Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

• Bosind (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Review of submission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined because most of the content isn’t sourced. Can someone please point out which parts need citations or NPOV fixes? I’m trying my best to get it right. Bosind (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know what your draft is- you put "review of submission" as the title of your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Draft:Ambright Education Group. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My draft article 'First ladies and gentlemen of Latvia' was not accepted. I would like to know how I can improve it and what prevented it from being accepted. Thank You. 181.78.18.194 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it. ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AcceptedNaraht (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hottocare (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm having trouble with my references section. Can you advise how to submit so I won't receive error messages? Hottocare (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hottocare. This doesn't quite answer your question but I'd recommend reading our tutorial on referencing in the Visual Editor, which is usually a lot easier: Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission was rejected due to it "appearing to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I would like to know what exactly it is in the content that leads to this assumption, so that I can fix it/delete it. The structure and content of the draft are based on articles of other solar/software companies that can be found on Wikipedia; I would like to see the subtle differences the reasoning for this rejection seems to point at. 81.184.129.178 (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though understandable, it is actually a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits, see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.

Your draft just summarizes the routine business activities and offerings of the company; this does not establish that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources- coverage that goes beyond just telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. See WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply!

Having read the pages on what classifies as a good article and notability, I agree some of the content and the sources of this draft don't qualify as worthy of inclusion and need to be deleted.

However, most of the sources included come from reputed magazines in the solar industry, and none of them are press releases nor promoted articles, but journalistic ones; and there are more to be found. I believe this proves the notability of the company enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, as small as it may be. MaxHailerPuig (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there really are "many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia", how come these other pages and articles aren't edited or removed? I'm genuinely curious. MaxHailerPuig (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaxHailerPuig Wikipedia has over 7 million articles, and maybe a few tens of thousands of regular editors(there are millions with accounts, but most of them just read Wikipedia, some edit irregularly). Editors choose what to edit based on what interests them, and do so in their free time on this volunteer project. As people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get past us. Some reasons for this are(but not limited to)

1. Standards have changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer
2. the draft process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, so many old articles do not meet current standards, if they ever met standards
3. the draft process is not required of all users so not all drafts are "approved" by someone
4. some subject areas get less attention than others because people edit what interests them

We are only as good as the people who choose to help us and invest their time. You are welcome to help us and identify other inappropriate articles that you see so action can be taken.

I'm going to look at your sources more specifically. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic. Your sources are

1. the announcement of a release of a product including a quote from the project manager and CEO; not significant coverage as a routine activity(most companies release products), not really independent(as based on interviews with company staff)
2. another annoucement of the release of a product with a quote from the CEO
3. another annoucement of the release of a product
4. a piece describing the acquisition and integration of another company into PVcase; another routine business activity
5. a description of the company raising funds, another routine business activity; piece largely summarizes comments from the CEO and those supplying the funding, not an independent source
6. another piece describing the raising of funds
7. a list of fastest growing companies, not significant coverage of the company, nor an award that contributes to notability as there is no article about this list
8. another description of an award that barely mentions the company, and again, the award has no article so that does not contribute to notability
9. another list-type award that barely mentions the company.

None of these sources are appropriate for establishing the notability of your company. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear explanation and for laying out the reasons for the denial. I understand that it's an almost impossible job to go through such a large amount of previously existing content to filter out aspects that do not meet the current standards. I'm happy to contribute in that regard, and am glad that there's such a strong community to help new members in this task.

Regarding the sources, I understand now what your previous point was and agree. The page will have to wait until this company has a measurable impact on media. Thank you for taking the time to go through them. MaxHailerPuig (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Montymoss1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Disasters Expo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my draft declined? Montymoss1 (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Montymoss1. The reasons are given in the decline notice.

But I will put it another way: a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

Your draft reads like the Expo telling the world about itself: Wikipedia is bascially not interested in that at all.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2407:42C0:2:7F6F:896A:2B3E:273B:B88C (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ramayana: Part 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it should be published because they released original teaser 2407:42C0:2:7F6F:896A:2B3E:273B:B88C (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense. Notability is not about what "they" do or don't do - it's about what has been independently written about the subject.

It seems to be awaiting review (though I can't work out whether or not that is legitimate, given that it was previously rejected). Be patient. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Frederik Scheidgen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:LS AUTO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently tried to post my first wikipedia article on LS AUTO. Unfortunately, I have no experience in publishing articles on Wikipedia. I ask you to point out my mistakes so that the article can be published. When writing the article, I was guided by pages about other automobile companies from China, but for some reason I was told that my article did not correspond to the rules and was an advertisement. Frederik Scheidgen (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frederik Scheidgen, the two pages I think will be of most use to you are WP:NORG and WP:42. These will explain what you're looking for in a source. At the moment it seems to me that your sources are often lacking significant coverage of the company itself, as well as describing normal business activities such as product launches.

Unfortunately using random articles as a guide is often a problem for new editors, as you wouldn't be aware whether those articles have serious issues - and many do! Have a look at the Good Article class of Business articles; these have been reviewed and vetted by the community and represent, well, good articles. They will be much better examples of what you're trying to achieve. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Iambksir (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:BK Singh (Mathematics Author & Educator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can u explain me how we should write content to get approve Iambksir (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?

Any discussion of this would be academic, as this draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good start is providing extensive citations to reliable, independent sources that verify facts that are asserted. Another part of a good start is not using AI to write it. Since you didn't do either of these things, and there's no apparent notability to the subject of this writer, the article was rejected, and will not be considered further in its current state. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 155.190.17.6 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Heather Augustyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - I am looking for advice on notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am working on a page on a female historian. The subjects contributions to the conservation of Jamaican music history has been used as citations in many Wiki pages and Google Scholar . Is it the format of the page developed? Should I focus more on the content of what has been accomplished in her books vs the author? I've reviewed the list of notability and feel like all the boxes are checked. There are articles about the subject, but most articles are about the contributions, the books on Jamaican music. 155.190.17.6 (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the draft creator, remember to log in. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. This draft was rejected by @Thilsebatti - you will have to convince them they meet the criteria. It would be helpful if you could say which criteria, and the specific evidence you have for meeting it. qcne (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. You need to focus on independent articles about her, not solely about her books. If such sources do not exist, then it may be that she is no notable as Wikipedia uses the word. It's even possible that some of her books are notable but she is not - that happens. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyggemule (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Matthew Swarts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Addressing Critical Comments on the Matthew Swarts Wikipedia Draft

1. Comment: "Nearly all citations are about one specific work (the subject artistically photoshopping their ex out of images), which would likely make this bio fail WP:BLP1E. Other sources, such as the archived New York Times article that included a photo he took, succeed at verifying the claim that his work has been included in this outlet or that outlet, but that's not the same as coverage of him by those outlets and so it doesn't help further the subject's notability."

Reply: The draft covers a broad range of Swarts's work, including Children with Cancer, BRANCHES, and his extensive generative digital projects, not just the "Beth" series. The article details his early and recent projects, teaching career, and exhibitions, demonstrating a career of sustained, diverse artistic output. Notability is supported by multiple independent sources, including features and interviews in Wired, Slate, GUP Magazine, The New York Times Magazine, and Conscientious Photography Magazine. These sources provide significant coverage of Swarts's career, methods, and impact, not just a single event or work. The inclusion of his work in major museum collections (e.g., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; George Eastman Museum; Library of Congress) and exhibitions at recognized institutions further establishes notability beyond a single event or project.

2. Comment: "Almost all of these references lead to 404 errors and appear to be AI hallucinations."

Reply: The draft has been revised to ensure that all references are to verifiable, independent, and reliable sources. Only sources that can be independently verified and accessed have been retained. Where possible, references have been updated to include direct links to online versions or to reputable archives. If a source is only available in print or behind a paywall, this is standard for many academic and art-related references and does not invalidate the citation if it is otherwise reliable and verifiable.

The article avoids using any unverifiable or fabricated sources, in line with Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sourcing policies.

3. Comment: "Please read and understand WP:REFB and WP:CITE and apply them. Your references ought to link to the online versions. Yours do not. All inline links (these are not references) should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox)."

Reply:

Inline external links have been removed from the body text and are now either formatted as proper references or, where appropriate, as internal Wikipedia links (wikilinks) to relevant articles.

The only external link in the article is in the "External links" section, as per Wikipedia policy.

The article structure and referencing now fully comply with Wikipedia's standards for citations and external links.

Many kind thanks for your help in advance.

Hyggemule (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hyggemule. If you feel it's ready for review, do re-submit for review. I note that not a single source has a hyperlink - is that by design? Are none of your sources accessible online? It will make it very difficult for a reviewer to review if so. qcne (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hyggemule, did you use an AI/LLM (such as ChatGPT, Gemini, etc) to help you write this draft? Phrasing like He is known for his innovative digital manipulation of photographic information, exploring themes of intimacy, distance, and the fragmentation of personal connections in the digital age. is the kind of thing AIs love to say, but in Wikipedia would need to be a quote from a source because we can't use words like "innovative" in Wikipedia's voice. Meadowlark (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JimboJH (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:James Renaghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page has been rejected because the subject is not well known. But he is a very known person in county Louth, Ireland and should have a page JimboJH (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please disclose your connection to Mr. Renaghan; I see that you took a picture of him, see conflict of interest.

It was not declined because he is "not well known". You have not shown that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. He does not meet the definition of a notable politician as he has not won election to public office. The sources are mostly interviews with him, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JimboJH. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not very much else. (See WP:42 for more about those sources).

Very little that the subject says or wants to say, or that their associates say, is relevant.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Talaqpmp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Talaqpmp (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Talaqpmp you don't ask a question nor is there a draft linked and this is your first edit. S0091 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JASCbd25 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Al Siniscal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have some citations to be used as references for this profile but they are digital scans of magazine and newspaper articles from the 1980s and 1990s and are not available online at those publications. What is the appropriate way to add a link to them? Should I upload them to a storage site like Wix and provide that link or is there a better way to make them available online via a link in the Wikipedia references section. John JASCbd25 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JASCbd25. Do not upload copyrighted materials. Have you checked the sources are not online on a newspaper archive? If not, that's okay: just provide a full citation to the magazine / newspaper article, providing as much information as possible, to allow an interested reader to find the source in a library or archive. Sources do not have to be online, but they do have to be published. qcne (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stckler (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lajos Stockler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

despite having sourced and included many numerous published references I am continuing to struggle with satisfying he editors requirements of the notability evidence requirements. The purpose of setting up this Wikipedia page is for other researchers across Australia and Hungary to contribute towards in establishing a historical record of Stockler Lajos and build that body of work for someone being lost to history. He was considered a hero in Hungary, for his efforts in saving many thousands of Jews during the holocaust and he was robbed of that historical recognition through show trials, torture and false imprisonment. I don't understand the editors rejection of him having received one of Hungary's most prestigious awards as not meeting the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. This award was given to him by the prime minister and documented in the Official Hungarian Gazette. He was also falsely arrested and prosecuted for the alleged murder of Raoul Wallenberg one of histories most notable figures in the Hungarian holocaust. I feel im in a catch 22 position that without the aid of other contributors, providing rare research contributions etc, i will never meet the threshold being sought. It seems quite inconsistent with a number of others referenced within the draft, who have secured wikipedia articles. please help?? Stckler (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stckler, I think your biggest problem at the moment is that Wikipedia articles must summarize secondary sources (and these sources must meet the triple criteria in WP:42) and it sounds like you may be having trouble finding those. Wikipedia is not a good place to draw attention to a subject - it's where articles are written after the subject is well-known enough to have been written about in lots of other places already. It sounds like he did some remarkable things in his life - are there no books about him, or in-depth newspaper articles, or anything along those lines?

It's entirely possible that other subjects referenced in the draft should not have Wikipedia articles; a huge number of articles were created in Wikipedia's infancy and don't meet our current standards. Unfortunately we don't have enough people to find and improve them or delete them, so we have to wait until someone stumbles across such an article and alerts active editors to the situation. If you think you've found any of those articles, we would be very pleased to know about it so we can take action. Meadowlark (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Filmyguy34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kushwaha community of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Move to mainspace Filmyguy34 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected because the sources are not reliable, and the page's meaning already exists in a part of another page. Rafael Hello! 17:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to read the rules of WP:Article Wizard. Happy editing! Rafael Hello! 17:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

as the page was declined, I would seek help in resolving the issue Kumarmk (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kumarmk. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons qcne (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Golflover1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jonathan Yates (golfer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To Whom It May Concern,

I hope you are well. When submitting an article about Jonathan Yates, a professional golfer from Ireland, the reason for rejection is under WP:NGOLF and that he does not meet the points listed. However, Jonathan fulfils the criteria on 2 separate points mentioned in this and I have supplied relevant references validating this;

3 - They have won at least one professional golf tournament 4 -They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level. When reviewing Jonathan's career to date he has won at least one professional golf tournament satisfying point 3 and he has won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level. All of the evidence is in the article and references that Jonathan meets the standards to be published.

I believe I have satisfied the necessary format to get this article published and would like to get this finalised as soon as possible.

Thank you for your help.

Kind regards,

Golflover1 Golflover1 (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golflover1 Wikipedia has no deadlines; what's your urgency?

Some of the references are still bare urls; please format them(see referencing for beginners if need be).

WP:NGOLF is no longer a hard list of criteria; it's simply a guide as to things a golfer can do to have received significant coverage in independent sources. If you believe that you have now demonstrated that he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and summarized that coverage, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly(on their user talk page). 331dot (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also respond to the inquiry on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

My article was rejected, please in plain words help me resolve that by explaining what i need to do. Thank you and God Bless. Lavish VIG (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your draft is completely unsourced and has no indication that you meet the definition of a notable musician. Also note that writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy.

I will fix your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lavish VIG. Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

What makes writing about yourself hard is that, once you have found the independent reliable published sources about yourself, you will then need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you think they are wrong. Do you see why this is hard? ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2607:FEA8:2280:7200:C76:ACA0:35DA:BBB2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nadia Amoroso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I am wondering how to improve the page so it can be published. I have colleagues with similar pages up on Wikipedia. I have 8 book publications by academic and reliable publishers. Thank you. 2607:FEA8:2280:7200:C76:ACA0:35DA:BBB2 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing is to not write it with an AI/LLM.

If you are writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to exist, in many ways; this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken if need be. We need the help, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SCAM; don't give anyone money who claims they can create an article about yourself. (This draft was created by Smoclucy. If you paid them to create this draft, they are a scammer and should be reported.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors,

I would like to kindly request a new article to be created about Malaysian singer-songwriter **Aiman Max** (real name: Wan Aiman bin Wan Aaqashah), who began his career in 2025. He is known for blending pop and hip-hop influences, with recent singles gaining media coverage in Malaysia.

Here are some reliable sources with independent coverage: - Murai.my article: https://murai.my/2025/249269/fragile-heart-oleh-aiman-max-balada-tentang-luka-cinta-harapan/ - NewsWorldOfficial feature: https://newsworldofficial.medium.com/aiman-max-menyatukan-pop-dan-hip-hop-dalam - Official artist biodata: https://sites.google.com/view/newsworldnews/aiman-max-artis-malaysia-baharu-biodata

I believe this satisfies the notability criteria under WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I would appreciate it if someone could help write a neutral, referenced article.

Thank you! Aimanmaxartis (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimanmaxartis: This is not the page to request someone create an article for you. However, I will humour you as regards the sources:

• https://murai.my/2025/249269/fragile-heart-oleh-aiman-max-balada-tentang-luka-cinta-harapan/ seems OK.
• We can't use Medium (no editorial oversight).
• I can't assess https://sites.google.com/view/newsworldnews/aiman-max-artis-malaysia-baharu-biodata (language barrier). Automated translation refuses to work.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rafaelthegreat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • CeraVe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:CeraVe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Main reason why my article got declined. Write it very simple so a Wikichild like me can understand. Note: The Cerave bullet that is a part of L'Oreal is not my question. The draft is. Rafael Hello! 17:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelthegreat: Three of your sources are the L'Oreal M&A news; your other two are incomplete (Source 1 is missing page numbers; source 2 is missing publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and ISBN/OCLC #). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand Rafael Hello! 17:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rafaelthegreat.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ESchultz9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eric Schultz (clarinetist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request for neutral editor - Eric Schultz (clarinetist)

Hello,

I am Eric Schultz. I have a conflict of interest because I am the subject of a possible article, so I am asking a neutral editor for help. I believe there is sufficient reliable coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians, and I would greatly appreciate if someone could review and consider creating an article in a neutral way.

Here are independent, reliable sources with significant coverage:

WMBF News - GRAMMY nomination: https://www.wmbfnews.com/video/2023/05/11/its-been-whirlwind-ccu-music-professor-nominated-grammy/?fbclid=IwAR1lkEpWML79ByPPvGRMOGTCVDjdotNVE5pXI5y_WFB9YqqOsivbnLr5Nv4

WFXB - GRAMMY nomination: https://www.wfxb.com/2023/05/15/ccus-eric-schultz-earns-grammy-2024-music-educator-award-quarterfinalist-nomination/

WBTW - GRAMMY nomination: https://www.wbtw.com/news/grand-strand/conway/coastal-carolina-university-music-professor-eric-schultz-in-shock-over-grammy-nomination/

BroadwayWorld - Corigliano Clarinet Concerto: https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Eric-Schultz-To-Perform-John-Coriglianos-Iconic-Clarinet-Concerto-With-The-Chelsea-Symphony-20240611

South Carolina Arts Commission - fellowship: https://www.scartshub.com/scac-announces-four-new-fellowship-recipients/

I Care If You Listen - album review: https://icareifyoulisten.com/2024/10/polyglot-de-centers-the-canon/

In addition, here are primary sources for factual details:

Coastal Carolina University Faculty Bio: https://www.coastal.edu/academics/facultyprofiles/humanities/music/ericschultz/

Eric Schultz on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13071462/

I understand these are self-published and do not establish notability, but I am sharing them in case they help verify certain facts.

If an article is created, a suggested title could be Eric Schultz (clarinetist) to distinguish me from others with the same name.

I am happy to answer any factual questions, but will leave any writing to neutral volunteers. Thank you very much! ESchultz9 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ESchultz9 This is not the place to request that an article be created about you; that is done at requested articles, though that is severely backlogged. It is not absolutely forbidden for people to write about themselves, but it is highly discouraged per the autobiography policy.

My advice is that you forget that Wikipedia exists and go on about your career as if you had never heard of it, and allow an article to organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you in independent sources and chooses on their own to write about you. There are good reasons to not want an article about yourself, see WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user generated. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that Grammy nominations don't help for eligibility; they need to be Grammy wins. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano Nominations are fine, see #8: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". At least as long as the person is specifically named. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's really applicable in this case. This educator's cites go to being named a "quarterfinalist" for the Grammy award, so wasn't one of typically five, but as many as 10 traditional "nominees" for an award. Being a quarterfinalist for the music educator award for the 2024 award meant being one of 335 educators nominated (212 from ~2,000 applicants and 123 legacy applications from the previous year) [1]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ren LiQian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cao Gui Talking War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've added two references for context. This is my first time participating on Wikipedia so still trying to figure out the process. The page is my intended translation of the famous Chinese article 曹劌論戰，which is detailed under these links

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%95%BF%E5%8B%BA%E4%B9%8B%E6%88%98

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changshao

But I saw that the actual 曹劌論戰 page, there's no English translation. That's why I attempt to put out an English translation, and hopefully link back to this page.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9B%B9%E5%8A%8C

Let me know how to accomplish this by adding what kinds of materials so it can be approved. Thanks! Ren LiQian (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ren LiQian.

Wikipedia cannot reference Wikipedia - so your two references are not permitted. The Chinese Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia are independent projects and have different rules: what is acceptable there may not be accepted here. What you wrote in your draft, in it's current state, is not appropriate for Wikipedia and has been rejected. qcne (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ren LiQian.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

This applies equally to translating from another Wikipedia. In rare cases, the original article will have adequate sources according to the English Wikipedia's requirements, but you still need the knowledge referred to above to verify this.

I'm not sure what your draft is supposed to be: it looks as if it is a translation of an annal or traditional story. Whatever it is, it is not acceptable as an artilce in English Wikipedia. An article in English Wikipedia should be a neutral summary of what has been written about the subject in reliable published sources, and little else. ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bakesandbooks (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ridhhaan Jaiin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure why it sounds like an advertisement and not a genuine article on this individual. Whatever has been cited are genuine sources and facts about the individual.

This being my first attempt, it will be helpful for more specific feedbacks with examples to submit article which will be accepted. After spending hours, it is disappointing to see articles being rejected. Bakesandbooks (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakesandbooks: "It sounds like an advertizement" is strictly an indictment of how the article was written and not the sources cited. We also very strongly err towards NOT having articles on children if we can help it unless the sourcing is ironclad, since a Wikipedia article will irrevocably destroy any chance they have at a private life. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is sourced to social media should be removed.

Do you have a connection to this person? You seem to have been at one of his events where you took his picture. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every single sentence in the draft is promotionally written. In addition, a lot of the claims made in the draft are promotional rather than informational, and would need to be removed, for instance all mentions of records registered with various books of records.

It will almost certainly be a waste of your own time to work on this draft – the kid is simply not notable, that is something multiple experiences Wikipedia editors have concluded repeatedly over the past few years. --bonadea contributions talk 21:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:6C51:7B7F:8C0:F076:E05:8165:5F6E (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:PlayboyNosh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My last draft was pretty bad but this draft I have all the correct information now and is confirmed by PlayboyNosh himself 2600:6C51:7B7F:8C0:F076:E05:8165:5F6E (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, your draft is very promotional of the subject, which is not what Wikipedia is for. YouTubers are, as a guideline, not notable apart from only the biggest and most popular YouTubers and streamers that get exposure in reliable sources. The subject of your draft does not meet the notability requirements and is not referenced in any reliable sources. He is also not yet notable from an artist standpoint either. You can see this page to see the sourcing requirements for articles here on Wikipedia. cyberdog958^Talk 04:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rod182211 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Rod182211/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my draft rejected given it is an article about my own software developed by my company (Neoplexus) within the draft is also a link to my Company website. How else can I give you references ??????? Rod182211 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod182211: DISCLOSE. Until you do, this conversation goes nowhere. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the lack of formal disclosure of your significant conflict of interest, a Wikipedia article about your company's software would consist of a summary of significant coverage of the software from independent sources with a reputation for reliability. This is basically written as a pamphlet for the software as it consists of what you and your company wish to say about your software. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:40F3:125:462:A164:436B:7A9A:81F1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Sanoop Thykoodam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i wanted to know what can be done to get my draft acceptance

2409:40F3:125:462:A164:436B:7A9A:81F1 (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't cite search results, including internal/tag searches (too sparse). You need to cite specific articles that can explicitly corroborate claims in the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kenneth181976 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kenneth Cassar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Articles for Creation Reviewers,

I am writing to respectfully request a reconsideration of the recently declined draft biography for Kenneth Cassar, a Special Effects Supervisor. I understand the stringent notability criteria applied to biographical articles, and I aim to provide further context that may not have been fully appreciated in previous reviews.

Kenneth Cassar possesses over 35 years of continuous professional experience in the film industry, a career that has established him as the leading Special Effects Supervisor in Malta. His unique position in the Maltese film landscape is particularly significant given the island's prominent role as an international filming location.

Furthermore, Mr. Cassar's career is intrinsically linked to the pioneering history of special effects in Malta, initiated by his late father, Mario Cassar. Mario Cassar established special effects operations in Malta in the early 1970s, notably utilizing the unique horizon water tanks – facilities that have been globally recognized for their distinct features in filmmaking. Kenneth Cassar has built upon this foundational legacy, contributing directly to numerous international productions filmed in Malta and across Europe.

We believe that Mr. Cassar's extensive filmography, his specific awards and nominations (including a Robert Award nomination and his involvement in an Academy Award-winning crew for Tenet), and his unique position as a generational leader in a specialized field within a significant international filming hub, collectively demonstrate a level of notability that warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. His biography would not only document the career of a prominent industry professional but also contribute to the historical record of filmmaking in Malta.

While I acknowledge that articles are assessed individually, I respectfully submit that the historical context and Mr. Cassar's singular contributions to the development and execution of special effects in Malta, a key international filming destination, may elevate his profile beyond a typical industry professional.

I am prepared to provide any further documentation or clarification required to support this request. Thank you for your time and consideration in re-evaluating this submission.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Cassar (as the submitting user, if you are acting on your own behalf) Kenneth181976 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenneth181976: Chatbot-authored requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kenneth181976.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

This is, incidentally, why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so difficult that almost nobody has ever managed it successfully, and so why it is strongly discouraged. ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KID375 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • KRI Golok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:KRI Golok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please tell me which part of it needs improvement, it was declined KID375 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for a review, the next reviewer will leave you feedback. Prior reviews must remain on the draft until it is accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Edouglasww (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Late Cambrian (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I get this entry approved? Late Cambrian is a real band from Brooklyn. They have made six albums and released countless singles and videos including notable side projects like Olive Hui appearing in a Levis commercial with Beyonce. What do I have to do to get this approved? I have included many citations and have had to remove things like Bandcamp and IMDB as sources (Even though I see those cited on other Wiki entries).. and since the citation coding has been changed and I can't figure that out, I'm not sure how much more I can do. Edouglasww (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edouglasww If you see other inappropriate citations, please remove them yourself or point them out for others to remove, that cannot justify adding more inappropriate references. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we need help with tasks like looking at references. We're only as good as the people who choose to help.

Not every band that exists merits a Wikipedia article. You have not shown that they meet at least one aspect of WP:BAND, which is why the draft was rejected. That is typically the end of the line for a draft, but if you can fundamentally change it to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Woodgrain1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Image Eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there anything I can do to get this page published? The website the article is about is a useful high quality site. Woodgrain1 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woodgrain1 You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?

Your draft does little more than document the existence of this social media. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodgrain1: Your only citations are to the website itself; that won't work. We would need third-party sources that discuss the website at some length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source. Let me know if anything else is needed. Woodgrain1 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected it won't be considered further it is a non notable topic and blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use Crunchbase (no editorial oversight, deprecated). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• RochtsFED federation (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Subhash Singh Thakur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

draft declined , need help hi , i recently posted my first draft on subhash singh thakur but it got declined 2 times please help me improve it RochtsFED federation (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tamanawa parents (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Seisen Junior and Senior High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have no idea to answer the requests from reviewer, because the school which I tried to create a wiki page for doesn't have any website written in English. Would you tell me examples of desirable correction on the following indicated request from reviewer?

- in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) - reliable - secondary - strictly independent of the subject Tamanawa parents (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a school and its offerings, it should summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the school and what makes it a notable organization. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tamanawa parents. When you say "the school ... doesn't have any website written in English", it sounds as if you are believing that the school's website is useful for a Wikipedia article about it.

This is not true (or only peripherally)

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fortniteziscoolz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Garten of Banban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have a question? why was this deleted? its literally so in depth ngl. Fortniteziscoolz (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortniteziscoolz: Practically all your sources are completely useless. We can't use Xitter, Medium, Steam, YouTube, or IMDb. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 161.142.119.25 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cross Border Bridging Finance For Property (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I keep trying to post my article but it keeps getting declined. Can anyone offer any advice? 161.142.119.25 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been offered advice on the draft itself, which is now rejected and won't be considered any further. We want articles written by humans, not AI. See WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Momlumbee (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sondra Sampson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I’m requesting help regarding my draft article, Draft:Sondra_Sampson.

I included three obituary references that mention my name (as the daughter) to help confirm identity and background. However, I understand Wikipedia prefers independent sources about the subject. Before I remove them, I want to ask:

Is it acceptable to cite an obituary that confirms my name and family connection, even if it’s not directly about me? Or should I delete both entirely to meet notability guidelines?

I already have other published sources (The Robesonian, BookLife/Publishers Weekly) that are about my work. Thank you in advance for guidance. Momlumbee (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries are typically written by a family member, so they are a primary source.

Unless you merit an article yourself, I'm not sure in what context you seek to mention yourself in the draft. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So252 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Independent National Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Somalia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to request help reviewing the draft article titled Draft:Independent National Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Somalia). I am looking for feedback on whether the article meets Wikipedia's published standards and whether any corrections or edits are needed before it can be published.

Your feedback and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Best regards User: So252 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already submitted the draft for a review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 154.5.167.89 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Having difficulty getting article approved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I wrote an article about a black female pioneer in the film industry that has been declined for publishing. I'm having trouble giving "enough" reference and citations because this person up until now hasn't been hugely known but there are many things written about her online.

The Smithsonian Museum has some of her things on display at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington. In my opinion, this constitutes someone of value enough to have a wikipedia page. I'm a bit confused and I am struggling with the process.

I've seen many wikipedia pages way less worthy than a genuine black female pioneer. 154.5.167.89 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. what is the title of the draft? S0091 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user.

What Wikipedia means by notability is rather different from the everyday meaning of the word, and mostly comes down to "enough information has been independently published about the subject in reliable publications to base an article on". This is because the intention of Wikipedia is that a reader can, at least in principle, verify any information in the article from publicly available sources.

Unfortunately, no matter how significant she may have been, "some of her things on display" does not establish, or (probably) even contribute to establishing notability. (I'm not sure whether labels on items in a museum would be regarded as "published": if they are, they are probably reliable, but they may or may not be secondary sources, and they will not often have significant coverage of the subject.)

Once somebody has researched her and had the resarch published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, she might meet the criteria, but from what you have said, she does not at present. ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• IP user, you offered as the title of your draft "having difficulty getting article approved" so it's difficult for us to give specific advice. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and have just not been dealt with yet. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if there might be sources to which the IP does not have access. I am open to doing a search but need to know the draft so I can see what's there. IP, you are welcome to leave me a note on my talk page (click the "talk" link by my signature). S0091 (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the draft is Draft:Bernadine Anderson. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nusscookie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alex Hormozi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello guys, this is my first Wikipedia draft I have submitted. It took me a while to add evidence to all statements in the draft which wasn’t originally written by myseld. It would be kind if someone could explain to me why the article can‘t be published. In my opinion, every information has a complete inline citation. Is it because of the use of some primary sources? Personally, I think it is very hard to find a secondary source about e.g. the birthday of a person. This could only be a birth certificate, couldn‘t it? Because all other secondary sources could only repeate the day a person said, and then why don’t use a primary source? I would appreciate if somebody could help me! :) It‘s the article „Draft:Alex Hormozi“. Nusscookie (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being a secondary source, in order for a source to meet the notability criteria it also needs to be reliable, independent and have in-depth coverage about the person and multiple sources meeting the criteria are needed. You have no sources that meet all the criteria, therefore an article is not possible. S0091 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I thought I have known that, but what makes a source reliable? Isn‘t it the most reliable if e.g. Alex Hormozi himself said something about his birthday? And independent means that the person isn‘t involved, got it. But an independent source can‘t have more information about someone if the somebody didn‘t said it, can‘t it? And what is defined as „in-depth“ coverage because one source could hardly cover all necessary information or is that needed? Sorry for all those questions but I really want to understand it. Thx. :) Nusscookie (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People are not always honest about their own birthdays, especially in certain fields(like acting where it is often advantageous to appear to be younger than one actually is). In addition, the main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the topic, not what someone says about themselves(which they are free to do on social media or their own website). 331dot (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. I understand it. Could you give me an example of a reliable source of e.g. the birthday of a person? Nusscookie (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FurretSuperFan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Take a page down (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I accidentally made a page for the song Freely Tomorrow by Mitchie M when I meant to make it a draft. Sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freely_Tomorrow FurretSuperFan (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, moved to draft for you. qcne (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 정경주 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KyongJu Jung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i made my introduce and working history, reference. why you stop my page? help me... i'm not good at wikipedia editing. sir :) thanks if you help me.

1. 1. 정경주 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi @정경주. Wikipedia is not a social media website. I think you are probably wanting to make a profile on LinkedIn or similar? qcne (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   i want to make my computer security research and blabla texts and image.

   and wikipedia (KyongJu Jung) <- it's my realname. i saw many celebrity and peoples profiles not wiki user profile. i want to make it then please don't STOP. 정경주 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   The English Wikipedia only hosts articles about people who meet our criteria. Do you meet any of the criteria from that policy? qcne (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   안녕하세요 @정경주.

   What you are trying to do is not what Wikipedia is for.

   A Wikipedia article about you should be a summary of what independent published sources have said about you, not what you want to say. It is very difficult to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, and you are strongly advised not to try doing so. ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 00101984hjw (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ko Sohyun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, editors. This draft I recently made was declined by an AfC reviewer who concluded that it did not meet WP:GNG.

I cited several sources listed on WP:KO/RS. These include The JoongAng Ilbo, Newsis, Newspim the Hankook Ilbo, and MBC. All of these sources are completely independent of the subject, and five of them are direct interviews which provide in-depth information with the subject.

Would it help if I added English rendering of the titles of said sources using |trans-title=? Or are foreign-language sources generally considered inferior in reliability in the enwiki? 00101984hjw (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@00101984hjw: interviews do not establish notability, because they are the subject talking (typically about themselves), which means they are not independent, and often not reliable either since they usually aren't subject to any fact-checking etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pranaywahi05 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Pranaywahi05/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want a advice regarding my Pranaywahi05 (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pranaywahi05: you need to stop this relentless self-promo campaign before you get yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Poland44444444 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Year 8 QDU Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what do you mean "contrary to the purpose of wikipedia" Poland44444444 (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Poland44444444: it means that this subject is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. There is also nothing in this draft to suggest that the subject is notable in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the draft speaks in-depth about a prestigious competition that is well-known all across Queensland, a state home to over 5 million people. That is very notable. I'm not sure if you have ever been to Queensland but it is extremely notable, that's why I'm writing about it, I am in no way connected to it Poland44444444 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Poland44444444: whether or not I have ever been to QLD is irrelevant (and yes, I have), as is how "prestigious" or "well-known" etc. this competition is. None of these have anything to do with notability in the Wikipedia context.

It may be that an encyclopaedic article could be written on this subject, but it would need to be based on summary of what independent and reliable sources have said about it, and what in their view makes this competition noteworthy. Your draft cites no such source, and moreover is not based on any such source. Besides which, we don't want to see long lists of indiscriminate detail without any exposition of context or relevance, which is what the majority of this draft consists of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i used multiple sources unless you wnat something like "according to {source} the qdu year 8 competition is............." in that case I can find one. and what "indiscriminate detail" do you speak of? If you mean the team lists those are crucial to the context of the article Poland44444444 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poland44444444, an acceptable Wikipedia article cites and summarizes what reliable published sources entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. Your draft contains no such references to reliable sources independent of this competition, and therefore the draft cannot be accepted in its current form. We are not interested in what the organizers of the competition say about their own competition. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so you want an independent source like a news article talking about it Poland44444444 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple secondary, independent, and reliable sources talking about it in depth, yes. And everything below the first paragraph would have to be removed because it is indeed indiscriminate detail, contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (please read What Wikipedia is not). --bonadea contributions talk 08:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment on the topic: you created a draft about one category in the annual contest. If the competition is as prestigious as you claim, it might be possible to create an article about it, but it's extremely unlikely that each individual category of the competition is independently notable. So the topic really is a non-starter, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• User972364 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Staycation (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, and thank you in advance for your time.

I've submitted a draft article for Staycation (TV series), an unscripted lifestyle and travel series that has aired on local CBS affiliates and streaming platforms like Roku and Pluto TV. The show has received multiple regional Emmy Awards from the NATAS Pacific Southwest Chapter, and I've cited the official NATAS sources directly.

I’ve removed IMDb and press release-style sources based on earlier feedback, and I’ve worked to maintain a neutral, factual tone. I also included a quote from an independent Spanish-language article (Vallarta Opina) and (Noticias PV) that references one of the producers—these articles are not affiliated with the show and are authored by local journalists.

The show’s host, Robert Parks-Valletta, is a notable public figure actor and producer (Vanderpump Rules) with his own Wikipedia article. He has produced hundreds of episodes in lifestyle television and has received Emmy recognition in his own right.

At this stage, I’ve included the most verifiable, independent sources available. The remaining coverage that exists online is mostly in the form of press releases or brief mentions on social media, which I understand are not sufficient per Wikipedia’s reliability standards.

Could you please advise if the current sourcing meets the threshold for notability, or if there are specific improvements I should focus on before resubmitting?

Thank you again for your help and guidance. User972364 (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for a pre-review review; we don't do that here; if you feel that you have addressed the concerns of previous reviewers, the best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, though, that the vast majority of this draft is unreferenced, so one fairly important improvement would be to tell us where all this information is coming from! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am Richard Lingard, CEO of Adroit DI. I have disclosed my affiliation on my user page (User:Scientist5000) in accordance with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. I have drafted a proposed article about Adroit DI, a company that develops tools to manage and deduplicate chemical data for research environments. The draft is located here: User:Scientist5000/AdroitDI_Draft.

The article has been written with a neutral tone and includes citations from independent sources such as Business Wire and Silicon UK. I’ve also drawn on publicly available information from our website to explain product functionality and company history. I would greatly appreciate if an experienced, independent editor could review the draft and provide feedback, or advise whether it meets the notability requirements for mainspace publication.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Best regards, Scientist5000 Scientist5000 (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scientist5000: I will add a submission template to your draft, it will have a blue 'submit' button, and when you click that the draft will be sent for review.

That said, I note that the draft is completely unreferenced, and would be declined for that reason.

That suggests that you have written this draft from your perspective, in other words it is you telling the world about your business. We have no interest in that; we are almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable third parties (esp. secondary sources) have said about your business and what makes it worthy of note. See WP:GOLDENRULE for more on this, and on the drafting process more generally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the draft in Draft space at Draft:AdroitDI and put the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for a review(this is provided automatically if you use the Article Wizard to create a draft).

Your draft is unlikely to be accepted, as it cites no independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings, and what it considers to be its own history. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This is usually very, very difficult for a company representative to do. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist5000, we are looking for references to sources entirely independent of Adroit DI that devote significant coverage to your company. Business Wire is a service that simply distributes press releases. Accordingly, nothing that comes from Business Wire is ever independent. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the feedback — I understand the importance of relying on independent, secondary sources and not press release services like Business Wire.

I'll pause and work on collecting third-party references that meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing criteria. If any editors are aware of independent coverage of Adroit DI that would help demonstrate notability, I’d welcome the pointer.

Thanks again for your time and guidance. Scientist5000 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the feedback — I understand the importance of relying on independent, secondary sources and not press release services like Business Wire.

I'll pause and work on collecting third-party references that meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing criteria. If any editors are aware of independent coverage of Adroit DI that would help demonstrate notability, I’d welcome the pointer.

Thanks again for your time and guidance. Scientist5000 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason for decline

Daniel B George (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the submission declined if you could let me know. Thanks Daniel B George (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel B George: the reason for decline was given in the decline notice, which you deleted (don't do that, please), namely insufficient referencing and lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Liberty.adam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alsama Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AgeOldKid says the page I drafted does not have reliable sources, but all of the citations I used are third party and credible. I'd appreciate some help. Thanks. Liberty.adam (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Old-AgedKid qcne (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! @old-agedkid i'd really appreciate your advice thank you Liberty.adam (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MARUFOVIBD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nahid Hasan Manna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello dear Sir/Madam. This is my own biography. Please approve this & give me the part of Wikipedia family. MARUFOVIBD (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies are *greatly* discouraged. See WP:AUTOBIO.Naraht (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MARUFOVIBD You do not meet our criteria for inclusion. Maybe go to LinkedIn instead. qcne (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

To publish this article about Vev. Kavithaja's biography, I need your help. Please assist me in finishing this procedure, as I would not have been able to draft this article without it.

Kindly request
Ven. Kavithaja Rev. Kavithaja (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rev. Kavithaja This person does not yet meet our criteria for inclusion, so this draft article would not be published at this time. qcne (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Addiesegal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lev Klyatis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We are working on a submission, and despite accurate bio information, references and article citations, the draft has been rejected. Can you please help us to move the submission forward? Addiesegal (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Addiesegal. Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts can only be used by one person. Are you being employed by Mr Klyatis to create an article for him? qcne (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, any advise on how to reduce chances of the article being flagged and taken down as the information continues to update? SLPCMarketing (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was spam and was deleted for spam. You will also shortly be blocked as your username breaks our username policy and you seem to only be here to promote the company. qcne (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 167.160.81.104 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Christn77/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined. After my submission was declined I did use A1 to narrow down only the information that was verifiable and re submitted. It was declined again because it said I used an AI aggregator. not sure what to do next? 167.160.81.104 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Christn77. Please do not use AI to write or research articles. You may re-submit it once you are utterly positive that the AI has not hallucinated any information. qcne (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Christn77.

Please understand that a Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people who are completely unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

None of your current citations meet those requirements (see WP:42), so your draft has no chance of being accepted in its present form; and unless you can find several such sources, it has no chance of being accepted at all, as you will be unable to demonstrate that Wampler meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Morcor44 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DreamFlare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - I have tried multiple times to submit this article and have taken the feedback each time ie. removed some articles, added others and also have made sure the language does not sound like an advertisement. My sources are also credible. Can you please guide me on what I need to do to this draft in order to make it publishable? Thank you. Morcor44 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mainly need more/different sources to prove that DreamFlare is notable (WP:Notability). Having clear notability will speed along the acceptance process greatly. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiSlowskys (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Andrew Donnelly (comedian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed that Reading Beans rejected my article for Andrew Donnelly. I come to say, there are NO news articles about the comedian. I did cite The Mental Illness Happy Hour podcast, as he WAS a guest, I used IMDb, I used some external links, but they rejected me. Is this a common problem with drafts being rejected with NO news articles, or any reliable sources? WikiSlowskys (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources are a must for articles, especially those about living people(see WP:BLP). IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-generated with little editorial oversight. The person's own website is not an independent source. If there are no independent reliable sources about this person, they do not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiSlowskys: To add to what 331dot says, interviews and podcast appearances also do not work because those are the subject being allowed to talk about themselves/their views at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Milwaukee911 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:CHaim Thau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure how to make the following change without submitting a totally new article. Specifically, I believe the title of my draft Wikipedia would be better served if it was changed to - Charles "Chaim" Thau, rather than how it is currently titled - Chaim Thau.

How can this change be made as my draft article is undergoing review at this time for acceptance? Milwaukee911 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard! I found out how to make the change on my own. Milwaukee911 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Afshandgreat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DrillBit Plagiarism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I make this article get published. It has legit valid citations/references from top India publishers and institutes. Afshandgreat (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your disclosure for proper display(you had some junk coding in there preventing display).

Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further and that there most likely isn't anything you can do. You had numerous chances. I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it, too. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Martinkutum25 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jogyeswar Kutum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is the reason for rejection?

Martinkutum25 (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinkutum25 You kept repeatedly re-submitting with no improvement, and there is no indication this person meets WP:NPERSON. qcne (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Teuku2012 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:A Chance for Heaven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was this article declined? Teuku2012 (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't evidence the song meets our WP:NMUSIC criteria with your current sources. qcne (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NSONG (part of the linked policy in the decline notice) for what is required to show notability for songs. Note that discogs.com is not a generally reliable source so does not help show notability. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jiri Pecinovsky (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:I died in Irpin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello everyone,

I hope you are doing well. I would like to kindly ask for your advice concerning a page dedicated to the short film, which was quite successful on the festival circuit. The film is titled 'I Died in Irpin'. It received an award at the prestigious Clermont-Ferrand festival. From what I understand, the article wasn't published due to insufficient references. Do you know, please, what my options are at this point?

Below are my references: https://variety.com/2025/film/global/clermont-ferrand-buzz-titles-ridley-scott-hellfest-bill-murray-1236290694/ https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/473511/ https://www.animationmagazine.net/2025/02/clermont-ferrand-fest-awards-juried-prizes-to-i-died-in-irpin-ashen-sun/

Thank you very much in advance for the feedback, all the very best

Jiří Jiri Pecinovsky (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiri Pecinovsky: Chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Osa Higgins (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Todd Murphy (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

if I am citing reputable newspaper and magazine articles that I have the physical copies of from the 1980's and 1990's do I have to find a way to link them to a physical source or webpage? Osa Higgins (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Osa Higgins. Sources don't have to be online (although it's preferred), so if you are citing an offline source that has no online equivalent just provide as much bibliographic information as possible to allow a reader to find the source in a library or archive. The only requirement is that the source has been published, it does not have to be easily accessible. qcne (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Osa Higgins a brief look at your draft: it has lots of promotional words throughout. It could also be condensed substantially, removing all the minutiae and all but the most relevant of quotes. qcne (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking at look at my draft and for the constructive feedback. I’ll edit later today and I’ll be mindful of promotional words. Osa Higgins (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redcoatwairoa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jessie Zinn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I am trying to update and re-submit this page, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to let me do so. Redcoatwairoa (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button, it will be in the lower right corner of the last review. You shouldn't resubmit unless you have changed the draft to address the concerns raised. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TNTplayerTNT (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MineMalia Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can clearly understand the guidelines you posted, however I still am unable to understand what independent sources I can add regarding this specific topic. More than about a million people have registered in this specific server, and we can prove that, however according to this niche genre where minimum independent sources write about minecraft servers, I am unable to find a lot of citations except just voting affiliated third party independent linked websites. I need a clear guideline to this specific issue, and with all due respect do not require the same guidelines which tell me to add more sources, I understand that clearly however I think you get what I'm trying to say. Thank you. Help! TNTplayerTNT (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see many people come here to edit about their Minecraft servers, but the vast majority of them do not merit articles. We don't just need documentation that it exists or has a lot of members, we need independent reliable sources with significant coverage that show that the server is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. If you do not have such sources, the server does not merit an article.

If you just want to tell the world about the server, I might suggest a more Minecraft specific wiki, perhaps on Fandom. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. Sources matter a lot, but as I said, it is not about just this Minecraft Server, journalists/online news sources/etc do not post about minecraft servers in general, so I just wanted advices of want I can use as a replacement for this specific genre, that acts as a "reliable source", and is thoroughly available at the same time.

Note: I am a relatively new wikipedia editor, that is why I needed advices. TNTplayerTNT (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much smaller topics can easily get coverage from independent sources, and it is mainly because of the topic. Just wanted to ask you since you would've seen multiple others try to create articles related to Minecraft here, what could be something I can do to make my article have more sources, in other words, what sources can I use? TNTplayerTNT (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TNTplayerTNT: The problem is that servers/Roblox games/private servers rarely, if ever, get enough coverage in the relevant press (in this case, video game media like Kotaku, IGN, Massively Overpowered, etc.) to even allow us to consider an article. It's also worth noting that coverage tends to be about controversies rather than the merits of the server, which would make for a poor article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any source that has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control(i.e. they don't just publish stuff) can be used as a source. That's usually news outlets, but doesn't have to be. Please see WP:BACKWARD; you should have the sources in hand before you attempt to summarize them in an article, you shouldn't write your text and then look for sources to support it.

Our requirements do mean some topic areas do not get the needed sources, and need to be covered elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I really want to make this page as neutral as possible and informative without sounding promotional. I think this page is needed since the company is growing a lot (to the same levels of Idealista), has a worldwide presence and has external, neutral sources talking about it. I'd appreciate some help in reviewing the page and let me know which parts I should amend/remove to not sound promotional. Susydrake (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• https://www.microsoft.com/en/customers/story/19986-properstar-azure-open-ai-service doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Microsoft talking about one of its customers.
• https://www.bilan.ch/immobilier/properstar-veut-etre-le-airbnb-de-lachat-immobilier doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
• I can't assess https://www.letemps.ch/immobilier/petit-empire-immobilier-gerard-paratte (walled).
• https://www.tdg.ch/un-suisse-veut-bouleverser-le-monde-de-lannonce-immobiliere-643045320204 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Prose interview with company principal.
• https://proptechnews.ch/2025/02/02/milliarden-fuer-ipo/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Personnel news.
• https://www.pme.ch/invest/2023/01/09/gerard-paratte-jai-vendu-immostreet-au-bon-moment-558120 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). "Article" is an extended quote from a company principal, to the point the credited journalist's name should be replaced with his own.
• We can't use https://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/company/properstar-sa-6419284931 (too sparse). Company profile.
• We can't use https://www.immo-invest.ch/en/neue-impulse-durch-properstar/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of articles written under a role/no byline because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• We can't use https://swissproptech-member.ch/ (website homepage) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• We can't use https://proptechnews.ch/ as is (website homepage). You need to link to specific articles on that domain.

Nothing you have is usable as a source for eligibility. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insights, I really appreciate them. I have now removed all those references and found a couple independent sources. Susydrake (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025aravmentors (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AArav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have request you that what's reason for rejected my content please tell me 2025aravmentors (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2025aravmentors: We have a zero-tolerance approach to using Wikipedia for advertizing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuartfost (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Anatomy Warehouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trying to establish/adhere to the notability requirements? Stuartfost (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading WP:NCORP from top to bottom and because to topic is the company, the qualifying sources that meet NCORP need to be about the company. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dm07891p (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:J&Y Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The firm has been around for 15 years with several notable cases. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but if you could please advise me? I've provided links to independent sources as well. Dm07891p (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dm07891p Wikipedia uses "notability" as a test to see if a topic meets our criteria for inclusion, but our special definition of "notability" doesn't mean "famous" or "popular" or "well-known". Instead, take "notability" to mean "noted in multiple reliable published secondary sources". For more information about how we define notability, see the policy page Wikipedia:Notability. None of your sources show evidence that the company passes our notability test. The draft has now been rejected, which means it's the end of the road. qcne (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dm07891p: Three of your sources 404 out (IBT, LABJ, LAT). Several others appear to be about irrelevant entities (https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/los-angeles/profile/personal-injury-lawyer/jy-law-1216-100115546 for example redirects to a BBB profile on a flag company). I'd go as far as to say the references list appears to be mostly hallucinated. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JenHart1981 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Humminbird (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was rejected because my sources were either not in-depth, reliable, secondary, or strictly independent. Do reviewers ever comment specifically on which source cited is not meeting the above criteria? It's a little hard to figure out what to change from a blanket rejection. JenHart1981 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JenHart1981: No.... but I can.

• https://www.madeinalabama.com/2024/07/growing-humminbird-alabama-plant-invests-in-sustainability/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Investment news.
• https://investors.teleflex.com/news/news-details/2004/Johnson-Outdoors-Acquires-Techsonic-Industries-HumminbirdR-Joins-Winning-Outdoor-Recreation-Brand-Portfolio/default.aspx doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). M&A news.
• https://www.bassmaster.com/news/classic-rewind-humminbirds-legacy/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). From the source: Between 1979 and 1991, the official sonars used in the Bassmaster Classic were made by Humminbird.
• We can't use https://www.wired2fish.com/news/the-history-of-humminbird-fish-finders or https://www.wired2fish.com/news/humminbird-announces-down-imaging (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote these? (We're leery of articles written under role/no bylines because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• https://deepersonar.com/en-us/blogs/us/brief-history-fishing-sonars doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The article is more about tech in fishing (particularly depth finders and sonar) and doesn't discuss Humminbird in any real depth.
• https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-consumer-electronics-hall-of-fame-humminbird-lcr-fish-finder is borderline, closer to OK.
• https://www.thefisherman.com/article/product-review-humminbird-coastmaster-charts/#close-modal is borderline. Sources that cover the products more than the company are less useful for an article on the company.
• We can't use https://boattest.com/article/humminbird-all-new-lake-charts (no editorial oversight). Blatant native advertizement.
• https://www.johnsonoutdoors.com/us/sustainability_report doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop.
• https://fishingtackleretailer.com/cannon-humminbird-and-minn-kota-partner-with-coastal-conservation-association-of-florida/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Partnership/PRilanthropy coverage.
• We can't use https://cleanearthchallenge.com/ (website homepage), and it's unlikely anything on that domain will help for eligibility (connexion to subject).

You have one somewhat OK source that's about one of its products. You don't have much of anything other than routine coverage about Humminbird specifically. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gbresource (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Michael Tjendara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I’ve rewritten the article but it is still rejected. Could you please advise how to fix it? Thanks, Michael Gbresource (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbresource: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• We can't use https://biz.kompas.com/read/2023/06/26/213606328/penuhi-kebutuhan-nutrisi-dengan-purity-vitamin-suplemen-halal-pertama-dari (no editorial oversight, connexion to subject). Blatant and labeled advertorial.
• We can't use https://timesindonesia.co.id/indonesia-positif/490242/purityfic-smart-kids-vitamin-halal-australia-untuk-atasi-stunting-tantrum-dan-tingkatkan-kecerdasan-anak (no editorial oversight, connexion to subject). Blatant native advertizement.
• https://www.marketeers.com/strategi-komunikasi-purityfic-lax-easy-tangkap-tren-diet-sehat-di-indonesia/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject), and this smells like another advertorial.
• https://www.sbs.com.au/language/indonesian/en/podcast-episode/are-there-business-people-who-are-not-only-concerned-with-profits/49s1qgr96 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Podcast episode where he is a guest.
• https://ozip.com.au/index.php/lebih-dekat-dengan-purity-bersama-michael-tjendara/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.

You have nothing useful. Three of your sources aren't even about Tjendara, but about the supplements he's selling. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:4041:2E9D:F578:F193:9D73:97B8:E351 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:GaneshaSpeaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

GaneshaSpeaks has served over 1 billion minutes of consultations from 2003 till date. It is a noteworthy achievement and hence I thought they deserve a page on Wikipedia.

Kindly advise me on what to do to make the page in sync with Wikipedia guidelines. 2409:4041:2E9D:F578:F193:9D73:97B8:E351 (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]