline this draft, which would allow you to continue editing it (as in, rewriting it so that it is based on reliable and independent published sources, which are cited as references). Whereas if this is indeed a game you've developed yourself, then I think I will stand by my rejection. Let me know? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Haydar Lassoued it was rejected because this isn't the place to first write about research you have or are performing. Unless others have written about this concept in independent, reliable sources it is not ready for an article on Wikipedia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

17:36, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 114.143.124.218

• 114.143.124.218 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Page Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what is lacking in my article, exactly and what should I edit?

114.143.124.218 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The decline reason is given in the decline notice on top of the draft page, and in the accompanying comment below it.

Please remember to log into your account whenever editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

18:57, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 95.70.145.198

• 95.70.145.198 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hasan Bülent Kahraman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to create a Wikipedia page for a university rector in Turkey. However, it says there are not enough references. I provided an official document from the Turkish Republic Official Gazette as a reference. I also included the link to the rector information on the university's official website. Additionally, the fact that he is the rector is mentioned under the "Işık University" section on Wikipedia's English page. The information about him being the rector is certain and accurate. Why is it not being approved? What is the issue?

Rector's Name: Hasan Bülent Kahraman Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C5%9F%C4%B1k_University Draft page I want to create: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hasan_B%C3%BClent_Kahraman

Please help me. 95.70.145.198 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The draft cites two sources (of which one doesn't seem to even mention Kahraman) in the short lead paragraph, the rest of it is entirely ureferenced – where does all that information come from, and how do we know it's true? It may be "certain and accurate" that he is the rector, but we also need to be able to verify all the rest of this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other articles to argue for your own; you need to provide sources that show he meets either our general or specific notability guidelines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. 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 entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If the only sources that are available are from Kahraman or his associates, then he does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

19:57, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Overwatch one one zero

• Overwatch one one zero (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Template:AfC submission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance with submitting 2 Wikipedia pages. The first submission was unsuccessful. How can you help me expediate publishing of these two pages. Thank you. Overwatch one one zero (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Overwatch one one zero: We can see  Courtesy link: Draft:Joanitt Montano in your contributions. What is the other page? Do you have multiple accounts, or are you coordinating with others with different accounts?

The declination reason from the aforementioned draft says that there isn't significant coverage demonstrating Wikipedia:Notability, and the feedback from the review said that it read like a resume. Review Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners, these would be good starting places. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

20:31, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 72.182.9.163

• 72.182.9.163 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kathleen Ann Shea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft of the page was rejected for " - Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia " Are you kidding me ? I've been using wiki since wikis became a thing . This is information regarding a missing persons case that people are going to be searching for and needs to be approved. 72.182.9.163 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for articles about notable subjects - it is not a site where you can post whatever you would like. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia. Your draft has multiple issues:

1. It reads like a story .

2. No notability whatsoever.

3. No significance. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

21:02, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Aleksandra6617

• Aleksandra6617 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Andrzej Pohorille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I recently received feedback regarding my article submission, which was unfortunately rejected. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in understanding how to revise the text to meet Wikipedia's standards. The reviewer mentioned that the submission contained excessive promotional language (WP:Peacock) and did not meet the required notability guidelines (WP:NPROF).

I genuinely want to improve the article and ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines, but I am concerned that my previous edits may have unintentionally made things worse. Would you be able to help me identify which parts of the article should be removed or rewritten? I am open to significantly reducing the content if necessary.

Thank you for your time and any guidance you can provide. I value your expertise and look forward to hearing from you. Aleksandra6617 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aleksandra6617 if it is rejected that means you cannot resubmit. Also, please write your own comments instead of using AI. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

21:16, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 41.116.93.19

• 41.116.93.19 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Xduppy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please tell me, WHY DID YOU DECLINED THIS ARTICLE 😡😡😡😡😡 41.116.93.19 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The decline was pretty clear, but to go into it again, the article is completely unsourced, and as such, nothing has been provided to indicate that the subject is notable under either artist-specific notability (WP:NARTIST) or under the more general WP:GNG. Notability has to be demonstrated using reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Request on 21:36:55, 8 January 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonatanirvin

• Jonatanirvin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Jonatanirvin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rewridet taked out unecesary aded citations Jonatanirvin (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: User is now blocked. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

January 9

05:59, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Smarter Than90

• Smarter Than90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kirk Culberson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because it is kinda hard to Do Things like this Slow. I would like if some body help me. Smarter Than90 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smarter Than90: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. If you have specific questions, you may ask those. Otherwise, you should find anything you need for article creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Smarter Than90 It's hard to do it slow- are you on a deadline? 331dot (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have reomoved the photograph as it looks like a copyright violation, all that is left is an info box, there is no content to review? Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

09:28, 9 January 2025 review of submission by WeTransfer Pakistan

• WeTransfer Pakistan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:WeTransfer Pakistan: Revolutionizing File Transfer Solutions for the Digital Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WeTransfer Pakistan is a cloud-based application designed for seamless file transfer & sharing, launched in February 2023. why my page and article delete ?

WeTransfer Pakistan is a cloud-based application designed for seamless file transfer & sharing, launched in February 2023. WeTransfer Pakistan (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

WeTransfer Pakistan I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended, but your draft was blatant advertising and has been deleted. Wikipedia does not allow advertising, and is not a place for businesses to tell about themselves, their offerings, and what they do. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about businesses that meet our criteria. The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

10:15, 9 January 2025 review of submission by HanskrithaSinghU

• HanskrithaSinghU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sri P. Harishekaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not able to figure out my mistakes.Can you please help me for the same? HanskrithaSinghU (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

First, please answer the inquiry I just posted to your user talk page. The reviewers have left you replies on the draft, do you have more specific questions about them? 331dot (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

They've already disclosed paid editing, but it's a bit hidden at the bottom of the user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

11:19, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Mobile Knowledge

• Mobile Knowledge (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:IPSC (India Public Service Channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I many time fail to publish my article Mobile Knowledge (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mobile Knowledge: that's because the draft is virtually unreferenced, and there is zero evidence that the subject is notable.

What is your relationship with this organisation? I have posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mobile Knowledge. Your statement is the equivalent of "I built a house without surveying the land or building any foundations, and I keep trying to get a certificate for it, but the authorities keep refusing".

An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable indepedent sources have said about a subject - nothing less, and very little more. A draft without citations to independent sources is nearly worthless, as a reader has no way to tell whether it is reliable or not. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

11:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ammu Mohan

• Ammu Mohan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ammu Mohan/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HOW TO ADD THE LINKS AND REFERENCE AND CITATION AND FOOTNOTE

Ammu Mohan (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ammu Mohan: please don't SHOUT.

You add citations the same way as you have already added one. See WP:REFB for more advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

SORRY,PROBLEM WITH MY KEYBOARD.MY INTENTION WAS NOT SHOUT AT YOU.JUST SOME DYSFUNCTIONAL KEYS 2409:40F3:1012:A966:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

13:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ródhiske

• Ródhiske (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is not fake but lacks sources, if you don't believe it you can search for yourself in the media about this incident Ródhiske (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No one has said it is "fake", that is not the issue. Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

15:19, 9 January 2025 review of submission by AlfredCampenaerts

• AlfredCampenaerts (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:EXR (app) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I previously received feedback that the page read too much like an advertisement, so I revised it to adopt a more neutral perspective. However, I've received the same feedback again, and it's unclear what specific changes are needed for approval at this point. When I review and compare it to similar pages on other sporting applications, it seems consistent.

Could you provide more detailed guidance on what adjustments are required?

Thanks in advance! AlfredCampenaerts (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@AlfredCampenaerts: much of the information is unreferenced, and the few sources there are, are clearly based on press releases or similar publicity materials. Therefore this is essentially you telling the world about your app, which makes it inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). We are almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable third parties (especially secondary sources) have said about your app. You should find 3-5 sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

AlfredCampenaerts As the app charges for services, I assume you created it at least in part to earn a living. As such, you must declare as a paid editor per the Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

16:49, 9 January 2025 review of submission by BobLebanon

• BobLebanon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eyn el tineh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance on refrencing the location of this town. Like the little red dots that show where the location of it is. BobLebanon (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@BobLebanon: I'm assuming you mean the map etc. that appear in the 'infobox' in articles on human settlements (see eg. Thame, the box in the top-right)? In which case, the relevant template is {{Infobox settlement}}. Just beware, this isn't the easiest infobox to use, there's a fair bit to learn.

If it were me, I'd focus first on the things that actually matter in terms of getting this draft accepted, namely reliable sources to verify the information and to show that the subject is notable (either per WP:GNG or WP:NPLACE). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

18:38, 9 January 2025 review of submission by 79.125.234.84

• 79.125.234.84 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zejnulla Fazliu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the rejection or blocking of a biography I have been working on. I have made every effort to ensure that the content is accurate, well-researched, and supported by reliable references. While I understand Wikipedia has strict guidelines, I believe my work aligns with these standards and deserves a fair review.

The biography is realistic and based on thorough study. I have provided sufficient references, and while more details and contributions can be added over time by others, I firmly believe the article provides a solid foundation. Unfortunately, some editors appear to be dismissing my efforts without valid reasoning, which has been disappointing and discouraging.

I kindly ask for a reconsideration of the edits and for specific feedback if there are any issues that need to be addressed. My goal is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and to ensure the platform remains a reliable and inclusive source of knowledge.

Thank you for your understanding and for taking the time to review my concerns. I look forward to working collaboratively to resolve any issues.

Best regards, 79.125.234.84 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please write yourself, don't use an AI(100% certain per gptzero. We want to hear from you directly.

If you feel the reviewer got it wrong, the first step is to ask them to reconsider. If that does not satisfy you, you may then describe here what policies or procedures were violated by the reviewer. That you did not get the result you want does not mean that policy was violated. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

21:06, 9 January 2025 review of submission by LogoFanYT

• LogoFanYT (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oil Acid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was made for entertainment purposes and not to create drama, this was made for a purpouse. LogoFanYT (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

So? You were directed to read Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. There isn't any circumstance in which creating a hoax article here is going to be allowed, regardless of your "entertainment purpose". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

22:42, 9 January 2025 review of submission by 185.91.120.15

• 185.91.120.15 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Giansandro Schina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to understand why the sources I mentioned are unreliable. The Hypogean Crypt Is The Place Where It Is Buried Don Antonio Seghezzi In Links There Are Photos, The Renault Twizy Limited Edition Is Documented By Links Of Italian Newspapers. What else should I provide to complete the page? 185.91.120.15 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is hardly even a draft article, not even a stub. The prose lacks facts. You have written this WP:BACKWARDS. Instead of thinking what you want to say, find references and say in your own words' what they say. Unable to find references? Then stop. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

22:43, 9 January 2025 review of submission by Ironzombie39

• Ironzombie39 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Suriyah Ya, Dat al-Majdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just simply need someone to help me find more sources for this, that's all. Ironzombie39 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the place to solicit co-editors or researchers; we just answer questions aboutnl the draft process. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)