Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

• BoolaBulldog (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Lawrie Mifflin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I am hoping to understand why my page for Laurie Mifflin got denied and what things I need to provide in order for it to be approved. BoolaBulldog (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BoolaBulldog: I fixed the link to your draft above. There's a detailed explanation both on the draft page and your user talk page – could you be more specific about what it is you don't understand, so we don't just repeat the same advice you have already been given? --bonadea contributions talk 07:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AnimeshHimself (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:AnimeshHimself/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my submission is rejected please help me to remove the red banner. and the speedy deletion also. AnimeshHimself (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user AnimeshHimself has been both renamed and globally locked; the draft is tagged for speedy deletion as a sockpuppet creation. Nothing to do here. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This post and this post by the user on their previous user talk page are profoundly depressing. "A chatbot told me I can have a Wikipedia celebrity page." Makes me wonder why we even bother anymore. --bonadea contributions talk 07:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Taras Zherebetskyi (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Ukrainian Studies Fund ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am the author of the article "Ukrainian Studies Fund", which was declined due to an insufficient number of independent secondary sources. I understand the importance of this criterion and would like to clarify how many and what types of sources should be added to meet the notability requirements.

The Ukrainian Studies Fund has been supporting academic initiatives related to Ukrainian studies in U.S. universities for over 60 years. However, since the fund primarily focuses on financing educational programs rather than public outreach, there are limited references in independent sources.

Could you please specify:

- How many additional independent secondary sources would be required to meet the notability standards?

- What types of sources (news articles, academic publications, books, etc.) would be most relevant? I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to improve the article and make it eligible for publication.

Best regards, Taras Zherebetskyi Taras Zherebetskyi (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Zherebetskyi If you are the founder of this organization, that must be disclosed on your user page, please see conflict of interest.

There is not a specific number of sources that is being looked for, but most reviewers want at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organization- coverage beyond merely describing its activities, that goes into detail as to what is important/significant/influential about the organization- how it is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JOSEPHCB! (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:JCB Of Hemel Hempstead ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to publish it please. Ive added relevant information JOSEPHCB! (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It has no independent reliable sources provided. You list some references, but don't provide actual citations(like where an interview is published in a public independent reliable source that can be verified). It reads like an essay about yourself, which is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you want to tell the world about yourself, that's what social media is for. Please see the autobiography policy, as well as the reasons why an article about yourself is not a good thing. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JOSEPHCB!. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject, and very little else. What the subject himself wants the world to know is not of any interest to Wikipedia, unless it has been discussed by independent commentators. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Toblerone101 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Joyride Sweets ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would You think about accepting this? TobyB (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101: if I'm not mistaken, this is at least the third time you're here asking about this draft (as well as Draft:Joyride sweets – BTW, please don't create multiple versions). Once a draft is rejected, that's the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hominid23 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Infinity Foods Workers Co-operative ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've submitted edits following the guidelines regarding sources of the information. I'm not sure if I have properly submitted these changes. I made two updates today, just not sure if I've let Wikipedia know that the article is ready for review. Thanks for your help, Hominid23 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully resubmitted the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hominid23: yes, when you see that large mustard yellow field which says "Review waiting, please be patient", that tells you it's in the system. And just to clarify, you resubmitted this yesterday and then made further edits today, but as long as you don't tamper with the submission template the draft will remain in the review pool even when you're editing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Hominid23 (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• HoodedBeast09 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Uncovering the Litanies (podcast) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just added the official YouTube channel. Would that help with notability? Thanks! HoodedBeast09 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HoodedBeast09 No, being on YouTube does nothing for notability, because anyone can put pretty much anything on YouTube. Only significant coverage in independent reliable sources can establish notability. There doesn't seem to be any, which is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, shoot. Alright. Thanks for getting back to me. HoodedBeast09 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1700:3FB0:10AF:E450:4E91:F746:34E9 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Richard D Titus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe we've have fixed the inline reference issues and request a review. 2600:1700:3FB0:10AF:E450:4E91:F746:34E9 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button in the decline message to formally resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 190.22.196.174 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Old Serbian Ha ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please i want to see

190.22.196.174 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is severely lacking in context and sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2605:B100:748:88E3:2C22:D143:D55D:743B (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Nandagovindam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted an article, but it rejected. Could you please update me the reason behind the rejection? 2605:B100:748:88E3:2C22:D143:D55D:743B (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the draft, please? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noslopy (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Birdhouse (Tech Company) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to create a page for my tech company called Birdhouse. I'm not sure what type of content should I add to make it a viable Wikipedia page. Birdhouse is *special* in regards its one of the first companies who provide a process of creating software via Kanban Tickets only. We are not startup in a sense that we grow organically so we cannot post of a successful investment or such publishable content. Noslopy (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noslopy You declared a conflict of interest, but if you work for this company, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.

Every company thinks that what it does is special or important; Wikipedia articles (not "pages", which has a broader meaning) summarize what independent reliable sources say about companies that meet our definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a database where existence merits inclusion. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JRubinFilm (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:JRubinFilm/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi this is not meant to be an advertisement. I would greatly appreciate advice as to how to successfully resubmit. Thank you JRubinFilm (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to resubmit has been restored, but you should follow the advice you've been given by Qcne at the top of the draft(and in a chat, I gather). 331dot (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JRubinFilm. "Considered a landmark in AI-driven filmmaking" - who exactly considers it as such? If it is a reliable published source, wholly unconnected with you, then say so, and cite the source. Otherwise remove it.

This sort of evaluative statement should never appear in any article in Wikipedia's voice: this is an example of what makes your draft read like an ad.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about the film, and very little else. Essentially nothing that you or your associates say or want to say about it is relevant, except where independent sources have commented on what you said. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Honeypigeon34 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mayhem Marketplace ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm not sure what I need to cite within this article. The information is straight from the source via email, not published. One of the founders of Mayhem Marketplace saw that they were discouraged from making the article themselves, since they are too close to the subject, so they asked for volunteers.

This was my first attempt at a wikipedia article, but I believe in the project so I volunteered to help. What can I do to cite sources for this when it is a new project, not yet published about?

Honeypigeon34 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Honeypigeon34: I'm afraid this is not the answer you want, but if there are no published, reliable and fully independent sources talking about a topic in depth, there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Honeypigeon34 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And please note, @Honeypigeon34, that if you volunteered to write the article for the founders, then you have nearly the same conflict of interest that they would. This does not prevent you working on such an article, but it does impose some restrictions. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Clark Kimberling (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:International Conference on Fibonacci Numbers and their Applications ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission of this Draft was declined 7 March 2025 for being "not adequately supported by reliable sources." Am I right that this refers to reference #5 because it is not verifiable? If so, how can I make this reference (an email from A. Philippou to me) verifiable? If the reason for the declining of the submission is something else, please advise. Clark Kimberling (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make a personal email "verifiable" as it is not publicly available; even if it were, it is a primary source and cannot establish notability.

In general, you have just documented the occurrences of the event, and not summarized what independent sources say is notable about this event. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mugumbate (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Association of Social Work Education in Africa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have this important article that has been rejected 3 times because of references but I do not seem to find the required references. In my view, lack of the required references should not disadvantage this article because the lack of references reflects the challenges of organisations that were formed and functioned under colonialism, like in this case, there was inadequate documentation of the work of the ASWEA in secondary sources because its work was considered anti-imperialist. I have tried hard to get the sources but can't find more than what I have put. If the ASWEA if finally denied entry into Wikipedia, that seems unjust because there are other organisations formed the same time as it outside Africa that easily gained entry. I do think Wikipedia should work to dismantle this barrier. Mugumbate (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mugumbate 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 see other stuff exists. It is possible that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and are just not yet addressed by a volunteer, doing what they can, when they can. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.

If there are no independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this organization, or at least ones that you can find, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately we can't give a pass to Wikipedia guidelines just because a topic comes from an underserved part of the world, or a part of the world where colonialism may have restricted coverage of a topic. (this is not the forum to right the great wrong of colonialism) If you think you might find the sources later, you can add them and resubmit later. Drafts are only deleted if inactive for six months, just edit it once every six months to keep it active.

You claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the organization. It's a defunct organization, but you didn't personally create the logo, I assume. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 69fbbfan (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Vika Pogribnyak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am unsure how I can site a reference or source for this article when all of the info is either on her Herbiceps page/profile, her Instagram or I obtained by chatting with her directly thru her OF page. Please advise. Thanks 69fbbfan (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are acceptable sources. If that's all you have, she would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say abiut the topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 103.114.97.102 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Acrylic Aquarium ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my article declined? Hello, my article "Wikipedia Company" was declined in the Articles for Creation process. I would like to understand the exact reason for the decline and how I can improve it for resubmission. Here is the submission link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HimuSEOPro?markasread=334899939&markasreadwiki=enwiki. Thanks in advance for your guidance! 103.114.97.102 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in when posting. I've fixed your header to provide a link to your draft as intended. You linked to your user talk page in your post. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Please remember to login to your account when posting. Your draft article, titled Draft:Acrylic_Aquarium, was declined due to only having a single source to NatSCA. Your draft also reads like an essay. Wikipedia articles are summaries of reliable, published, mostly secondary sources. What you have written isn't a viable article in it's current state.

Maybe you would like to improve the existing Horniman Museum article instead?

Please have a close read of Help:Your first article which gives some tips on writing for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are HimuSEOPro, you should declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BlooBind (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Server Sundaram (unreleased film) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Team, I have updated the "Server Sundaram (Unreleased film)" movie page, but I need to change the title. The instructions suggest going to the "More" section and selecting "Move," but I can't find that option. Can someone guide me on how to proceed?

BlooBind (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft names are provisional and should not be considered definitive. If and when it is accepted, the reviewer will move it to an appropriate title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a draft, @Jéské Couriano.

@BlooBind - Tools are in different places depending on the skin and the options. For me, it used to be directly there, under "More", but now it's under "Tools", or in the "Tools" sidebar. It's possible tha the documentation hasn't caught up with newer skins. ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'm able to see in tools.

Could you please clarify me in this also, If I update an existing page and publish it, will it be visible on Google immediately, or do I need to submit it for review first and then publish it? What is the correct procedure? BlooBind (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blixiarmastaja (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Decline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did my article get declined? Blixiarmastaja (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blixiarmastaja: do you mean Draft:Jinsoul? Because it is completely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, i apologise. Im new and this is my first article, what do i need to do more? :) Blixiarmastaja (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Blixiarmastaja, have you checked our criteria for musical artists at WP:NMUSIC? qcne (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Blixiarmastaja. 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) 21:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Glammazon2 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Jacob Asch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Where can I find good sources I can credit for my Jacob Asch page? Glammazon2 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They simply don't seem to exist which is why the draft was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Glammazon2. Did you read Your first article, and notability before creating your draft? Creating a draft without first finding the required sources is like building a house without first surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Glammazon2 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Glammazon2/Arthur Lyons (author) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Where can I find more information on the mystery writer Arthur Lyons? Glammazon2 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, @Glammazon2. We expect editors to find sources themselves. Have you checked literary reviews in newspapers and magazines either online or in your local library? qcne (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Javed Ali khan shekh (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:R.K. Ram ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding to this article: if it's not a musician and youtuber who become accidentally did a musical work but not know as musician. Javed Ali khan shekh (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever they are, the draft has been thrice rejected. It's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Windy City Steve (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Craig Gator Bodzianowski ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The References to this article are verifiable references, can you point out any that are not verifiable on the internet. The Citations also even though there were only 3 citations linked directly to the source materials. Windy City Steve (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube and Find A Grave are not considered reliable sources. YouTube content is entirely user-generated without editoral control and fact checking(unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on its verified channel) Find A Grave is also user generated. The main text of the draft is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 143.44.196.46 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Seldemontano/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to make my article not rejected 143.44.196.46 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, its a collection of information that seems to be original research. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CSSr2999 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Granny (video game) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had this draft but was declined. can someone tell me how to fix it in depth? thanks CSSr2999 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CSSr2999 I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.

The big thing that is missing from your draft is professional reviews of the game, and/or sources that might describe the development of the game. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Davejfudge (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mad (Sparks album) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am concerned that a reviewer responsible for declining the submission may not be adequately addressing the problems. One minute before rejecting my draft, they rejected someone else's.

I'm not so much concerned with the reasonings to decline the submission, but they seem to be rejecting dozens of drafts per day and I would like clarification. Davejfudge (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to do it in less than a minute. There were no changes that would improve the notability after another editor moved it to draft. There are four sources and the first three are just restating what was said in press releases. I would recommend finding significant coverage in reliable sources that focuses on the group. Do not use press releases or churnalism. Find references that have reviews or their music, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean, moved it to draft? All I see is that the changed the name of the draft. It was rejected once before, but I changed thee sources to reflect the independence, and the original reviewer agreed.

Would the chances of it being published be increased if I talk about (and cited, of course) news and reviews of associated singles? Davejfudge (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as I looked at the edit history wrong. It was moved from one title to another title but was in draft when that happened. Outside of that, the comments about the sourcing still stand and were easy to view in less than a minute so I don't see an issue with the original decline by RangersRus. Reviews of music can assist if would lead to notability under WP:NMUSICIAN. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And sorry if I appeared rude. I'm still new to editing on this website, so perhaps I was being a bit brash. Davejfudge (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't rude. You had every right to be direct (which is how I perceived it) as it was my screw up for not viewing the edit history correctly. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Davejfudge. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about the subject, and very little else. Nothing based on what the subject says, or what their associates say, can contribute to that.

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) 13:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Avardi (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Nathan Cassuto ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer comments are very general such as: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article" or "Submissions should not contain opinions" without any reference to the text and no suggestions on how to improve it. I am ready to apply any required change but I need help to understand what needs to be changed. Thank you, Avardi Avardi (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest asking the reviewer directly those questions- but I can see that large portions of the draft are unsourced. If it's the existing sources that support the unsourced sections, you need to add citations; see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• T Lowndes (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Kate Coyne ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can someone help me with Reliable Sources, as this seems to be the reason why my drafts are rejected? Thanks T Lowndes (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined(meaning you can resubmit), not rejected(meaning you could not resubmit). What specific help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@T Lowndes:, I would recommend adding reliable sources to support each statement in the draft. If there is no reliable source to be found, the information needs to be removed as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pjmthefi18 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Pjmthefi18/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

？？ Pjmthefi18 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected because it was re-submitted with zero improvement and it reads like a family history project, with zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TheLecturer2025 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Proximal Transnationalism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been working on a new entry entitled Proximal Transnationalism, actually an area of Transnationalism that is already on Wikipedia. I have wondered if I have done somehing "not right" (I'd not say wrong).

Thanks, TheLectuer2025 TheLecturer2025 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will answer that question. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sor Cheang (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:SOR CHEANG ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As a public figure and journalist, I want more people to know about me. Sor Cheang (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sor Cheang: well a blank draft isn't going to help. In any case, please don't write about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sor Cheang: Then use social media. Wikipedia is not for the up-and-coming, you must have already arrived. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Minhas05 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Minhas05/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

dear respectable senior editors please let me start edit again and needs new amendment's on the title Article[ BacnaPlay ]. i need you to give chance to edit again and use reliable source to publish it under the guide line policy's so i am requesting to release my page thanks. Minhas05 (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minhas05: No. Find something else to write about. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SillyBlueDog (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Nonoria from Isekai ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What title should be used for this Wikipedia page: "Nono From Another World" or "Nonoria from Isekai?" I'm not sure what would be best, since the game was called "Nono From Another World"^[1] according to various Yostar about/bios in the past , however, Yostar's website now calls it "Nonoria from Isekai" (should be hidden in a menu in About Us > Milestones).^[2]

Note that the game was never released outside of China and Japan, so which would be the most suitable one? SillyBlueDog (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SillyBlueDog: per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should reflect the name by which the subject is most commonly known (rather than any 'official' etc. name), but I couldn't tell you which of the alternatives you mention meets this criterion. In any case, if this draft is accepted, there can always be a redirect created from the other title pointing to this article, thereby making it easy to find no matter which name is used to search. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SillyBlueDog Note that the specific title of the draft article is not particularly relevant to the draft submission process, which only considers the text and sources. Issues with the title can wait until the draft article is accepted. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2001:4BC9:1F92:864C:753A:4EF4:3FBF:5912 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Earth4All ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have been unable to get our wikipedia page approved. Can you provide information as to exactly what is preventing the approval? Which sources specifically are obstacles? We are happy to change our sources and content to match Wikipedia's guidelines, but are simply unable to figure out which sources are inadequate. Thanks. 2001:4BC9:1F92:864C:753A:4EF4:3FBF:5912 (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was declined for insufficient evidence that the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion. There have been no substantive edits to the draft since it was declined. Once you have addressed the decline reason, you are welcome to resubmit the draft, and it will receive a further review in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please remember to log in when editing. And if you are Pepa998, please respond to the conflict of interest query I've just posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Editor came into IRC help, they've now properly declared. I actually think the draft is probably notable. qcne (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing it ATM. The sources are mostly primary, and many are close to the subject. Which ones are you saying establish notability?

Also, it's quite jargony, with stuff like "transformational systems change for sustainable development and social equity within planetary boundaries", although I wouldn't decline it just for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your source assessment, I agree. #1 and #14 is what I thought were the strongest sources. qcne (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Joy Appa (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Unity Small Finance Bank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is double gazing, Can you help me to add few more details. Joy Appa (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy Appa: I don't know what "double gazing" is, but I'm DoubleGrazing – how can I help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Love.eclerx (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Love.eclerx/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I created a dedicated Wikipedia page for Ricoh USA, Inc., as it operates as a standalone entity separate from the Ricoh (global) page. However, the Wikipedia moderators declined the submission, stating that the content should be merged under the global entity.

I would appreciate your guidance on how we can move forward with creating a separate page for Ricoh USA, Inc. while ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Are there any specific approaches or criteria we should consider to strengthen the case for its independent listing?

Looking forward to your suggestions. Love.eclerx (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take your use of "we" to mean that you work for Ricoh; please comply with the Terms of Use and formally disclose that, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI.

You have basically summarized the routine activities and offerings of the company. This does not establish that the company is notable as Wikipedia defines it, as a standalone entity. Anything that doesn't do that should be added to the article(not a "page") about the parent company, as indicated. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gregoryjlee (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Aviteur ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have updated the sources to include New York Times and Financial Times but the article is still declined. Could you tell me how I can fix this? Thank you, Gregory Gregoryjlee (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you have not shown how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You have just documented the existence of the company and its routine business activities. See WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 60.53.222.165 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Bigcowfm ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with my draft:BIGCOWFM because we already have Wikipedia versions in Chinese and Bahasa Melayu. 60.53.222.165 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to provide evidence that the subject is notable. This draft currently cites as its source a single media outlet (two articles), which is nowhere near enough.

Also, whether an article on this subject exists in another language version of Wikipedia is not relevant, as each version is a completely independent project with their own requirements and policies.

And when you say "we already have", that suggests you have some connection with the subject; please see WP:COI.

Finally, if you are the author of this draft, Write886, please log into your account when editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandipadhikari11 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Manjil Regmi (Mr Maney) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what is missing Sandipadhikari11 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Intermediatebard (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Brennan Wedl ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! I was pointed here after my article submission was not approved. I am hoping to get more clarity. I came to edit Wikipedia to add entries for up and coming female musicians, as I think having more information about them will be beneficial. I paid very close attention to the guidelines -- I tried to find reviews/writeups from sites that were more likely to have a lot of eyes on them before publication, such as Stereogum. For the smaller music review sites, I stuck to truly biographical facts, such as one interview where all of the bandmates talk about their time at Berklee college, as a reference to the fact "the artist attended Berklee college." I'm not sure how this is not reputable. For sources that have a financial interest, such as her record label's page -- I relied on this very little, just getting the start and end date of the band. I guess I just want to know if I can use Wikipedia editing at all for what I am trying to do. There are not going to be scholarly journal articles for newer musicians, even though they do have a notable impact on their communities. If relatively reputable music publications are a no-go, we are sort of back at square one? I would love any guidance for folks like me who are trying in very good faith to follow the guidelines. E.g. should I only stick to concert reviews posted in newspapers? Or is this whole enterprise somewhat of a fools errand. Intermediatebard (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Intermediatebard. Up and coming people rarely meet our notability criteria. Wikipedia only summarises what existing secondary (and to a limited extent primary) sources state about a subject. Usually up and coming people have not had much written about them in secondary sources, so an article is usually not possible.

First we need to establish "notability", the test to see if the subject meets our criteria for inclusion.

Let's go through your sources one by one:

1. This is an interview with Brennan, so not an independent source. It therefore can't be used to show notability.
2. Another interview with Brennan.
3. This is part interview but does have some independent analysis and discussion. Is the source reliable? Maybe. It's a long-standing music blog with an editor. So this could be used as a source.
4. This is the label, so not an independent source. It can't be used to show notability
5. An album review and an interview. I think this source is okay.

So we have two okay sources. Usually I'd want to see a minimum of three strong sources that devote some critical analysis/review to the artist and discuss them in some way, without relying on an interview.

Does that make sense? Let me know if you have further questions. qcne (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this detailed breakdown. This really does help me make sense of it, and gives me motivation to take another crack at it.

I like the guidance to have at least three decent sources that are not overly reliant on interviews with the artist. I think if I stuck with it I could find one or two other sources that are similar to source #3, which, your feedback is very useful, because after reading the reliable sources documentation, I too felt that this was the strongest source.

My further question relates to the fact that in source #3, an okay source, the reviewer alludes to the effect "the artist attended college in Boston," but does not mention the fact that the college in question is Berklee School of Music. This is why I went to try to find some of the interviews that specifically mention Berklee as the college in question.

My question is -- if there are at least three reliable sources that mention "she went to school in Boston," and then we get supplementary sources that specifically mention it is Berklee is that okay? Or would it be better to leave out this fact since we can't find any non-interview sources that mention that. I guess what I am asking is -- if we have enough reliable sources that get to the meat of the fact and then use interviews as supplements, is that better or worse than just not providing the information at all. If I am trying to get an article approved, is it the case that the article reviewer will jump right to the citations and, seeing that there are some that are interviews, will reject the article? Or will the fact that there are enough reliable sources make the article stand? Thanks so much, I am trying to get the hang of this without giving up! I am also trying to make sense of the note in the documentation that says that using our best judgement in a case by case basis is required -- if I have three reliable sources that say "she went to school in Boston" and then I need to find an interview that says "it was specifically Berklee," to me, that's using my best judgement, but I don't want my article to get instantly denied because it includes some references to interviews, even if there are at least three other reliable sources, if that makes sense. Intermediatebard (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediatebard, one really only needs one source to verify Berklee or whatever. I think you misunderstood: we're looking for at least three sources that help establish notability. You need notability first, and that's in WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC--so, two records with a notable label, for instance. Or a major music award. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As @Drmies stated, @Intermediatebard - we don't need three sources for every biographic fact. We need a minimum of three sources overall to show if this person meets our criteria for inclusion. Each of these three sources you find must be independent/secondary to the artist, from a reliable publication, and devote significant coverage.

Once we have established notability through finding at least three sources that meet the above, you are free to expand the draft using other sources. Simple, non-controversial, biographic facts like their College can be cited to an interview or primary source. qcne (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So helpful! Thank you. Intermediatebard (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1700:3FB0:10AF:A888:E507:4A99:1C9 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Richard D Titus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The subject of this article has run two of the largest media companies on the planet. (BBC & Daily Mail) AND founded several large technology companies. In parallel, he has produced award-winning films, including Sundance, Emmy, and Oscars.)

He qualifies for multiple Wiki Topics for notability, yet there's resistance to what is a well-sourced simple article about a rather famous entrepreneur, filmmaker, and executive. Wha it's the escalation path? #confused. 2600:1700:3FB0:10AF:A888:E507:4A99:1C9 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"escalation path"? That's not a phrase that carries any meaning. The draft has been rejected as it is LLM generated fluff with fake references, which was repeatedly and disruptively resubmitted without any attempt to address the issues raised by multiple reviewers. There is zero sign of the person meeting any notability criteria, and you have never responded to questions about your obvious conflict of interest. --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Run the BBC, has he? :) #convinced -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Machoveny (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Gurren Buggie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand what is the problem with the information about Gurren Buggie Ltd all the information is correct, The company and the story Exist, the product can be seeing in the website of the company, its register company.

Please tell me specific and exact you need i will contact the company and send you the information

Thank you Machoveny Machoveny (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Machoveny. Wikipedia isn't a business directory that documents which companies exist. Only companies that meet our special criteria for inclusion can have an article on Wikipedia. You have not demonstrated how this company meets that criteria. qcne (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirandawadi9999 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Manjil Regmi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you tell me how can this page be listed? What is missing and what needs to be improved on this one?

Thanks. Kirandawadi9999 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirandawadi9999: The draft has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. (Please be careful not to remove the "AfC" templates from the top of the draft page.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Epicalalt395 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sven (SKYRIM) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I edit his to make it "sufficient" all I'm trying to do is make a Wikipedia about an npc Epicalalt395 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Epicalalt395. Your draft about a fictional character in SkyRim is unfortunately not suitable for Wikipedia. Feel free to edit the Fandom Elder Scrolls Wiki. qcne (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gladiator1990 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:MahaKavi Pothana Colony ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my first article adding to Wikipedia, I live in this mentioned area which I was trying to add a page to this area however reliable sources are added but still rejected Gladiator1990 (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gladiator1990: Google search is not a source, and you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. This leaves you with only two sources, and consequently quite a lot of unsupported content. There is also no evidence that the subject is notable per WP:NPLACE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Arnaubataller (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Arnau Bataller ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hola! Buenos días! Mi artículo ha sido rechazado por no estar en Inglés, pero he hecho el articulo en la página en español. Hay algún comando adicional que debo hacer? Además, informaron que ha sido rechazado "porque la página parece ser publicidad inequívoca que solo promueve una empresa, un grupo, un producto, un servicio, una persona o un punto de vista y necesitaría ser reescrita fundamentalmente para volverse enciclopédica" y la verdad es que no lo és, pues hay fuentes y enlaces (referencias) que comproban todo lo escrito en el articulo. Me gustaría saber cuáles cambios poderia hacer antes de intentar enviarlo otra vez. Gracias de antemando. Ana. Arnaubataller (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esta es la Wikipedia en inglés. Por favor, escribe en inglés. (this is the English Wikipedia, please write in English.) 331dot (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sakhamuri hhv (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Sakhamuri hhv/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you suggest me more precisely, I have added the information from best institute in the world, and Wikipedia itself, apart from that i have added from the newspaper article which is Times of India again trustworthy newspaper in India. Sakhamuri hhv (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakhamuri hhv: your draft cites three sources. The first is a press release. The second simply points to (an archived copy of) the Thin Film Laboratory's website. The third is alone not enough to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India is questionable as a source, see WP:TIMESOFINDIA. It is sometimes useful, but care must be taken. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mohamed Ouda (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Nile Ritz-Carlton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I made modifications to the articles and added more sources , please what is the problem with this article now . Mohamed Ouda (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohamed Ouda: routine business reporting based on press releases does not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing I added more reliable references now , I hope it is fine now Mohamed Ouda (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mohamed Ouda. You haven't resubmitted the draft for review: that is the way to get it looked at again. ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• EditorialHelper (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Appukuttannair Biju Kumar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Hello, I am writing to disclose a conflict of interest regarding a draft I submitted for review. The draft is Draft:Appukuttannair_Biju_Kumar, and it was created using an account registered in the subject's name ([insert username of the problematic account]). I acknowledge that this was a mistake and represents a clear conflict of interest.

I am now using this neutral account (User:EditorialHelper) to disclose this issue and request guidance on how to proceed. My intention is to ensure that the draft complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including neutrality and verifiability. I will not make further edits to the draft directly but am happy to provide additional information or sources if needed.

Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate any advice or assistance from the community. EditorialHelper (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EditorialHelper I fixed your post, using the whole url breaks the header template. In most cases generally the whole url is not needed.

Please disclose your COI on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are employed by him or his employer, you would need to make the paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you EditorialHelper (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the situation: using the wrong name on the account isn't itself a conflict of interest, just a beginner mistake that you fixed (so no big deal!) However, if you do have a connection to Biju Kumar, you should declare it, as that might be a conflict of interest. In addition to what 331dot linked you, I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashwinshadow (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I recently submitted a draft article with multiple references, including news articles and third-party sources. However, the draft was declined with the following feedback:

"The draft’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..."

I have carefully selected sources that I believe meet Wikipedia's reliability and independence criteria. However, I am unsure why my draft does not qualify when similar articles exist with seemingly fewer or comparable sources.

I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how to improve my references or structure the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. If anyone with experience in Wikipedia editing can review my draft and provide insights, it would be immensely helpful.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Ashwinshadow (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ashwinshadow. To mirror what @DoubleGrazing commented on the draft: you have written a brochure for the institution, not a Wikipedia article. Your sources are mostly college rankings or database entries which are irrelevant to establishing if this organisation meets our criteria for inclusion.

We require secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, journals, books that give significant in-depth critical coverage / discussion / commentary about the institution directly. Almost none of your sources do that.

Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. As we're a volunteer project no one has gotten around to doing that yet. If you have found articles that are of poor quality, please do feel free to improve them or nominate them for deletion. We don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project. qcne (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ashwinshadow. 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) 13:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrasslethis (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Buffa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi, i do not understand how is this article written entirely inappropriately when i've tried to write it as neutral as i can. neither was there peacock terms because the work is factual and there are tons of statistics from other parties and wikipedia mentioning the wins. so how am i supposed to change the tone? i have other articles of other wrestlers i want to submit yet i can't do it if i don't even know what's the issue with the first one. Wrasslethis (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrasslethis: seriously? You consider the likes of "known for his high-energy, hard-hitting in-ring style and larger-than-life persona" and "powerful strikes, acrobatic maneuvers, and a charisma that resonated with fans, Buffa became one of the most notable independent wrestlers of his time" to be neutral and factual, and not at all peacocky? (Those are just in the 1st paragraph.) And don't even get me started on the photos. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and this sort of content is totally inappropriate here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he's a wrestler and that's basically some of the best photos i can find. how is that inappropriate? he's not one of the wrestlers who is fully clothed. so am i supposed to use only photos of his face and not shots of his match if i need to introduce his ring style? please advise what works and doesn't because im also comparing and looking at his peers' wiki for comparison Wrasslethis (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the section of the guidelines to do with peacock words? Your draft is currently full of embellishing words and language that sounds more appropriate for an advertisement, not a neutral article. cyberdog958^Talk 11:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrasslethis Genuinely the entire draft is unsalvageable in it's current state. You need to start from scratch. Very carefully read our guidelines at WP:NPOV. qcne (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i looked up on the issue again after replying and i think i know what's the problem now. so i'll try to edit again. Wrasslethis (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Abdool AK (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Nigerian Research and Education Network (NgREN) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello please what do you need me to do or deleate

Abdool AK (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello please i have deleated some part to adhere to the guidelines can you please advice me further on what to do thank you Abdool AK (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to do, it was wholly promotional and has been deleted. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nigelgomm (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Rentman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have a new found appreciation of the rigour required for publishing articles in wikipedia! I feel that the subject is of moderate interest to the UK & Eire lettings industries but by its nature i'm struggling with secondary, independent sources. i'd be grateful for any specific advice and suggestions. Nigelgomm (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ORGDEPTH. You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company, which does not demonstrate that the company is notable. If sources with appropriate coverage do not exist, this topic woukd not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LJA123 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Roger Pope (drummer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After being declined, this article was expanded and thoroughly referenced. That was some time ago; I'm wondering what's taking so long for it to be published.23:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

LJA123 As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,539 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers, doing what they can, when they can, in no particular order. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok LJA123 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TheUnlimitedGod (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:The Astrid Experience ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've added new independent sources that have surfaced about this project. Is there a way I can re-submit the page for inclusion? TheUnlimitedGod (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should first ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comeonstrong (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Folsom Street East ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article I wrote for Folsom Street East was declined for the reason was that it "did not sight reliable sources" The comment was: "Comment: It's a part of this page: Folsom Street Fair Cinder painter (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC) I believe this is a mistake based on the confusing difference between the two festivals. Yes, The Folsom Street Fair article does mention Folsom Street East, but they are separate entities. The two organizations/events are often confused. Folsom Street Fair is in San Francisco and Folsom Street East is in New York City. This is one of the reasons I believe Folsom Street East should have it's own Wikipedia page. Let me know how I should proceed, I am new to writing on Wiki and am not sure how to respond to this critique because I don't think it applies to what I submitted. I sighted multiple reliable sources throughout but if more/alternative sources are needed I can work on that. Much appreciation for any suggestions on how to edit the article or proceed otherwise. Comeonstrong (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comeonstrong The whole url is not needed when linking, I've fixed this for you.

The decline has nothing to do with the fact that this event is similar to another event. Most of your sources just detail occurrences of the event, and not summarizing what independent reliable sources say makes this a a notable event. 331dot (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Love.eclerx (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Ricoh USA ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I created a dedicated Wikipedia page for Ricoh USA, Inc., as it operates as a standalone entity separate from the Ricoh (global) page. However, the Wikipedia moderators declined the submission, stating that the content should be merged under the global entity.

I would appreciate your guidance on how I can move forward with creating a separate page for Ricoh USA, Inc. while ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Are there any specific approaches or criteria I should consider to strengthen the case for its independent listing?

Looking forward to your suggestions Love.eclerx (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered here. Please do not start new sections about the same draft, while the previous section is still on this page (it will be archived after a few more days but until then you should keep the discussion to that section to avoid people telling you the same things you have already heard.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kumi-da (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Kumi-da/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft that I had requested to be reviewed has been declined citing that a page for it already exists(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_benghalensis).

As per this discussion on the talk page that I posted here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ficus_krishnae , Ficus krishnae is reinstated as a whole species and not merely a variety of Ficus bhenghalensis and the content in the sandbox was the draft to be included in the article.

With the above context set, can you please suggest what is the direction I have to take to move the content from my sandbox to the main article.

- Kumi-da (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ToadetteEdit,

Thanks for the reveiw of the draft article in my sandbox!

Please suggest the direction I should be taking with draft contents for Ficus krishnae article considering the above context.

- Kumi-da (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I have misunderstood something. I didn't realized that the taxon name is reinstated as a species while it is not mentioned in the parent article. You may resubmit and it will be accepted; but you should wait a little bit because there is a blocker ahead of up. Thanks for the heads up. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Clair Smiles (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:The Smiles Family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When i re-post the wiki with the fixed issue, the auto mod doesn't let me post it for review, any way to fix it? Clair Smiles (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clair Smiles: Where are your sources? You cite absolutely nothing that supports any of the article's content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write fiction, you need to find a different platform for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 103.242.20.216 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Information about the newly formed committee of the Teknaf South Branch of the Islamic Students' Movement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why rejected my article 103.242.20.216 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is purely promotional, and there is nothing to even remotely suggest that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Liahuu (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Arjun Sharda ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hiya! I noticed that my draft regarding this person was rejected due to failing the notability criteria, specifically "significant coverage". Would it be possible to receive specific feedback about how the person in particular does not contain "significant coverage" so that I can further improve the article or re-evaluate writing the article in its entirety? Thank you! Liahuu (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have just documented his job and an award from a government agency. You haven't summarize what independent reliable sources say about him in depth- what makes him iimportant. Some of the sources are interviews with him, which are a primary source and do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. Understood, I appreciate the explanation! So, from what i'm understanding, is notability not the primary reason for having this article declined, but rather the fact that the article has a lack of information? Liahuu (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the draft does not make any claims to notability, and the fact that the sources are not secondary and independent means that there is no real reason to assume that he is notable. If you look carefully at the sources you will notice that four of them say exactly the same thing, and are based entirely on what the kid himself said in an interview. The fifth is just a mention of his name in a list of "2024 student heroes" in Texas. Also note that that award is not itself notable so it doesn't make the recipients notable. --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Davis Impact (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Darolyn Davis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wikipedia Team,

I am a Business Development Intern at Davis Impact, and I would like to disclose my conflict of interest (COI) regarding this article about our Founder and CEO, Darolyn Davis. I understand Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and verifiability and want to ensure that any contributions adhere to these guidelines.

To be completely transparent, I have created and formatted this draft: Darolyn Davis on Wikipedia that is based on independent, reliable sources and avoids promotional language. I am submitting this request so that neutral, experienced editors can review and improve the article as necessary.

Would it be possible for me to request publication of this draft? Please let me know how I can proceed and if there are any additional steps to move forward in this process. Thank you!

Best, Angela Davis Impact (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Impact First, you must immediately change your username; your username needs to represent you, not your company. If you tell me what new username you want, I can change it for you.

After that, you will need to declare as a paid editor. This is a Terms of Use requirement. Even if you receive no money as an intern, you are still a "paid editor" because you are compensated with the experience of the work. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have claimed that you personally took and personally own the copyright to the image of Davis. The image appears to be professionally taken; did you take the image yourself? 331dot (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot The claim of the taking of the picture by Davis Impact is spurious. I have nominated in on Wikimedia Commons as a copyvio. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Code-withpeter (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:LEARNRITHM AI ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I AM WRITING AN ARTICLE FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND BY mistake, I HAVE GIVEN A LINK MULTIPLE TIMES. IT'S NOT FOR ANY PROMOTION; IT'S MY HARD WORK. PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE ARTICLE. I WANT MY ARTICLE TO be posted on WIKIPEDIA Code-withpeter (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Code-withpeter Typing all in capital letters is shouting, We can't hear you when you shout. Please use your indoor voice. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not shouting sorry for all the capital letters. Code-withpeter (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Code-withpeter Your company fails WP:NCORP. You have written an advert for your company. Wikipedia has no interest in anything you with to say about your company. I suggest you find other topics to write about. For your company? If you can create a decent web site, please use that for self promotion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 187.252.200.74 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Jose Julian Soberanis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help contribute if this can be if not please delete it 187.252.200.74 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. this is not the place to ask for contributions
2. The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered any further.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Turnerbake (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Turnerbake/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why my request keep declining

Turnerbake (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnerbake: To be accepted, a draft needs to show that the topic is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. The notability criteria for musicians are here, and the basic notability criteria for people are here. The draft has no reliable, independent sources at all. It is also written in a wholly promotional tone which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It may have been written by an AI tool such as a chatbot. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Access gopal (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Quess Corp ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help to understand what is going wrong?

Here is the why it is declined:

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 passing mentions about the subject) - reliable - secondary - independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Here are my views:

1. The draft page already has a Hindi page, and the English page was missing.

2. All the links referred to in the draft article are coming from credible sources. All sources are recognized media house or public information portals.

3. The company is a publicly listed company, and I have added NSE (National Stock Exchange) and BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange); NSE being the TOP 5 stock exchange in the world, I believe the public information coming from NSE is the most credible source (a) NSE is legally recognized (b) All the information on the website is public information.

4. I am not sure about the "In-Depth" information when basic information is missing from Wikipedia. Of course, during the course, other users, including me, will improve the page information. Similar publicly listed companies in India like Infosys or TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) have similar information. I have come across many pages which are just starting and have less information than what I have drafted. I am confused where I am going wrong?

5. I am not sure about the "not just passing mentions" - All the information I have added on the Wiki draft has a direct reference in the reference link.

It would be great for someone with experience to help me here, and how can I improve further? I am looking forward to publishing the draft as it will be very motivating for me.

Gopal Krishna (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you would have to ask the reviewer to get their exact reasoning, I'll try to address these one by one.

1. Different language Wikipedias are completely different projects with differents sets of rules. That an article is on another language Wikipedia does not mean it's presumed notable here. English Wikipedia has strict policies concerning notability.

2. Sources have to be more than credible to establish notability. They have to be reliable, independent, and be significantly about the subject. English Wikipedia has specific rules concerning corporations at WP:NCORP. The vast majority of decent sources in the article fall under WP:CORPTRIV, which means trivial coverage, including company reports, capital investments, or acquisitions can't establish notability.

3. The longstanding consensus at English Wikipedia is that being a listed company on an exchange does not make a company inherently notable. Nor do public database listings establish such.

4. All articles are evaluated independently. If you believe there are other articles that are also weakly sourced, then improving them, or nominating them for deletion if they can't be improved, would help the encyclopedia. Every article must stand on its own merits. See WP:OTHERSTUFF

5. As noted above, the sources above are largely routine coverage of any large company's day-to-day management, and precious little about the company. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sharing and helping! @CoffeeCrumbs Cheers! Gopal Krishna (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Astroboy-tomorrow (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Giok Djan Khoe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The submitted article has been rejected again for the reason not having reliable sources for verification. I wonder excactly which sources are not reliable? Please help. Astroboy-tomorrow (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astroboy-tomorrow, your draft has not been rejected. It has been declined, which is a very different outcome. Also. nobody said it does not have reliable sources, but rather that the sources taken together are not yet adequate to establish notability, in the opinion of the reviewers to date. I believe that he is notable as a Life Fellow of the IEEE, which means that he meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 and the IEEE is specifically mentioned in that guideline. But your draft fails to wikilink the IEEE and other important things. You have redundant sections, and much of the content consists of bullet points instead of prose written in complete sentences. Write a biography, not a résumé or curriculum vitae. Cullen328 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astroboy-tomorrow I concur, concurred already, with the prior comment by Cullen328. I have accepted your draft and tagged it for multiple improvements. You may and should improve this article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Akashgowda V P (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mokshitha Pai ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the article was declained why reasons please Akashgowda V P (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akashgowda V P, your draft only has one reference, and that is to the Times of India, which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, especially for their coverage of entertainers. The problem is that they take payments to promote entertainers, and this is a lack of journalistic independence. See WP:TIMESOFINDIA for the community consensus. Multiple references to reliable sources entirely independent of Pai that devote significant coverage of Pai are required. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian.hindle (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:NICC Standards Limited ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Sir,

I'm looking for a little help / advice regarding the draft Wikipedia page (NICC Standard Limited) which I've been developing, which has failed to be approved twice. I've been reading the criteria of "in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent" to get a better understand for the rejection.

Perhaps I can first provide a little background to the reason for developing the Wikipedia page.

NICC Standards Limited, is a none-profit organisation developing telecommunications standards for the UK. It is made up of contributing volunteers from UK Communications Providers, Equipment Suppliers and academic institutions.

As a standards group, we also have members from a number of government organisations (Ofcom, DSIT, NCSC) who act as our governance bodies. I've listed all the NICC members on the draft site, either through their Wikipedia pages, or direct to their web sites.

Perhaps another way to look at the NICC is to compare our work with the work done via European_Telecommunications_Standards_Institute, albeit NICC is a much smaller organisation. I've used the ETSI standards page as the basis for the NICC page.

Knowing the worldwide importance of Wikipedia, the NICC board of directors (all volunteers https://niccstandards.org.uk/about/ ), have asked me to produce a Wikipedia page in order to socialise the work of the NICC, above and beyond that of our own web site. The NICC standards are critical to UK Telecommunication and NICC is looking to widen the knowledge of the NICC and its standards work.

Each of the NICC standards I've listed on the draft page have been produce by the members in collaboration and then followed a stringent review and publishing cycle.

Looking at the four criteria.

In-depth / Reliable : Each of the NICC standards have been developed, reviewed, approved and published by NICC members, who are some of the top technical telecommunications exports.

Secondary: The standards documents are published and made freely available so that UK communications providers and vendors can benefit from the published standards.

Independent: Although external organisations can't influence NICC standards, once they are published, NICC is an open organisation to anyone to join and therefore take part in standards development.

Appreciating that Wikipedia has quality standards which must be maintained to ensure overall credibility, I am very keen to progress the development of the NICC Wikipedia page meeting the Wikipedia criteria.

If you could provide any specific pointers that I can introduce to the site that would help meeting the Wikipedia criteria and I would be most grateful.

Many regards Ian Ian.hindle (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.hindle 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 read WP:BOSS, and show it to your board as well so they can read it. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell about themselves. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.

If you work for this organization(as in you receive a salary or any form of compensation), the Terms of Use require you to declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. If you receive no compensation, you still must declare a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the text the entire NICC organisation is operated as none-profit, by volunteers who receive no renumeration. Ian.hindle (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.hindle: non-profit organisations also stand to gain from promoting themselves.

Interns etc. are often unpaid, but they are expressly covered by our paid-editing rules, because they are directed by their employer. I think the same applies here.

But as 331dot said, even if your situation doesn't come under paid editing (debatable, but possible), you clearly have a conflict of interest which needs to be disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't appear to be explaining myself clearly, having just read the WP:BOSS.  Yes, I'm trying to produce a Wikipedia page on behalf of NICC Standards. Our work is all none-paid and none profitable. The best way to compare NICC, it to think about, ETSI, 3GPP, IETF, ITU, etc, who all have Wikipedia presence. Whilst NICC is a much smaller standards organisation, our work process and procedures follow a very similar approach.

Therefore, I have modelled the NICC page on the pages of the other telecommunications standards organisations.

If Wikipedia has any concerns over my own validity or the NICC, the website publishes all our work and governance articles.

What I'm desperate to understand is how I can change the draft page, so that it pass the content criteria of Wikipedia, especially as I've reference the other standards groups pages.

Regards

Ian Ian.hindle (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.hindle 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 haven't been dealt with yet by volunteers. (I haven't examined the articles you cite yet) There are many ways for inapppropriate content to exist here, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.

Organizations do not "have Wikipedia presence" that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about topics. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, and are not for the benefit of the topic in any way. There may be benefits, but those are on the side and not our goal. You said that you were asked "to produce a Wikipedia page in order to socialise the work of the NICC, above and beyond that of our own web site." That is a promotional purpose. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about your organization, not what it says about itself(like its "mission"). Please see WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that, while understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as it could also not meet standards and you would be unaware of that. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also ask you if you personally created the logo of your organization as you currently are claiming. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Logo is taken from the NICC Website. Ian.hindle (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can still be "paid editing" if you put your work with the organization on your resume for the purpose of obtaining a paying job; but leaving that aside, you still need to formally disclose a conflict of interest, see WP:COI for instructions.

Your organization website states "all rights reserved"; so you must immediately without delay request deletion of the logo from Commons. Logos are not typically uploaded to Commons, as doing so requires releasing the image for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution. Logos may be uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules, which allows limited use in articles(but not drafts). Images are an enhancement to an article, not a requirement- the draft process only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is in the encyclopedia.

If the organization wants to make its logo available for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution(something they may not want to do, I wouldn't), they will need to adjust the copyright of their website, or make available a different image of their logo. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.hindle: With regards to the actual content of the draft, this is virtually impenetrable to people who don't already have a background in the underlying subject matter, and your boss' wishes are at loggerheads with our objectives (we want a neutrally-written encyclopaedia; they want a billboard). Whatever isn't a list of (seemingly) random links to PDFs is so full of jargon one could play Buzzword Bingo with it and probably black-out the card. In addition, none of your sources are acceptable as they are all website homepages; these are pretty much useless as citations because they aren't about the subject itself and/or do not say anything substantial about the subject - and that's before factoring in that the cites are all to firms aligned with the NICC and would be useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it regardless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dpboi (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Dhyantism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there a way that I can make it approved?

Dpboi (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dpboi: no; Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leimalian (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Subjugation Operation in Southern Korea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I politely request more specific review about problems this draft has. I think I have included plenty of reliable sources, but submission has been declined twice for non-reliable sources.

'Encyclopedia of korean culture' is written by The Academy of Korean Studies, which is one of the main academic institutions about Korean Studies. Other articles that I have included are from Korean Independance History Research Institute(한국독립운동사연구소) and Korean Genocide Reasearch Institute(한국제노사이드연구회). The former is reasearch centre sponcered by Independence Hall of Korea and the latter is acknowledged for the studies about massacres occurred in Korea.

If there are another problems for this draft, please tell me to rectify it.

Yours sincerely,

Leimalian Leimalian (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply maybe find more sources; just that you have existing reliable sources does not mean it is not a good idea to find more. Also improve the citations to show which website they are from. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leimalian The first reference you quote in your request is the first reference I sought to validate. I have commented upon the draft. Do not simply seek "more"sources. Seek better sources please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lifeintheslowlane (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:+ där skogen sjunger under evighetens granar + ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article keeps being rejected by mods citing upcoming music albums aren't notable enough to have an article, and that we must wait till the album is released to make an article of it noteworthy. However, there are numerous upcoming music albums yet to be released which already have published articles. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Western_Road_(album) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Dynasty , even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembering_Now which has a release date of June 13th, 2025 Lifeintheslowlane (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lifeintheslowlane Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Concentrate on passimg WP:NMUSIC please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeintheslowlane Feel free to nominate any article which fails to pass notability criteria for deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dpboi (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Dhyantism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand how this is inappropriate. I understand this may be a little silly but I am not forcing anyone to read it. It is just a fun little thing I came up with. Could you please tell me what I could change to get it as a official article.

Dpboi (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dpboi: if you don't understand why it's inappropriate, then you're probably in the wrong place. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. At what point did you think this was a viable encyclopaedia article? You're free to post it on any blogging or social media etc. site you wish, just not here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CaiChickenPie (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Simple Simon (Social Media Personality) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the thing is not much is known about him, this is everything public about him, if its sources i need then i can add them but really this is the most information in the article i can put. CaiChickenPie (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are a must, especially for an an article about a living person. When someone says "there is not much known about him" that almost certainly means that they do not meet our definition of a notable person and an article is not possible at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaiChickenPie: I can't help wondering where you got this information from, given that your draft cites precisely nil sources? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Straight from the person and his fans, judging by this edit summary. CaiChickenPie has declared a conflict of interest, though not the exact nature of that COI. --bonadea contributions talk 15:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as it's a WP:RS... DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/18883683/simple-simon-tiktok-age/

https://www.crowboroughathletic.com/news/see-joint-first-team-manager-simon-colbran-on-tv-next-week-1112638.html

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/sport/football/new-langney-wanderers-manager-simon-colbran-not-a-miracle-worker-938152

yeah sorry i will add it in CaiChickenPie (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaiChickenPie WP:ROTM social media personality. No notability. The football element is very low level teams as far as I can see. This has almost certainly come to the end of the road, and is likest to face rejection, which is a final review verdict 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashterkaye (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Dawn Dawson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to ask if a deleted article can be reinstated or whether a fresh submission must be made. I noted that some of the old links are dead and have fresh ones to add, along with amending the contents. Thank you!

Ashterkaye (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ashterkaye. A deleted article or draft can sometimes be recovered via WP:REFUND. Check that page for the criteria.

Alternatively, feel free to make a draft article via Wikipedia:Article wizard and then more experienced editors can review it and see if it's acceptable for Wikipedia. This is especially recommended if the article was deleted after consensus. qcne (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Langsters (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mark Pannes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my first article, and the first of several bios I want to make or shore up regarding front office sports execs, who as a group have a lack of coverage in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure what to do because this draft subject apparently doesn't meet notability requirements, even through significant coverage in published, reliable, independent secondary sources. It has 30 sources, many of which are from major, reputable publications like The Athletic (an NYT sports journal), Sports Business Journal, The New York Times, the Austin Chronicle, etc. The articles show significant coverage -- most of them are explicitly about the subject -- and there's enough of them that it should prove notability.

When I look to other bio articles for guidance, I just get more confused. Like that of Leon Rose on here (a page I want to build out), has sources of equal caliber, but far fewer and from a smaller selection of outlets. I'd appreciate any help I could get. Thanks! Langsters (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]