Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


January 27

[edit]

01:22, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Boxing4life856321

[edit]

This is a genuine person Boxing4life856321 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really verify that because the subject probably has zero coverage. There really isn't much to say. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Njames05

[edit]

I think we are good enough to move to review of submission. The goal is to get this out there to get others who were on the teams after 1990 to enter their submissions. Can someone review and provide input if this is ready to submit? Nigel D James (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:University of Texas Rugby Club
@Njames05: This is written in first-person and is woefully undersourced. This is something more suitable for a private website or blog rather than Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the feedback. I have an English major working on the first person. We considered a private page but are wanting the collaboration of people across the 40 years. Here were other wiki pages that gave us the inspiration to do it here.
Austin Huns / England national rugby union team / Leinster Rugby / Bath Rugby
For the under sourced, is it the quantity of the references (we have 35, how many more do we need) or the type of references. Need help on that item please. Nigel D James (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Njames05: For every claim that is about a living or recently-departed person you need a source that explicitly corroborates it, and it needs to be cited at the spot of the claim. (I'll also leave links to Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once, {{cite news}} and {{cite book}} here.) I'll also take the time to go over your sources (refer to my /Decode subpage, linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You have enough sources to prove the team is notable; the problem is the disconnect between what we expect from an article and what you think we are. I will say it again: If your goal is to get others who were on the teams after 1990 to enter their submissions then this would be better on a private website or a blog, where the standards of proof are much lower. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Njames05. For what you want to do, a wiki may be a good tool, but not the particular wiki called Wikipedia, for the reasons Jeske explains. There are thousands of other wikis on the web, and some of them (for example Fandom (website)) are sites that host many wikis for different groups. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 27 January 2025 review of submission by DJYUSIF13

[edit]

first it's about me and my job second i am writing this to people third i have my YouTube channel facebook channel and instagram channel also my own website djyusif.com please read this message so i can reply you DJYUSIF13 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DJYUSIF13: okay, I've read your message. Now what?
The draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. It presents no evidence of notability, and is entirely promotional. Please also be aware that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DJYUSIF13: We have zero tolerance for promotion. I have tagged your user subpage for deletion accordingly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Slvlogsofficial

[edit]

Help me to add this person's details to Wikipedia. he is an important person in my country, Slvlogsofficial (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slvlogsofficial: there is nothing in this draft to indicate that the person is notable. Also, the content is promotional, and poorly referenced. As such, it is very far from acceptable. You may want to try LinkedIn etc. instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insights 112.135.189.20 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the person is a really important one 112.135.189.20 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being important is not a part of the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:49, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Glitch0011

[edit]

I'm writing my first article and cannot work out how to lay out the ordering of the headers correctly. I have "Early Life and Military Service", but then he's most known for an event in his 90s. But his Later Life section is too short, should "Attendance at the 70th D-Day Anniversary" be a sub-heading of later life along with his work in politics? Many thanks. Glitch0011 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of copy editing per WP:MOS but it's not clear that they are actually notable in Wikipedia's terms. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry, I didn't get a notification about your reply. So I'd generally agree with the Notable logic, but this person is the source for two films both of which are very loose with the facts so I wanted to establish a truth to back-link to. Would that make someone "notable"? Glitch0011 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found the rules and I think I understand. If the "event" was any bigger it'd have instead been more logical to make a page for the Event of him leaving the care-home and link to that from the films. However in this case, there's no need given it's not that notable in the grant scheme of things. Thanks for your input. Glitch0011 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Dh39786

[edit]

Hi! I have updated this page and added more information, an image, and more citations. Please reconsider this page for publication on the main page. And please let me know what I can do to aid in anything you think could change. Thank you! Dh39786 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the draft was rejected, you will need to first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly, on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CFA rejected the draft so they are the first port of call, but before anything else you need to address your potential conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoffman simply isn't notable. I looked and found no examples of significant coverage at all. C F A 20:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Richard F Gagliardi

[edit]

I'm new to this process and selected the wrong input or editing option. Can I switch to the WYSIWG version? I think it would be easier for me to navigate further into this submission. Thanks. Richard F Gagliardi (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard F Gagliardi: you should be able to switch to the visual editor (assuming that's what you mean by WYSIWYG) at any time, here's how to do it: Help:VisualEditor#Opening_VisualEditor. The exactly look and functionality of your interface may depend on the 'skin' and/or the device you're using. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard F Gagliardi: Note that the WYSIWYG option tends to screw templates up, particularly citation templates such as {{cite book}}. See Help:Referencing for beginners. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Saltecsolutionstz

[edit]

Hello, how do I make my article look more professional with the looks of artists like Drake etc? Salmin Swaggz is a tremendous artist in Tanzania it's sad he doesn't have a professional Wikipedia page. Saltecsolutionstz (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saltecsolutionstz: There is no such thing as a "professional Wikipedia page". On a related note, you're going to want to change your username and DISCLOSE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jéske, can you help me edit my article? I believe you can make it better since you are more experienced, there are lots of articles in here which are less informative than mine, I wonder how did they get approved, your help will be truly appreciated. Thanks Saltecsolutionstz (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saltecsolutionstz Not every article that exists was "approved" by anyone. Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other poor articles cannot justify adding more poor articles. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Saltecsolutionstz: You still have yet to disclose. The drafting process is both much younger than Wikipedia and was only relatively recently made mandatory; Drake (musician) in particular well predates the drafting process (first edit 2005/Apr/01). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Daddy2013

[edit]

why the h**l did you say no it is true and I am trying to tell everybody cause nobody knows what really happened so I'm just trying to tell the people the truth since people on YouTube lie about his disappearance. Daddy2013 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to find another medium for that, I'm afraid. It is not what Wikipedia is for. --bonadea contributions talk 19:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daddy2013: We are not the first place to post news; we merely summarise what existing published sources already say. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 27 January 2025 review of submission by 188.190.88.244

[edit]

Why your article submission was declined? 188.190.88.244 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:When a Parrot Knocked on the Window was declined because it does not have a single reliable independent source. IMDB is not reliable (it is user generated) and the producer's (or whoever's it is) YouTube channel is not independent.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
To write a successful article, you need to start by finding several reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject (see golden rule). If you cannot find three such sources, then give up, as the film almost certainly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you have three sources, then you should forget everything you know about the film, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 27 January 2025 review of submission by PawWiki

[edit]

I don't know why my submission is not accepted. I used independent and high quality sources, which are regulary used in Wikipedia when it comes to Kurdish/Syrian/MENA issues. PawWiki (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was summarize the routine activities of this military unit. No indication of notability. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 27 January 2025 review of submission by 43.225.165.54

[edit]

Is that Eligible or Notable? [ www.labelradar.com/artists/thisisysd/profile ] 

43.225.165.54 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A profile published by the label is not independent, and so does not count at all towards establishing WP:notability. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 27 January 2025 review of submission by Agbenenornu

[edit]

i want to the draft 

Agbenenornu (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Your first article for how to go about this. Also note that, writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged: few people are able to write sufficiently neutrally about themselves to succeed. ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

[edit]

01:18, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Helloyesgoodbye

[edit]

Updated with Bay sheffield win Helloyesgoodbye (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rejection seems to be a result of persistent resubmissions without any improvements. Your best option is convincing @Qcne to overturn the rejection. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Creativesingh123

[edit]

I have published an overview article of the Organization, and I have mentioned the Intro, growth of the company, Awards, Services, and other details to help viewers. Also, I have mentioned source links, but I don't know why they're getting declined. So, I would like to request that you please let me know how I can fix it. Creativesingh123 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is blank. Try seeing it for yourself. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Creativesingh123: Your initial draft was deleted by 331dot for unambiguous advertising. Your resubmission was of a blank page. Judging by your talk page, there has been question about you editing and possible undeclared WP:COI. If you do have a conflict of interest, or are paid to create this page, you must disclose it. cyberdog958Talk 06:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 28 January 2025 review of submission by 202.61.42.8

[edit]

similar article like this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Punjab_Masstransit_Authority 202.61.42.8 (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not helping with the draft passing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:08, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Trishanbal

[edit]

Why My Draft is getting Rejected 

Trishanbal (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trishanbal: yes, it is; and pending speedy deletion as well (which I will go and execute in a moment). Wikipedia does not host self-promotional content like this. There is also nothing to suggest that you are notable in any way. (Which is an observation, not a criticism; I'm also not notable, and neither is the vast majority of people on this planet).) If you wish to tell the world about yourself, you need to find some other channel for it, such as a social media or blogging platform of some sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:26, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Guptashreyaaaa8

[edit]

Why my Submission declined? Guptashreyaaaa8 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guptashreyaaaa8: this draft has been rejected, not merely declined, because even after multiple earlier reviews it still fails to demonstrate notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:29, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Moulyags

[edit]

Now i understand Wikipedia Page Creation is like a Going for Make Driving License, if we go without Broker the License will reject many times.. same Situation we facing here, many pages accepted there is no value at all, but when we follow guidance and rules of wikipedia our page will Decline all the time, along with me one of my friend paid some of third party and its page was live... he challenged me saying that, without paying and our own cont get approval... is it true.. some of reviewer put same repeated message without saying what was the wrong, can really help me to create this page? Moulyags (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moulyags Please read other stuff exists. Eacn draft or article is considered on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about. There are many ways for inappropriate content to get past us, and the fact that another article exists does not mean that it was accepted or approved by anyone. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help.
Please read WP:SCAM and be very careful about who you give money to. If you pay someone, they must disclose that you are paying them, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m looking for help in creating a Wikipedia page for a notable local news platform that has been making a significant impact. This platform is using Realistic AI to support local journalists, introducing Hyper-local awards, and even offering free journalism courses. What's impressive is that it’s competing with national-level digital media, making a strong mark in regional news coverage.
The challenge I’m facing is striking the right balance in writing the page. If I include in-depth details, reviewers say it looks like promotion. But if I keep it strictly notable, another reviewer asks for more depth.
Can anyone here guide me on how to structure the page correctly? Or, is there an experienced Wikipedia editor I can hire to ensure it meets the guidelines? Would really appreciate any advice or support! Moulyags (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moulyags: no, there are no editors-for-hire here at the help desk, and in any case throwing money at this isn't suddenly going to make a non-notable subject notable.
I can't see anywhere a reviewer telling you to add more depth of information. On the whole, it's better to include less details than more, at least to begin with, focusing on proof of notability. Whatever information you do include must come from independent and reliable secondary sources, which in itself sets boundaries for what information you can and should include. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Yzverrr

[edit]

Hello dears. I didn't understand. What's wrong with my article? Yzverrr (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yzverrr: what's wrong is that there is no evidence that this subject is notable, as stated in the decline notice. None of the sources even mention Cryptocurrency Recognition Day (apart from the first one, which is primary and quite possibly not reliable and/or independent). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 28 January 2025 review of submission by TheSwagger13

[edit]

I can't find any good references for this article, but I feel like this is a MUST for Roblox Wikipedia articles. TheSwagger13 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TheSwagger13. If you can't find good sources, then it is a MUSTN'T for Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 28 January 2025 review of submission by AlfredCampenaerts

[edit]

Hi could you provide more information about what exactly I would need to change to 'read less like an advertisement'. I've applied all feedback from previous submissions and followed guidlines and examples from other similar articles. AlfredCampenaerts (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlfredCampenaerts: this draft is you telling the world about your app, that is what makes it inherently promotional. We're not interested in any of that; we want to see what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about this app and what makes it worthy of note. You should almost exclusively be summarising their coverage, not extolling this apps features and benefits; that you can do on your website and whatever other marketing channels you employ. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Ackyducc

[edit]

The draft was declined with the comment "Pre-release publicity does not establish notability." I'm not trying to argue or fight the comment, I just want to be able to improve the draft in the future. What would be some examples of pre-release sources or press that would establish notability? Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there was something unusual about the production of the album, that might help. For example, the film Rust (2024 film) merited an article before its release due to a gun discharging and killing someone on set. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ackyducc: film studios, record labels, book publishers, and the like obviously want to generate maximum publicity for their upcoming products, so in the run-up to the launch they issue a stream of 'announcements' and 'sneak previews' and 'teasers' and whatnot, which some media happily lap up because it helps to provide clickbait'y content for next to no effort. If we were to accept that as evidence of notability, we would only be playing along to their publicity campaign. As 331dot says, there needs to be something extraordinary or at least genuinely noteworthy about a production which makes it notable before it is even released; otherwise we need to wait for the thing to come out and appear in at least a couple of reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll see if I can find sources that pop up that discuss something notable, otherwise I'll just wait until reviews start being published. Thank you for letting me know. Ackyducc (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Harkinns

[edit]

Can you please clarify what is missing from the draft? There is already a live wikipedia entry in Hungarian for Csaba Gombar here http://hu.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gomb%C3%A1r_Csaba, this page is an English version. Harkinns (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harkinns Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another; it's up to the translator to make sure the subject meets the requirements of the target Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. As stated by the reviewer, you have not shown that this person meets at least one of the criteria listed at WP:NPROF. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 28 January 2025 review of submission by Rennis970

[edit]

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."

I have this sources: https://x.com/juanmarinotpr?lang=es ; 

https://www.instagram.com/juanmarinotpr1/?hl=es ;
http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Juan_Marino ;

https://elpiqueteroorg.wordpress.com/ ; https://www.facebook.com/Pagina12ok/posts/nosotros-como-partido-piquetero-ya-desde-abril-publicamos-un-libro-proponiendo-u/928004066214726/ ; https://www.pagina12.com.ar/440793-la-historia-de-juan-marino-el-dirigente-social-que-reemplaza; https://www.facebook.com/JuanMarino.PartidoPiquetero/videos/no-soy-del-pj-porque-no-discute-una-soluci%C3%B3n-a-los-problemas-no-s%C3%B3lo-de-argentin/8609586452441329/

There is more. But even then, I would need some help in putting it into the text Rennis970 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rennis970: We don't cite social media (no editorial oversight) or Wikipedia (circular reference). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, beyond that there is this ones (and the ones that are in the Draft): "Diputados Argentina - Juan Marino". Retrieved 4 February 2024.
"La increíble historia de Juan Marino, el militante al que echaron del Partido Obrero y reemplazará a Sergio Massa en la Cámara de Diputados". Diario con Vos. 1 August 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
Por Prensa Obrera. "SECUNDARIOS - El Cecap sigue en la lucha" (in European Spanish). Retrieved 16 February 2024.
"Se armó la Unidad Piquetera y prometen lío en noviembre y diciembre"". 2022-08-02. Retrieved 4 February 2024.
"Quién es Juan Marino, el diputado piquetero que juró "por el salario básico universal"". 2018-10-28. Retrieved 22 February 2024.
"Quién es Juan Marino, el dirigente social que juró en Diputados "contra la motosierra" de Javier Milei". Radio Mitre. 2023-12-07. Retrieved 4 February 2024.
"La historia de Juan Marino, el dirigente social que reemplaza a Sergio Massa en Diputados | Ocupaba un cargo en el Ministerio de Desarrollo bonaerense". PAGINA12. 2022-07-28. Retrieved 4 February 2024.
"Salario Básico Universal: ¡Ahora o nunca!, por Juan Marino". 19 July 2022.
"Presentación del libro de Juan Marino y Vladimir Cerrón "Estrategia militante, acá y ahora"". 8 ago 2023. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
"Quién es Juan Marino, el dirigente social que despertó abucheos en la Cámara de Diputados". Todo Noticias. 2023-12-07. Retrieved 4 February 2024. Rennis970 (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Wordpress isn't usable either. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but its the Party´s official web page. Rennis970 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't help the source's case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

[edit]

03:37, 29 January 2025 review of submission by 62.182.9.66

[edit]

Добрый день, скажите пожалуйста, когда опублекутся статься об этом человеке? 62.182.9.66 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content that is not in English will not be accepted on the English-language Wikipedia. Try submitting this on ru.wp? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(automated translation) Контент, который не на английском языке, не будет принят в англоязычной Википедии. Попробуйте отправить это в русскоязычной Википедии? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:33, 29 January 2025 review of submission by STE BANGALORE

[edit]

Hi, My submission was rejected for showing references that cannot be considered can you please help me draft a page. STE BANGALORE (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@STE BANGALORE: The original page at Draft:STE BANGALORE/sandbox was deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. What is your connexion to what you're writing about? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing about a person, I understand the mistake and I would like to rewrite STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sheetal Shetty is a public figure and I am writing this article for her STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: "for her", as in she has requested or instructed you to write it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, but being her well wisher i think have article written about her will add value to her presence in the digital space.
https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/kannada/sheetal-shetty-returns-in-niveditha-shivarajkumar-s-debut-production-fire-fly-article-110970184 STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But she is aware that I am writing this article STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also I am not able to find the old article after it was rejected. I would like to publish the same with a few edits STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: if "she is aware", then some contact must have been made between you, which implies an external relationship of some sort. Please disclose this, per the instructions posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: We aren't interested in "adding value" to her online presence. The page is still very much promotional from a quick read of it, and is utterly unsourced to boot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay can I still upload general information about her and publish ? STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: No, because you don't cite any sources to corroborate anything in the article. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for any promotional reasons. Kindly guide me to write in a way that its not promotional. STE BANGALORE (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources, wholly unconnected to the subject have written about the subject - nothing less, and very little more. Wikipedia has essentially no interests in what the subject says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. If you cannot find such independent sources, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@STE BANGALORE: you must disclose your conflict of interest first. I have posted another message on your talk page, specifically about paid editing. Time to come clean. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:18, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Prince md.ruhaanazam

[edit]

I need advice for creating the Wikipedia page Prince md.ruhaanazam (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince md.ruhaanazam: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:40, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Misterpriadko

[edit]

a short action film Misterpriadko (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpriadko: that's not a question; do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do to make it acceptable Prince md.ruhaanazam (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't post the same thing over and over, you've now done this three times in the space of a few minutes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry Prince md.ruhaanazam (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Bella Nevis

[edit]

Hi! I recently submitted an article about **Bala Ramajayam**, the owner of **G Square Realtors**, but it was declined because it did not meet the notability requirements. The reason cited was that the references were not independent or did not show significant coverage of the subject. Could you please guide me on how to improve the article and which sources I should look for to demonstrate Bala Ramajayam’s notability? Any advice on improving the tone or structure would also be appreciated. Thank you! Bella Nevis (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bella Nevis: first, can I ask about your conflict of interest (COI). I can see that you've disclosed a general COI, but if you've been employed or contracted to write this article, you need to disclose instead the more specific COI of paid-editing. (Also, you need to make a separate disclosure for each draft/article you edit where you have a COI.)
This draft was declined because it doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. The decline notice provides links to the different aspects of notability; follow them, so you can read about what sort of sources we need to establish notability. Otherwise, please ask more specific questions than merely "how to improve" the draft; that is quite an open-ended question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What independent sources can I use to strengthen this draft? Bella Nevis (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you assist me in getting the article draft Bala Ramajeyam accepted? Bella Nevis (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:11, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Cheesypoof513

[edit]

I dont know why my sources are not being accepted. The people whos work is being cited are the leading professionals in corneal stem cell transplants. what can I change so that my article gets published? Cheesypoof513 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheesypoof513: I note that the draft had fewer sources when it was reviewed, so it could be that the only thing you need to do to get it accepted is to resubmit it for another review. Other than that, I'm pinging the reviewer @AlphaBetaGamma: anything you can share with the author? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may indeed now pass. My concern would be that it is written as a how-to guide, not as an encyclopaedia article. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 29 January 2025 review of submission by ESto2024PPO

[edit]

I have been trying to publish this page for months - it is basic background about Adrian Usher. It is not biased, it includes many independent references and all information is available publicly. Can you tell me why this keeps getting declined please. Adrian is a public servant. ESto2024PPO (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ESto2024PPO: you have resubmitted the draft, so in that sense your question is somewhat redundant since you will receive feedback when a reviewer has assessed it. But so far all the declines have been for lack of evidence of notability. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent.
You also need to support the information better, there are currently several paragraphs entirely without citations, which is not acceptable in an article on a living person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Play2025

[edit]

Hi! I recently just submitted a draft for Stories From My Gay Grandparents and I was wondering how do I get approved? It was recently decline because it doesn't meet the requirements of an article. It's a digital series where I was trying to just write the series overview, production and its release information. Can you advise when you can! 

Play2025 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Play2025: your draft cites two sources, at least one of which is primary, plus lists two more sources without actually citing them anywhere. This does not yet show that the subject is notable. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and which provide significant coverage directly of the subject.
The draft also needs to be better supported by referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok! How can I delete the references and re-cite everything? And everything has to be cited in the actual paragraph, correct? Play2025 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Play2025: there's no other way to delete the references (that I know of, at least) than doing it manually.
And yes, every citation should go next to the statement it verifies. If the source supports an entire paragraph, it may be enough to cite it once at the end. If it's a longer paragraph, then you may need to cite more than once. If you make a direct quotation, or an extraordinary statement, or say something potentially contentious or sensitive, then you need to cite the source right after the statement. The basic principle is that the reader should never wonder "where does that information come from and how do I know it's true" – the evidence should be right there to answer that wondering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok! How do I do it manually? I've tried but it's not working! Play2025 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Play2025: if you're using the source editor, you just remove the entire string between the ref open and ref close tags, ie.
<ref>{{cite ...whatever is here...}}</ref>
If you're using the visual editor, I don't know how that works; someone will hopefully come along soon who can tell you that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VisualEditor tends to mangle citation templates, so this would need done in source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Play2025 I think it is better to switch to source editor Haroldwonder (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Haroldwonder

[edit]

I submitted an article for review,. It was stated that the writing style was that of an advertisement. Can someone be so kind as to help edit so it is suitable? Haroldwonder (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haroldwonder: you need to cut out all the marketing blurb, things like "mission to deliver cutting-edge digital products that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also highly functional", this is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Your job is to describe, not sell the subject.
Secondly, you should be almost exclusively summarising what independent and reliable third parties (mainly secondary sources) have said about the subject, whereas this is written entirely from the company's point of view.
Speaking of which, what is your relationship with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are kind. I have corrected my use of marketing language.
I do not have a relationship with Creatvise. I came across the name while searching out content related to design. I thought to write about it since it deserves to be here and no one has written about Creatvise yet. Haroldwonder (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 29 January 2025 review of submission by GMcDonagh

[edit]

Hi! I am wondering if I can get help with getting this page passed please? The person in question is a world champion and world leading expert in their subject – so I wondered how I can source it to show that? GMcDonagh (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GMcDonagh You have used as sources his own works and interviews with him. These are not independent sources. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they are a notable person as Wikipedia defines one.
The draft was rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further; if you are able to fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. I'm guessing the reviewer rejected it because they saw improvement as unlikely, but we are not infallible. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 29 January 2025 review of submission by RobbieIanMorrison

[edit]

People .. this is really daft. I have spent a good two days reading, logging, and referencing background material for this article. And, as an experienced editor, I would rank my draft as sufficiently notable and also well referenced and suitably well written to be considered for live use. And then I get some mumbo jumbo from AlphaBetaGamma. Can I ask that a human look at my draft and make an assessment. Many thanks in advance, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: I'll summarise WP:BLP1E for you: If a person is known for a single event (in this case, the events after her arrest for a climate protest) and is unlikely to draw any sort of coverage (news or scholarly) outside of that one event, we err towards not having an article for them for the sake of their privacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Thanks. The subject has quite some involvement in the protest movement stretching back to Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp in 1981. Also with Just Stop Oil. How much of that will be on the public record is another matter. I also don't think personal privacy is a real issue in this case. Let me look around and see what I can add. Perhaps ongoing court procedures will cross the notability threshold on their own merit? And I appreciate for your quick response. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobbieIanMorrison: If you can find news reports about her involvement in other protests (or about court cases stemming from same) those would also help; right now all you really have is the court proceedings from the Just Stop Oil protest she got pinched for. Note that we do accept offline sources, if properly cited, so when she was active isn't as big a detriment as one would think. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Yes, thanks. Delap was an active Quaker and quite likely their newsletters and periodicals have been cataloged in libraries and may be of help. Their newer material is online. I will contact Delap's supporters and make some inquiries. I appreciate your suggestions. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobbieIanMorrison. I suggest you strike out the personal attack on @AlphaBetaGamma above. ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: I though that was a chatbot, it was up in seconds, did anyone read what I wrote in that short interval? But I will edit my response as suggested. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: @Jéské Couriano: I note that the dialog box on my submission says "Declined by AlphaBetaGamma 2 days ago." So that is nothing to do with me. Did I overwrite some other editor's substandard submission? My draft was referenced to a high standard, for example. In which case can I have my particular draft reviewed as it stands. That would be really helpful. Thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobbieIanMorrison: yes, AlphaBetaGamma declined this draft on the 27th, and it seems that two days later you edited/rewrote the contents of that draft but left the decline template intact. So what was declined was the earlier version, not yours. That's my reading of the revision history, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Many thanks for looking. That is my understanding too and my mistake as well. On reflection, I think the best thing to do is wait. The appeal court sitting should be completed tomorrow although the judgment will doubtless take weeks. Something of significance might arise, who knows? And I will continue to look for other background. At some point I may resubmit. In passing, I thought the earlier content I overwrote was AI prompting from Wikipedia. I was surprised that Wikipedia would do this, but I do encounter that feature quite often these days. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To note that Delap's case may well go to judicial review as recorded here: Impending legal action by Delap's legal team. In which case, I think we will cross the notability threshold in due course. If anyone from a Wikipedia law project can comment, that could be a help. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

18:40, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Katarina Dragasevic

[edit]

Unsure as to why my draft is being declined. I added sufficient citations where needed (keep in mind there is very limited resources). Katarina Dragasevic (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katarina Dragasevic: your draft has been declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely:
  1. Two primary sources isn't enough to establish notability per WP:ORG; and
  2. One citation of each source isn't enough to verify the information.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something- an article about this organization would need to summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about this organization. If there are "very limited resources", this organization does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Rcboyer

[edit]

My page about Thomas D. Kuczmarski was rejected for not meeting notability standards. I have no problem with this decision. But I have a question. Where does Crain's Chicago Business stand as a publication that meets Wikipedia's notablity standards? It is the foremost business publication in the Chicago region and I'd be using it in other submissions, so it would be useful to know. Thank you. Rcboyer (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is declined, not rejected. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rcboyer. The place to ask about the reliability of sources is WP:RSN. Looking through the archives, it doesn't seem to have been discussed. Crain's New York Business has been mentioned once in passing, in a context where the person mentioning it clearly thinks it's reliable, but that wasn't the topic of discussion. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 29 January 2025 review of submission by Naturaldiamondexpert

[edit]

I submitted 15 reputable sources for House of Diamonds but got denied for having low verified sources. I am confused as to why. Naturaldiamondexpert (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naturaldiamondexpert I fixed your link for proper display. You have provided your sources incorrectly, see Referencing for beginners. You also seem to be citing the routine activities of the company, and not summarizing what independent reliable sources say makes the company a notable company. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:HouseofDiamonds
I declined your draft because statements were missing sources, and I forgot to mention the article reads like an advertisement. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naturaldiamondexpert, if you have any kind of financial relationship with the House of Diamonds, then you must make the formal Paid contributions disclosure. This is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources have been referenced correctly now. All the sources are where the information is being extracted from. Please see the sources, they are all top industry publications, especially Rapaport. This company is the first company to use AI in diamonds so I believe it’s notable and important for Wiki audience to know about it Naturaldiamondexpert (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know how to improve page so the wiki audience can get this beneficial information. Naturaldiamondexpert (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:29, 29 January 2025 review of submission by 76.22.160.7

[edit]

Hi, I received a comment asking for me to change my inline citations, but I'm not sure what the exact problem is or how I can fix it. All guidance would be very much appreciated! 76.22.160.7 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the formatting of your citations. What I do notice looking through the list is that apart from the first three, which are clearly not independent of Nogales, not a single one mentions him in the title. This leads me to suspect that few of them contain significant coverage of him. It's possible that some of them do - I haven't looked at them - but reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject are an absolute requirement to establish notability.
It is probably not coincidental that the draft reads like a CV: it does not make any attempt to show the reader why he might be notable. ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

[edit]

01:40, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Auda159

[edit]

Here's my first draft for Wikipedia, revision was declined. Anyone here can help me improve it? Much thanks.. Auda159 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auda159 You have resubmitted it, the reviewer will leave you feedback. We don't get into co-editing here at this help desk, do you have a specific question? 331dot (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:44, 30 January 2025 review of submission by 86.98.159.131

[edit]

I need help 86.98.159.131 (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your unreferenced draft presents no indication that this person is notable. The draft bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Simona Uzunova

[edit]

As an answer related to my article i got this "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject" So my question is: Should we shorten the article to only sentences and points which are referenced? Simona Uzunova (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Uzunova Who is "we"? Only a single person should be operating your account. If you represent this business, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a business and its offerings or what it does. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Significant coverage is anything that goes beyond just telling what the business does or what magazines it has been mentioned in- it is in depth coverage that goes into detail about what is important/significant/influential about the business as the source sees it- not as the business itself might see it.
Most of the article is just basic information, not in depth coverage- like the fact that it has an online presence(who doesn't, these days?) and that magazines have mentioned it(but you don't tell what those magazines said). 331dot (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Gfatopic

[edit]

Hello, my topic is rejected, what can i do now ? Gfatopic (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfatopic: it wasn't rejected, which would mean the end of the road for it; only declined, which means you can resubmit it once you've addressed the decline reason. That reason being, the sources do not show that the subject is notable, since they're mostly just news of her appointment. So what you can, and have to, do now is to find sources that satisfy the WP:GNG guideline for notability.
Before that, though, you need to disclose your conflict-of-interest. I've already posted a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gfatopic: please do not mess with the AfC templates, and do not delete reviewers' comments, they are there for a reason. I have reverted your edit.
And if your intention was to resubmit this draft, then there is no point in doing that without addressing the decline reasons, because it will just be automatically declined, and may eventually get rejected outright.
Please disclose your COI, as requested. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 30 January 2025 review of submission by ParableOfPhil

[edit]

Good afternoon Wiki community.

I received feedback while trying to add this page about a rare disease health publisher called BioNews Inc. that the organization is not notable enough to require its own page. I was a little surprised, as there is a Wiki page up for a separate online newsletter of the same name - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/BioNews - despite it having a much smaller audience and a notably smaller online presence.

It feels to me that Wikipedia readers would be served by having pages on both subjects to avoid confusion, as if someone was looking for the rare disease publisher they may find this page instead and be unsure whether it is the same organization or not.

I was hoping someone could provide some feedback on this, as I'm genuinely interested regarding the rationale, or if there is something else that needs to be changed on the page.

Thanks so much. ParableOfPhil (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ParableOfPhil. As you can see, the existing BioNews article has now been proposed for deletion, as it is one of the thousands and thousands of seriously inadequate articles, most of which predate our articles for creation process. (I'm baffled why such an experienced editor as @IntoThinAir appears to have created such an inadequate article as recently as 2020, and guess there must be something odd about its history)
The consensus is that Wikipedia readers are not well served except by articles which are almost entirely based on independent reliable published sources, since only those are verifiable; and these criteria are mostly summed up in Wikipedia's special definition of notability.
In an ideal world, somebody would go through those thousands and thousands of articles, reviewing them, and either improving or deleting them. But for some strange reason, not many volunteers seem to want to put very much time and effort into this part of improving Wikipedia, so not much gets done. Thank you for pointing to one such example: @Bearian has set in motion the improvement of Wikipedia by removing something which shouldn't be there.
All of which is irrelevant to your draft, which has been reviewed on its own terms: see other stuff exists.
Your draft, as is often the case when new editors jump straight into trying to create an article, seems to have been written BACKWARDS: first find the sources adequate to establish notability, and then write a summary of what they say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the in-depth feedback Colin, I really appreciate it. ParableOfPhil (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ParableOfPhil Please see your user talk page, regarding paid editing. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Economic2025

[edit]

Hi,

My draft was rejected twice and both times I attempted to improve the sources and clean the reference to match other organisation's pages which are similar (such as the Tax Justice Network and the Center for Economic and Social Rights. Are there other things that I can do to improve the change of my page being accepted?

Thank you!! Economic2025 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economic2025 The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that it may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. You in fact did resubmit your draft for another review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if they don't accept it. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Economic2025: To follow on from what 331dot says, since sources seem to be the sticking point, I will refer you to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
As to the two other articles you bring up, both are clearly tagged as having serious sourcing woes, and both predate the draft process altogether (first edits: TJN, CESR). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the articles you refer to have far too many of their sources not independent. If you want to compare existing articles, choose Good articles or Featured articles, otherwise you are likely to find some of the thousands and thousands of inadequate articles we are burdened with. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 30 January 2025 review of submission by DesignFashionUAE

[edit]

i was researching on fashion brands of UAE. there is no such brand which is prominent as trillionaire, the giving movement. i have been trying to create more pages but all of them decline. DesignFashionUAE (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't say here- and removed from your user page- is that it's your brand. That is a severe conflict of interest. You are also a paid editor as I assume you operate your brand to earn a living) and the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed.
You have resubmitted it and it is pending, the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:38, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Cornbredphilospher

[edit]

Need help with getting high quality citations Cornbredphilospher (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous reviews must remain on the draft. This also enables resubmission.
We can't find sources for you, but please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is little to no available academic writings about this kind of trailer used for building out fiber networks, electrical infrastructure, oil industry & irrigation. There are plenty of blogs or articles from companies detailing and explaining what it is, but a true academic level source seems increasingly impossible :( Cornbredphilospher (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to be "academic", but most blogs aren't acceptable sources as they lack fact checking and editorial oversight. Have you considered improving the Trailer (vehicle) article? 331dot (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. The route you mentioned seems to be the best way to move forward! Cornbredphilospher (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 30 January 2025 review of submission by CecilionMage

[edit]

Hello, can you check again this article which I have updated CecilionMage (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have fundamentally rewritten the draft to address the concerns of the reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. I restore the rejection notice(which must remain on the draft) so you can access the reviewer's user talk page.
However, if you have not shown that this musician meets WP:NMUSICIAN, I suggest (if you're being paid to deliver an article) that you return their money. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP has been glocked as an Andiprayono sock. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 30 January 2025 review of submission by 1250metersdeep

[edit]

This is a hoax I think 1250metersdeep (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for pointing it out. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 1250metersdeep (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nvm was deleted 1250metersdeep (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Marissadorfler

[edit]

Hi there, my page was rejected for links, so I went through and updated and removed majority of the non-second source links. Other than that, the feedback wasn't that clear on why it was rejected—can someone review? Thank you! Marissadorfler (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that it may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If you want another review, please resubmit the draft, we don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marissadorfler: ...but before resubmitting, please respond to the conflict-of-interest / paid-editing query on your talk page first. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 30 January 2025 review of submission by Sasha2025

[edit]

I really need help for my reality show, it was really aired on E! Sasha2025 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasha2025: your draft is blank, so we obviously cannot publish it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! but sadly it got declined...but I already resubmitted on it Sasha2025 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can still make changes to a submitted article. For example, something showing that this actually exists, though I'm admittedly quite skeptical. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, thanks for your time Sasha2025 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasha2025: as you will have seen, I've rejected your draft. Either it's a hoax, or an existing but wholly obscure thing. (Fair warning: I'm intending to speedily delete as well, per WP:G3, unless you very quickly convince me otherwise.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alright, I think it could be. Sasha2025 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 30 January 2025 review of submission by SeaStarsLights

[edit]

Despite asking for further aid from the person who declined my dynamic list, listing "lack of references", when other dynamic lists do not have references, as seen here List of Serbian musicians among other dynamic lists. If the rule is that dynamic lists are to have references, I expect all dynamic lists to be pulled until references have been provided. Otherwise I want to hear the reason why a Serbian dynamic list can be published without references but a Cypriot one cannot. SeaStarsLights (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SeaStarsLights 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. We deal with the article in front of us. If you want to pursue action against other articles, you are free to do so.
It seems to me what you are trying to do is best accomplished with a category, not a list article. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 30 January 2025 review of submission by 27.147.224.137

[edit]

Please verify the information carefully. Why are you rejecting it repeatedly? 27.147.224.137 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined repeatedly and then rejected- you have no reliable sources in the draft. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

[edit]

02:09, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Historyfan25

[edit]

I don't understand why the feedback says "They do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent...additional references meeting these criteria should be added." This author's articles have been published in a number of reputable sources such as Harvard Asia Quarterly and Springer Encyclopedia. Can you provide more specific guidance on what additional references are needed to meet the guidelines? Historyfan25 (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're referencing a ton of things written by Yousaf, not about Yousaf or about Yousaf's work. Basically all the citations just go to the list of works while the biography is scant and almost completely unsourced. You've only basically sourced three facts about him in his biography:
  • He's recognized for his work on his relatives, sourced to an article he wrote, not a secondary source indicating he's recognized for his work on his relatives.
  • He participated in a conference.
  • He provided his input on the 2024 Pakistan elections based on his expertise regarding political reforms and election processes in Pakistan, sourced by himself in a YouTube video.
"Secondary sources that are independent," is the key phrase missing here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Bella Nevis

[edit]

Can anyone assist me in getting the article draft Bala Ramajeyam accepted? Bella Nevis (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Nevis We don't do co-editing here at this help desk, do you have a specific question? Please see the message left by the reviewer, as well as the policies linked to therein.
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Utkarsh1134

[edit]

I appreciateUtkarsh1134 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but you have submitted your draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Sasha2025

[edit]

I want it to be accept, please and thank you Sasha2025 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. No sources means no article. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Daaharalex1974

[edit]

plz tell my problem Daaharalex1974 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 31 January 2025 review of submission by CSharpStudentToo

[edit]

Would it be possible to lift the rejection in order to amend the suggestion? CSharpStudentToo (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit the draft now. If you can fundamentaly change it to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly; a link to their talk page is in their rejection notice. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Pkslrrrr

[edit]

Hi!

The subject is notable particularly in Greece as a scientist, correspondent, and medical expert. I wanted to request clarification or additional help on what additional sources ought to provide that the previously added ones did not address. I am also confused as I believe significant, independent coverage that is directly about Dr. Kourtis are included–perhaps this was unclear, as those are the Greek sources?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding! Thank you for your review. Pkslrrrr (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Kevincook13

[edit]

Is there a problem with the first sentence? Kevincook13 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevincook13: Other than formatting it to be in line with the standard at MOS:LEAD, I think it would be best to provide a little more context to the subject in the first sentence. It feels a little incomplete and you have to continue to read the paragraph before you have a good idea what the concept actually is. The first sentence, especially when dealing with a not-very-well known term or concept, should be a concise introduction and definition of what the subject of the article is. For example, I would suggest something like “Finiteness is the quality of having a measurable limit or end. This is opposed to infiniateness, or having no known limit or end.” It probably needs some work, but those sentences provides context to what is being talked about. The bigger problem with the article is changing the prose to be in a more formal WP:TONE and not having any original research. cyberdog958Talk 03:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Stephanie BINK

[edit]

Hello editors! I submitted a draft on Michael Rea to the Articles for Creation queue some months ago, and received a response saying that his coverage was run-of-the-mill. I wanted to see if any other editors have specific feedback about the draft. To me, profile pieces in Financial Times and Bloomberg about his founding of Rx Savings Solutions show Michael Rea is more than a run-of-the-mill businessman. I appreciate any feedback from the editing community. Please note that the draft was submitted on behalf of Michael Rea via my work at Beutler Ink. Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reviewer, I'm not seeing what is notable about him. Many people start companies in response to a particular need. Many people start charities. I'm not seeing sources that discuss a particular influence that he had. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Chance997

[edit]

I was intending to create an new article that I thought would fit into the Sonic the Hedgehog film series but was denied two times. And I know that I'm still new on editing articles for Wikipedia, so are there any suggestions on drafting and editing up any future articles on film? Chance997 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment already on your draft(below the decline notices) explains it better than I could. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:51, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Octolin

[edit]

I'm not sure if I understood the Wikipedia:Translation page, so I wanted to ask, is this how the translation request draft should be done? Or should I have like, already translated the start of the original page and put it in the stub? Clicking on the "translate" button on the original page sent me to the Content Translation Tool which I apparently don't have clearance to use cause I'm not an extended confirmed user? I'm just really confused. Octolin (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understood now what I got confused at first, I can send the translation, but only as a draft, not directly publishing it? I think that's what I misunderstood as "I can't use the tool then". Octolin (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:53, 31 January 2025 review of submission by Kyoko Masaki

[edit]

Hello, at the bottom of the page in references, the last reference has a RED saying check date? I am note sure of this meaning. Can I please be advised on this matter. Thank you Kyoko Masaki (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyoko Masaki: It was just an error with the date format in the reference template. I fixed it for you. cyberdog958Talk 03:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. cyberdog958 Kyoko Masaki (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

[edit]

01:00, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Grffffff

[edit]

This is a recent event and I would like it added if possible. Grffffff (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a race. An unsourced one line article about breaking news just to get something up quickly is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTNEWS. ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:02, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Jordan Ong (Jo)

[edit]

My draft submission is declined twice. I don't understand what's the issue here. Jordan Ong (Jo) (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat new here, but the only problem I think I'm able to explain here are the references. The references in this draft are really not up to Wikipedia standards. I'd suggest you take a look at the pages Citing sources and Referencing for begginers, but the main things that could fix this is citing the references throughout the page (the two pages I linked explain how to do that with the RefToolbar) and honestly, getting better sources.
The only references you added are links to the park's official sites and social media (which are primary sources), and it's very recommended to add secondary sources (independent news articles, per example, with "independent" meaning "not related to the subject" so no official announcements like the Facebook post you linked). Secondary sources are especially important cause they define whether your article to meets the Notability criteria, or whether your article's topic actually warrants having an article on the site.
There are other problems on this draft, like article structure, grammar and relevance of the subtopics ("Former Food & Shop Outlets"??), but I don't think I'd be able to explain how to solve those, so I'd rather let other editors help you in these issues. Although, looking at the information on this draft, I don't think the topic meets the Notability criteria on the first place, cause there's not much about this park that is like... relevant? I think it'd fit better if this draft was condensed into one paragraph or two and added to the |Theme Parks' section of the Genting Highlands page, honestly. Octolin (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the information I got it from Wayback Machine- Genting old website (https://web.archive.org/web/20001205022600/http://www.genting.com.my/) to be exact. Jordan Ong (Jo) (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I read the references you put. But this is still a primary source and if all your references are primary sources, then it doesn't meet the WP:N (Notability) criteria, in other words, it's not relevant enough for a full article. Octolin (talk) 02:19, 1 February 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 entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
It does make any difference whether you find sources on a website, on the Wayback machine, on Youtube, or on the shelves of a library. If they were published by a reliable source, wholly unconnected with the subject of the article, you can use them; if they are published but not independent of the subject you can use them in only limited ways (see WP:SPS); if they are not reliably published you can't use them. ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:22, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Tanocleaqua097

[edit]

Hello, can you please try to double check this article? Tanocleaqua097 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, if you could please check the page again, and let me know if you think there is something missing, don't keep quiet. Tanocleaqua097 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected (again) and will not be accepted. On a related note, when you have been blocked you may not create new accounts to evade your block. --bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:33, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Xuid0

[edit]

Could anyone take a look and improve please my English etc is bad and understanding of wikipedia. Xuid0 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuid0: It doesn’t look like you have written the draft yet? The current contents of the draft is you asking a question if such a page should be written. If you are requesting someone else to write the article, you can always add it to the list at requested articles, but that list is notoriously backlogged and it is very possible it will never be written. I would suggest you to be bold and write the article yourself before submitting it for review. cyberdog958Talk 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:59, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Musican editor0420

[edit]

Which tag I should put in here? Because, I cannot find the musician artist on the tags so that I can submit my article draft in Wikipedia. Thanks Musican editor0420 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Musican editor0420: I’m not sure what you mean by tag? If you’re talking about what category to select when you click the resubmit button, this draft would be under the “Biography of a living person” option, because this article is a biography of a living person. If your talking about the WikiProject tags, just biography and probably the country their from and the genre of music they produce is enough. These are usually kept pretty general and not too specific and can always be changed later. cyberdog958Talk 04:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Ratychop77

[edit]

Why any reviewer has denied our article it was to be done by Wikipedia itself Ratychop77 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratychop77: I declined this for the reason given in the decline notice and the comments accompanying that. Please study them, including visiting the links therein, and come back if you still have questions.
I don't know what you mean by "it was to be done by Wikipedia itself". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Wikipedia itself". Essentally all writing, editing, reviewing, administration is done by volunteer editors. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 1 February 2025 review of submission by 117.201.21.62

[edit]

I create an article about myself. It has declined by you . All the things mentioned in it is true and authentic . please help me to publish the same 117.201.21.62 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please log into your account when editing, RAVI CHANDRAN13. Among other things, it saves us having to do detective work to figure out what you're talking about.
I assume this is about Draft:RAVI CHANDRAN (and not Ravichandran (Kannada actor)). In which case, your draft was completely unreferenced, and entirely promotional. That is why I not only declined it, but deleted it also.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, try LinkedIn or some such. Please read the message on your talk page about creating autobiographies. Read also our policy regarding articles on living people, WP:BLP, especially the sections which explain that everything must be clearly supported by reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 1 February 2025 review of submission by 2409:40F4:37:D983:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

Why decline my dream wikipedia article create 2409:40F4:37:D983:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has no content what-so-ever besides the subject's name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Createmearticle

[edit]

why this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Createmearticle (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The company does not meet the definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Haroldkyle

[edit]

I'm confused why this author was rejected. I felt like I included many independent sources showing notability. She is the recipient of a competitive national award (Rona Jaffe Foundation Writers' Award) and has been published in over 80 independent journals spanning 30 years. I thought the award plus the publication of the novel and short story collection by a major publisher (Simon & Shuster) would show the importance of her work, but would it help to include a bibliography of the major journals she was published in? She is also significant for being a woman writer in a male-dominated field (science fiction), but I'm not sure how to cite this reason for notability. Thanks for any guidance on why the editor declined this draft! Special:Contributions/Haroldkyle (talk) 18:02, 1 February 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.
Urbanski is likely notable as the winner of a notable award, but most of the sources you have provided just document her work and activities. If you have sources that discuss her impact on the writing field as a woman science fiction writer, that would help. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Basslet

[edit]

Proper structure of the profile. The topic is a public officer who is the spokesperson to the current Executive Governor of Osun State, Nigeria. Basslet (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host profiles. Wikipedia has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a person, showing how they are a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Ibraheemofeeq

[edit]

How To solve Declined articles Please why my article was declined and what do I need to make it qualified. Thanks The Article: Draft:Tech Solved Issues Ibraheemofeeq (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibraheemofeeq I fixed the formatting of your post; you had text where the title of the draft should be. The whole url is not needed when linking to your draft.
The only source you provided is that of a marketing website. A Wikipedia article about a company needs to 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.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:13, 1 February 2025 review of submission by AnoushWiki

[edit]

Hi, I have followed the requirements for qualified references but I still get declined. Can I submit my references and you help me chose the proper ones and delete the rest? 

AnoushWiki (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnoushWiki: I see that your draft does not have any inline citations, which help readers understand which facts come from which sources. I added {{no footnotes}} to your draft to give you easy access to the documentation about inline citations. Also, the "Public appearances and media recognition" section needs to be reformatted. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the references AnoushWiki (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnoushWiki: Also, let's examine your references:
  • LA Times - Although your reference claims the article is called "XOIE Shines at CES 2024", the link just takes me to your bio. This is not significant coverage and not independent.
  • San Francisco Standard - Although your reference claims the article is called "Humanoid Robot Steals the Show at Humanoids Summit 2024", the article is called "Slightly glitchy dispatches from Silicon Valley’s first humanoid robot summit". There apeears to be 5 sentences about XOIE, two of which are quotes from you. This is not significant coverage and not independent.
  • The Getty Images aren't significant coverage.
  • The Forbes article is behind a paywall, so I am not evaluating that.
GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After corrections, Can I list the most updated reference here for you to review? AnoushWiki (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnoushWiki: You can update the draft and resubmit it for review. GoingBatty (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 1 February 2025 review of submission by Canadayoshi

[edit]

how do i use the sandbox Canadayoshi (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadayoshi: You can edit your sandbox the same way as you would edit any other page. See Help:Introduction to learn how to edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

[edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1273373900"