Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

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

Hi, I just wanted to confirm I have re-submitted correctly. Thank you! Colin NewMediaColin (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button on the screen, in the review box on the draft. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2405:201:681B:A019:DD21:EE7A:D30E:2931 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Kavayitri tusha sharma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why that page reject what happend 2405:201:681B:A019:DD21:EE7A:D30E:2931 (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected as it is insufficiently referenced with no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bhaskar sunsari (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Kushwaha community of nepal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

sir/mam plesae accept it it is for the kuswaha people of nepal not india please Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for a group of people to cross international borders(Kurds, for example). I suggest that you do as suggested and expand the existing article- once you do, you can then make a case for splitting it off and see if other editors agree. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 102.89.68.230 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Steve The Producer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i want to have it to make my panel standard 102.89.68.230 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was zero indication that Draft:Steve The Producer was in any way notable so it was rejected. I have no idea what your "panel standard" is I'm afraid, but Wikipedia cannot help you with this. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dipeshflorence (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Dipesh Pradhan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why my artical is rejected Dipeshflorence (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not the place for you to post your résumé, curriculum vitae, or similar material. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 105.112.179.240 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Big Whale ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please I will like this my artist biography to be on Wikipedia, truth be told, he has a good talent and needs your help in making sure people also recognizes him. 105.112.179.240 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia is not a platform where talented new artists can become more well-known. Unless a singer meets these criteria and/or these criteria, there can't be an article about them. It looks like there are no reliable, independent, secondary sources talking about Big Whale at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also have no interest in helping people to recognize him. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CSharpStudentToo (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Jyrki "Spider" Hämäläinen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I amend the article and re-submit it? CSharpStudentToo (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CSharpStudentToo: you cannot, because this draft has been rejected; that is the end of the road. If you have evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may appeal directly to the last (rejecting) reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 105.112.192.237 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Big Whale ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My artist biography I wrote was rejected, please help me write it well so it can pass Wikipedia guideline. 105.112.192.237 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the subject is notable. The draft has therefore been rejected, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see this was the second time you're asking the same question. Please don't open a new thread each time, just add to the existing one (assuming you actually need to ask a question; repeating what you've already asked seems pointless). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am curious as to why Harry Fair is not worthy of Wikipedia. He is responsible for the merger of Holt and Best into what we now call Caterpillar. One hundred years later, his idea still stands as the industry leader. As an employee, I appreciate his contribution and want to share his story. Note I received no compensation for this. Catmantwo (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You stated your source is "Content secured through Caterpillar annual reports and other company literature. Content verified by Caterpillar Corporate Archives." This is unacceptable. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. He may be notable, but the company archives is not an acceptable source.

If you are a company employee, you are a paid editor, it does not require specific payment for contributing. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Catmantwo. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JacA12 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Guido Ascari ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good evening, I would like to ask why the sources are considered not to be on par with the Wikipedia standard. Since the rejection I have added some new sources, would these be considered as useful? It seems to me that the subject satisfies the criteria for a Wikipedia article, he is even cited in an already existing page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_contract_(economics)). Thank you in advance for your help. JacA12 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 23.240.101.98 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:M. Narayan Moorthy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am sorry but I do not understand why Justice Moorthy does not qualify. By virtue of his position alone he would seem to meet notability guidelines, but he is also mentioned significantly, not just in passing, in several primary and secondary sources. These are mostly offline, would appreciate any help in making them available. Randor Guy book and Madras High Court documents accessible by database only are examples. 23.240.101.98 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are publicly available(like in a library) and you can provide enough information for someone to locate the information you are citing(publication date, author, page numbers, etc.) I believe Referencing for Beginners provides some information on this. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Global Music Historian (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:The World Album - International Artists Project ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I've been editing the draft & cannot seem to figure out what exactly seems as a non-neutral tone, as everything is factual & backed up with multiple citations regarding The World Album - International Artists Project. What specifically needs to be changed or added? Thank you! The Global Music Historian (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "ensuring a genuine representation of each nation’s culture," and "adding even more variety and creativity to the album" are quite non-neutral. The citations are also quite a mess in the current state, with them just thrown in a pile at the end rather than in-line to support specific factual claims. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I have removed the phrases you mentioned, as well as cleaned up the references! Just resubmitted! Much appreciated!! The Global Music Historian (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexnewmon2623 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mohegan Congregational Church ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I was Checking if I could receive any feedback on this page. Thank you! Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Draft:Mohegan Congregational Church. Apologies. Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the red link outright. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bmpwoan58 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Andrew Drummond (journalist) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the feedback. From my understanding the Guardian and Nation (among others) are indeed notable sources, and these articles were not written by Andrew but rather about him. Bmpwoan58 (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award or Pulitzer Prize). 331dot (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jitheshcr7 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Prajyoti Niketan College ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added relevant source which are mainstream and independent news media. However seems my efforts are not recognized. I could see many wikipedia articles about colleges nearby without any citations and references. Could you please let me know how they got approved without mainstream and independent references ? Jitheshcr7 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jitheshcr7 Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer.

That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. This process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and it is usually voluntary and not required of all users- so there are many ways inappropriate content can exist; we cannot only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken and others don't do what you did and use them as a model. We need the help, and we are only as good as the people who choose to help us.

Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, for these reasons. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. Your draft has been rejected, however, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sfrago79 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Integrative agriculture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

rejection article (Integrative Agriculture) I wrote a wiki article on Integrative Agriculture and it was rejected because "the subject exists". However, searching at this topic i did not find anything about it or about the term. Sfrago79 (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sfrago79 I fixed your header- you had other text where only the title of the draft should go.

You have two separate drafts, perhaps inadvertently from your comment; Draft:Integrative agriculture and Draft:Agriculture. You seem to be talking about the Agriculture draft (which was declined) and not the integrative agriculture draft, which has not been submitted. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! what should i do now ? should i resubmit ? Sfrago79 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could submit the draft you intended to submit, but it's not referenced very well; references need to be in line next to the text they support, see Referencing for beginners. It also reads like an essay and not an encyclopedia article- more prose, fewer bullet point lists. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JacA12 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Guido Ascari ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good evening, I would like to ask why the sources are considered not to be on par with the Wikipedia standard. Since the rejection I have added some new sources, would these be considered as useful? It seems to me that the subject satisfies the criteria for a Wikipedia article, he is even cited in an already existing page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_contract_(economics) , source refernce 12). Thank you in advance for your help. JacA12 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacA12: Being cited in a Wikipedia article does not impact whether or not a subject is notable (and such an argument would fly in the face of WP:CIRCULAR). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i understand that, and that is why it is not included in the sources section. the subject has though published also articles on newspapers and has been cited by newspapers, which are the new sources that i have added JacA12 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Iadmc (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Restream ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am much more a classical music editor. This tech stuff is new to me. I see it has been rejected previously for lack of sources. I have removed everything unsourced and cleaned up the language. Are the sources acceptable? It is now very short also! Thank you very much! — Iadmc♫^talk  16:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last part sounds kinda advertisement like Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check — Iadmc♫^talk  19:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last part but left the sources in. Might be useful. In future. — Iadmc♫^talk  22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JohnJonesSOP (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Surge of Power: Revenge of the Sequel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2 Editor's comments re: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources...." and "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."

Information references about these comments is akin to drinking from a fire hose. I don't understand. JohnJonesSOP (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no independent reliable sources in the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JohnJonesSOP. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Manvi1820 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Dresden Leipzig railway station ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, i published a draft Dresden Liepzig Railway station without edit summary. What can i do to add the edit summary as its a translation of german wikipedia. Manvi1820 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a dummy edit with an edit summary saying something along the lines of Content in the previous edit was translated from the existing article in German at [[de:Original article name]], see its history for attribution. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the url from the header, which breaks the formatting. The link will work now. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gautams742 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:FITTR ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission got rejected, I have now, fixed links, please talk to me if you are rejecting, as now I have done my best and it shouldn't get rejected. Someone please help in getting my page accepted Gautams742 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted again with right links, please approve it. I would ready grateful for the help. Gautams742 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must answer the questions on your user talk page about your connection to the company. The draft still has no independent, secondary, reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied, I am not aware of UI, hence took me time but I have replied to 2 comments and have clarified I am not getting paid, I have changed links and content also. Now it should get accepted. Pease help me with that. Gautams742 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gautams742: this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road. And as Bonadea says, the sources still don't come even close to establishing notability, so there is no way this could be accepted.

Please don't mess with the AfC templates in the draft, they must remain there, as clearly noted in the source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the draft and added back the "AfC templates" in the draft. Please let me know what else is required. All new sources have made it more credible, have removed few links which either not from recognised platform or there was URl mistake. Gautams742 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the templates have been added back, although not by you.

Once more: the sources cited do not establish notability, therefore this is the end of the line. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whats next? What do I do now with this rejected article? I have 6-7 articles from notable sources, which are national & internationally used.

Please dont say that its the end of the line, there must be something that can be done to make it possible to publish. Gautams742 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the end of the line, sorry. Please use this as a learning experience and move on to something else. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gautams742, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I relaised my mistaken and have fixed it, should be fine now please help in getting it approved. Gautams742 (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated garbage is unlikely to be accepted ever. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not AI generated, thanks for not reading and just replying whatever you feel like. Gautams742 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As below I used GPTZero to inform my reply. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess you and GPTZero will just have to agree to differ. ("We are highly confident this text was AI generated. Probability breakdown: 100% AI generated") -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well AI cant be trusted, as you guys are hellbent on as per previous reply. When I used AI, to show what I have written it also said it will 100% not. get rejected.

But none of you editors - can say that links are not notable- open links to verify them, otherwise its just an lie.

I have said this in above messages also that link are all genuine and correct, still you guys are not ready to accept it, I have checked guideline of reliable notability sources and it is within guideline.

You all are rejecting basis old reviews, not what I have submitted today. There is no partiality nor false links. Gautams742 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the stick already. Since you say you have no special interest in this subject, and have been told by multiple reviewers that it isn't notable, just forget it and move on to something else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have very specific & special interest in rejection of article, while meeting the notable criteria met, while not advertising the topic.

Also none of questions are being answered. All links are verified sources.

Adding all here again-

Rebranding Announcement

https://bestmediainfo.com/2020/01/online-fitness-company-squats-rebrands-itself-as-fittr/

Details FITTR's rebrand from SQUATS (2020)

Growth & Revenue

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-fittr-cracked-fitness-code-and-grew-rs-100-crore-business-118686

Covers user growth to 3M and ₹100 crore revenue

Community Model

https://startuptalky.com/fittr-success-story/

Explains FITTR's community-driven approach

Coaching Services

https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/entrepreneurs/this-online-fitness-startup-is-community-first/388766

Describes FITTR's coaching features

Series A Funding

https://inc42.com/buzz/fitness-startup-fittr-raises-11-5-mn-in-series-a-to-fuel-international-expansion/

Confirms $11.5M investment (2021)

Seed Funding

https://www.techcircle.in/2020/04/28/sequoia-surge-leads-2-million-funding-round-in-fittr

Documents $2M raise (2020)

Wearable Launch

https://zeenews.india.com/technology/fittr-hart-smart-ring-launched-in-india-at-rs-18999-after-samsungs-galaxy-ring-checkfeatures-2725728.html

Announces FITTR Hart Smart Ring (2024)

Rainmatter Investment

https://inc42.com/buzz/fittr-raises-3-5-mn-from-zerodhas-rainmatter-to-scale-up-its-fitness-playbook/

Details $3.5M funding (2024)

Tell me which one of these is fake? try googling too. All claims are supported by multiple independent secondary sources.

My only problem is that why wikipedia is not accepting notable sources and no one has clear answer. I want to move on to new topic but cant because of this problem. Gautams742 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my last reply is upto the standard & answers your question. Gautams742 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gautams742 A brief skim of your putative sources reveals churnalism of PR pieces, announcement by the organisation, etc. etc. These are not acceptable except in very limited circumstances. You appear to be unable to hear the advice you have been given, or are, perhaps unwilling to listen.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You all are rejecting basis old reviews, not what I have submitted today. Incorrect, I have checked all the sources you added to the draft today. Sources must be reliable and independent and secondary and (collectively) provide significant coverage of the company in order to show notability. As I said above none of the sources meets all those requirements – they are all non-independent and most or all are primary.

It is also relevant to note that Fittr (app) was deleted a couple of years ago after this community discussion which concluded that the sources in that article were not reliable and independent and secondary and (collectively) providing significant coverage of the company. --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bhaskar sunsari (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Kushwaha community of nepal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

edit request for kushwaha community is not accepted yet and you guys are declining my article accepting my article wont harm any one in wikipidea Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhaskar sunsari: you need to stop tendentiously submitting drafts, and creating new ones under different titles.

Your edit request at Talk:Kushwaha wasn't an edit request, it was yet another copy of your draft content, a massive 30k byte addition. This has been reverted.

You need to slow down, and calm down, or you'll get yourself into trouble. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing They have achieved a two week block for this behaviour. This surprises me after their statement that they were leaving Wikipedia. I find the behaviour very disappointing. They seem yo have a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, unfortunately. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TuisVV (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sunbet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi please help. What can i fix on my article to get it approaved TuisVV (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TuisVV You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this.

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see paid editing and conflicy of interest.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You haven't done that- and will basically need to blank the draft and start fresh, only summarizing independent sources with signifcant coverage- coverage beyond brief mentions, interviews, company materials, or the mere annoucements of activites- coverage that goes into detail as to what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the company(not what the company sees as important about itself). 331dot (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand that Wikipedia articles must rely on significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish notability, and that any affiliation or paid editing must be transparently disclosed. Given that my previous draft leaned too heavily on company materials and didn’t adequately incorporate independent analysis, I will revise the entry.

To comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, the new version will focus on summarizing what independent reliable sources say about Sunbet. I appreciate the guidance and will work to develop a revised draft that meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and notability based on independent coverage. TuisVV (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @TuisVV. Please do not use AI again to generate either your draft or your replies here. We want to see what you say, not what some AI says. ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TuisVV: this is you telling the world about your employer. We have no interest in that. We want to see what completely unrelated third parties, specifically independent and reliable secondary sources, have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise their coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefanstartme (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Start.me ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has been declined again because of the quality of sources. However, since my last submission, I've added several new sources including links to an acadamic journal and the New York Times.

- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/technology/personaltech/finding-a-personal-web-portal.html - Block, Ludo (2021). OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE NAVIGATOR FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS (PDF). pp. 17–18. - Penfold, Rob (April 2023). "Browser Extensions For The Stretched Health Librarian". Journal of Health Information and Libraries Australasia. 4 (1). Australian Library and Information Association: 32. doi:10.55999/johila.v4i1.143.

What to do next? Any help would be very much appreciated! Stefanstartme (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is less interested in the features of your company's program and more interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. The Features section is unsourced and really should just be removed unless independent sources discuss the features. The reviews section is very brief and only gives a little detail. You say it's "widely used" but don't tell anything about the significance of this. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Viljowf (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Furhat Robotics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to understand better what the remaining issues are in terms of promotional content and tone, so that I can make the necessary adjustments. However, the editor did not leave any specific comments for me to address. Would appreciate help and advice. Viljowf (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection with this company?

You have summarized the routine activities and offerings of the company; this does not establish that the company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2003:CD:E72A:8400:64B0:AB3E:6E8C:E2D (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Waste to Liquid (WtL): Katalytische Produktion von synthetischem Kraftstoff aus gesättigten, reinen Kohlenwasserstoffen, gewonnen aus Biomasse- oder Kunststoffabfällen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kommentar: Gemäß der Wikipedia -Richtlinie zu Interessenkonflikten gebe ich bekannt, dass ich in Bezug auf das Thema dieses Artikels einen Interessenkonflikt habe. ActiveEnergymanager ( Diskussion ) 18:24, 27. März 2025 (UTC) Worin besteht der im Kommentar genannte "Interessenkonflikt" Im Artikel wird ein 20 Jahre altes Verfahren zur katalytischen Umwandlung von Bio- und Kunststoffabfällen beschrieben und mit Einzelnachweisen belegt. Bitte um Erläuterung. Vielen Dank! 2003:CD:E72A:8400:64B0:AB3E:6E8C:E2D (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auf englisch, bitte. Your draft is in German, for which reason I have declined it. This is the English-language Wikipedia. If you wish to submit content in German, you should head to https://de.wikipedia.org instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 184.190.130.104 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Not adequately supported by reliable sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission is an article about my own theory about the fabric of space, using known cited theories as a baseline. Are my ideas not credible because they are contrary to standard beliefs? 184.190.130.104 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't it. The problem is that it's an original theory, and as we are an encyclopaedia we have absolutely no use for such. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ratychop77 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Association of Professional Social Workers and Development Practitioners (APSWDP) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this article written on APSWDP has used more than 15 sources where neutral information has been written by third party author or writer then why this is not considered as neutral toned rather an advertisement Ratychop77 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratychop77: Because "This reads like an advertizement" has practically nothing to do with the cited sources. It's a criticism of how the article proper is written. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the only thing that I re write my article in neutral tone keeping my sources intact and mentioning citations as it it is

Please suggest Ratychop77 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would need to rewrite it - and please write it yourself: don't use AI again.

Remember that citations aren't just a nice-to-have: they are in every sense the basis of the article. There should be no information whatever in an article, that cannot be found in a reliable published sources - and almost all of the information should be in sources wholly unconnected with the subject.

To take one example: you have a paragraph about what APSWDP did for Kashmiri migrants. But the source you cite says only that the convener of APSWDP was one of those who collaborated with ALSA on that project. All the detail about what APSWDP did in that activity is unsourced, and should not be in the article (unless you can find an independent source for it). I'm not saying that it is untrue; but without a source it should not be in the article, and reads as promotional puff.

The way to do this is to start again, forget every single thing you know about APSWDP, and write a summary of what the reliable independent sources say about it - nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Broadwaybaby1 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Christmas in Connecticut (musical) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft page was not accepted, but stage adaptations of notable films with similar information and sources provided have been accepted, for instance, Summer Stock (musical). How can I improve my submission so it is accepted and clearly falls within notability guidelines? Broadwaybaby1 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadwaybaby1 Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you would like to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles.

You have done little more than document performances of the musical. To demonstrate notability, you need to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, such as sources that describe the development of it, or professional reviews of it. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article you mention is indeed problematic, and I've marked it as such. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recommendation, I will add more independent sources describing the development and reviews. Broadwaybaby1 (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohmch (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Kesari Veer: Legends of Somnath ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Keeps getting declined, all information is presented from a neutral point of view and is stuck to the facts as represented publicly. The latest comment i received was "constant socking" which gives zero information as to why this page has been declined. Assistance is appreciated, thank you. Ohmch (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Most unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see WP:NFF. Socking refers to the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. See sock puppetry. If more than one person is doing the same thing, it's called meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many unreleased films have been given their own articles, for example, Raid 2, Housefull 5, Kuberaa, these are just to list a few. Ohmch (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohmch Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nbdy 010111 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:ALI.XO .V ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

its a biography about myself Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to have a biography like The Weeknd. Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit and publish it according to your own rules? Help edit it? Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nbdy 010111 No. Just no. No.

I want to have a biography - then become notable in other people's eyes. Until that day, no. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025sapphire (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Larsen Jewellery ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've recently submitted an article, and it has been flagged as "too promotional and advertisemen,t" and I would just like clarification on what exactly needs to be changed or if I've set it up wrong on my end. It's the first time I am writing an article, so any assistance would be great! 2025sapphire (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note it was declined within 2 minutes of submitting it, so I'm not even sure if that was enough time to read it? Have I set it all up wrong? 2025sapphire (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"with stated commitments to ethical sourcing and craftsmanship" is kind of a giveaway, 2025sapphire. Plus we'd need to see some decent published sources, not overly friendly websites. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @2025sapphire. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FieryAzra11 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sachin Ashok: Upcoming Cricket Star in the USA ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know why or how it even got declined. It was perfect and spotless man. FieryAzra11 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FieryAzra11, the title doesn't even meet our guidelines, let alone that awful blatantly promotional content without a single secondary source. Also, it contains the word "journey", which is always a red flag. And he's 14. Really, you should know better. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Queeribbean (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mohamed Q. Amin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I'm requesting support for the article for Mohamed Q. Amin. Can you provide feedback on what needs to be changed? Queeribbean (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Queeribbean, start by removing all those inline URLs and replacing them with proper footnotes; see WP:CITE. Until that happens it just looks like a resume. Besides that, I'd try to write some neutral prose, leaving out the word "journey" and taking a cue from other biographical articles. As the reviewer, Sophisticatedevening, said, "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 210.50.85.201 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Zeneisho ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rejection is the opinion of one person, to be respected, but cannot be final. For 'Zeneisho' is an integral part of the large Japanese annual 'Mainichi Shodo ( Calligraphy ) Exhibition and the 7th division entitled Zeneisho/Avant Garde Calligraphy. It's history can be traced back to the work of Hidai Tenrai ( 1872-1939 ) and is currently detailed in the extensive Wikipedia article 'Bokujinkai' ( Collective ) which refers to 'Keiseikai' and the works of Sosai Inada. Equally important is the very nature of Zeneisho, for it is part of the shifting boundary of all contemporary art worldwide. Art is not just different. Without words it explores and expresses the nature of our very existence, the world of the heart and soul. There were 5 particularly relevant quotes that were omitted from the submission for the sake of brevity:

'Shatter the paper with the brush...' 'Hagakure' ( Samurai classic )

'Hirayama Shiryu would let out a terrific shout just before picking up the brush and spraying the room with ink...' 1789 - 1828

'Years of experience and training are consumed in each stroke of the brush' means that the artist writes each line as if he or she is facing the last moments of life - one's spirit is etched into the paper. Most modern calligraphy lacks that quality and tells nothing about human existence.' Anon

'Calligraphy has never been valued purely for technical beauty or artistic composition in the Far East. None of the most famous calligraphers in China, Korea and Japan were professionals - they were philosophers, priests, monks, nuns, scholars, statesmen, poets, warriors and the like. What is the reason for this? Someone who is primarily concerned with making a beautiful thing for money or reputation is not projecting his spirit into the work and it will be lifeless.' Anon

210.50.85.201 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• OK--from another person then: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It doesn't even look like an encyclopedic article. Please click "Random article", in the left column, to see what an actual Wikipedia article, good or bad, looks like. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several independent, reliably published sources have said about a subject, and very little else. Original research is never acceptable. ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To pile on to what everyone is saying, this is a topic that, by its very nature, wouldn't be eligible for a Wikipedia article if we take this draft at face value. If nothing is documented, then there is nothing that can be summarised, and thus there would be no way for an encyclopaedia to write about it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Madhav Immigration (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Hotel Management Education ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What changes are required in my article Madhav Immigration (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Madhav Immigration: to be completely honest, I don't think this will be an acceptable draft, it's not written as an encyclopaedia article. I'm also not convinced that we should have an article comparing and contrasting Indian vs. int'l hotel management education. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we don't accept text written by an LLM. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ishan.dahal.735 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sunsaan Raatma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the submission for the creation of the page (Sunsaan Raatma) has been declined with the reason (references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage). I am in need of assistance to get this article published in Wikipedia and what further steps can I take for that. Here are some details about the rejection and significance of this article.

The problem with finding more source of information are: -

- Nepali music does not have charts dating back to 1985, to prove its success or significance.

- The Nepali music of those times often went undocumented in any forms other than the album or the music itself.

- The album existed in cassette form and was extremely rare to find for more than 2 decades, as Nepal begun to digitalize, and was recovered by public only in 2023, when it was uploaded on Youtube and Spotify.

- Generally, the music of Nepal are still not written about, or even when they are seldom written about, the newspapers or magazines often do not have accessible archives to find these articles.

Why is this album significant to exist in Wikipedia : -

- This is an historic album in Nepali music history as it was the first album to feature original and distinctively Nepali music that defined the sound of Nepali music to be released after 1985.

- The album in itself is very rare, iconic, and historically significant so that it needs to be documented for the people who want to find information on this album.

- The references include the source for all the information in article except for track list, which can be found on Spotify or you tube, which I was informed are not reliable citations.

- It is the root of Nepali pop genre, with contribution of notable Nepali artists Sunil Parajuli, Kishor Gurung, Vijaya Lama.

- A single article with as much detail as this page does not exist elsewhere, as the information are scattered.

- With the resurfacing of this album digitally after decades, it is necessary to document it this time.

- Hopefully, further edits will be done to this page with even more information by the people who have them, as this article will act as a foundation that did not exist before.

I am open to any suggestion on the improvement of this article and will tirelessly edit it , respecting and following Wikipedia's policy. But I really hope that this article gets published as it is a rare and an important piece of Nepali art and music history which needs to be conserved. Ishan.dahal.735 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ishan.dahal.735: fundamentally, Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published. From this it follows that if such sources don't exist, they cannot be summarised, and no Wikipedia article can be based on them.

Additionally, this draft reads, at least in part, like original research. If you cited the few sources that there are against the information each has provided, that would go some way towards remedying this problem. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, will make change accordingly and resubmit. Ishan.dahal.735 (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I submitted the article for pubblication following the request of SuperSpritz in english. I don't understand why the article has been declined FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FrasalvaGmg: the draft is completely unreferenced, with nothing to indicate that the subject is notable.

Can you please elaborate on "I submitted the article for pubblication following the request of SuperSpritz in english", I don't understand what that means? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hI SuperSpritz

This is the user sandbox of FrasalvaGmg. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

This draft has been submitted and is currently awaiting review.

if it doesn't contain the reference it is because I didn't see how to do it. I try again if I can change the draft FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 49.43.129.232 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Hotel Management Education: A Comparative Analysis of Indian and International Approaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why my article is deleted?

49.43.129.232 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous advertising or promotion 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

my draft has beeen declines because unreferenced as SuperSpritz said; I don't understand. I tried to follow every request of title, website, etc. please help me, I'm not expert. thanks FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FrasalvaGmg: please don't open a new thread with each comment.

And who or what is SuperSpritz?? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry SuperSpritz was sending me a message to the italian version : it.wikipedia.org

I was wrong, Paul Gascoigne is the tutor at the italian version not SuperSpritz.

I didn't know about new threads, sorry FrasalvaGmg (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 77.85.10.127 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Gabriela Sashova and Krasimir Georgiev case ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently tried to created a new wikipedia page regarding a criminal case in Bulgaria but was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriela_Sashova_and_Krasimir_Georgiev_case

This is a very famous case in the country with national media coverage, followed by massive protests.

Can you give me some info as to why the draft was rejected and what can I do in order to fix it?

Kind regards, 77.85.10.127 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.

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.

You have documented the case, but not described what reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about this criminal case. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Odin1974 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Pieter Nel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just spent 2 weeks writing my first article, reading everything I could so I would comply to all WP guidelines on notability, reliable secondary sources, and then it just gets blocked because it's "clear UPE". I mean how do I disprove that? I'm a pilot in South Africa, I don't know the subject, but his story is compelling as the first South African circumnavigator and I researched him quite a bit to write this. Seems I just wasted two weeks of my life. Odin1974 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Odin1974: if you wish to appeal the rejection, you should do so in the first instance by approaching the rejecting reviewer directly.

You say you don't know this person, yet you've obtained the photograph from him? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'm learning here. (He's a public figure - his email is available on his website, as is this photo - so I merely did the right thing and asked over email if I could use it, to which he agreed. And I just this week read an article about how amateur photographers are fixing the poor profile photos on Wikipedia precisely because copyright prevents good ones so often). It just seems super unwelcoming if someone spends so much time trying to learn and to things precisely as required - and then apparently its "too good a job". Odin1974 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't understand and need advice - if you do a terrible job writing a poor article and ignoring all WP guidelines, obviously it shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. If you do too good a job - it looks like "its paid for / UPE", and it gets rejected. So is the answer to be just the right level of mediocre then? Sorry, I really am perplexed here. Odin1974 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand we see many good attempts to get paid editing past us. If all you did was ask him for a photo, there's no issue there.

Note that you may need to go to Commons and provide the release from him, or show that where the image is visible that the copyright was released. It may not be his to release, depending on the circumstances. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, it was a good attempt except the user may have forgotten we have records of previous attempts which clearly indicate (based on my experience dealing with UPE, Socks, and Meat) undisclosed paid editing. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fascinating. No idea what the previous removal is about? I DID just read Wikipedia:Death of undisclosed paid editing and my draft might embarrassingly look like this. I was copying a lot of Robert DeLaurentis (aviator) - also a solo circumnavigator and entrepreneur as a template and trying to improve with better style, but now yes, it does look like UPE. Damn. I may have taken style queues from the wrong people. Odin1974 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yerotsydnew (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Heath Kane ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am sure this artist is notable enough for a page. Can anyone give me any advice on improving it ? The submission was declined recently with this notice:

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

I'm wondering if I should remove the all content that doesn't have secondary sources? Would appreciate any advice Yerotsydnew (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerotsydnew: you need to either cite sources that satisfy the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NARTIST notability guideline.

For verification purposes, not everything needs to be supported by secondary sources, but everything does need to be clearly and comprehensively supported, and specifically supported by reliable ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Samuel E. Underscore (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • More Echoes, Touching Air Landscape ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So, my article draft has been rejected. The reason for this seems to primarily be that- well, I'll just paste in what Mr. Bobby Cohn said:

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

Quite simply I was wondering what I could do to make this page possible, as it's a pretty obscure album by a quite important artist, and I think proper documentation for it here would be a great thing. After all, the artist has a long discography and moving through releases via the chronology on their albums can be incredibly confusing and frustrating due to the amount of black text where ideally there would be links leading to the next album.

Samuel E. Underscore (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel E. Underscore: you need to either cite sources that satisfy the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NALBUM notability guideline. And you need to support the draft with reliable sources, which neither Discogs nor Bandcamp is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, my article for Aviteur has been declined for reasons I don't fully understand. The sources are in-depth, reliable, independent, and secondary (FT, New York Times, Daily Telegraph, Marie Claire, Square Mile, etc...) Could you please assist with advice on how to comply for approval? Thank you, Gregory

Gregoryjlee (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gregoryjlee. They are not secondary - at least the ones I've looked at aren't. They are based on interviews, and so are 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 exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1967user (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Akira Sawa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft article on Akira Sawa has been repeatedly rejected due to notability concerns, and in March, a "Stop" decision was issued with the reason: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

I understand that a "Stop" decision typically means that further edits cannot be made. However, I still believe that Akira Sawa meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria and would like to explore ways to improve the article in the future. He is a highly esteemed psychiatrist and neuroscientist with an h-index close to 100 and is a fellow of organizations such as AAAS. Additionally, several researchers he has mentored have Wikipedia pages, suggesting his significant influence in the field.

One possible reason for the notability concerns may be that Dr. Sawa follows a policy of not disclosing certain academic metrics, such as citation counts on Google Scholar, due to external factors unrelated to academia. This has been confirmed by individuals who have interviewed him.

I would appreciate guidance on whether there are ways to revisit this topic in the future and what specific aspects of notability are currently considered insufficient. Understanding these points would help in gathering appropriate sources and improving the draft if an opportunity arises. 1967user (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1967user: His habit of not disclosing certain academic metrics makes it that much harder to have an article on him, since WP:NACADEMIC largely relies on those (and those who would meet NACADEMIC generally can't meet general eligibility requirements for want of sourcing). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1967user: there may be sufficient claims of notability, but they are not properly evidenced. Eg. the 2nd para of the 'Biography' section says that Sawa has all sorts of fellowships, but most of the claims are unreferenced, and the few citations there are only point to website home pages and similar, not to actual URLs which would corroborate these statements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Zabeer & Zawad (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mohammad Matin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pls assist to edit biography. Not sure the reason for declining this article. Zabeer & Zawad (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zabeer & Zawad: Few things:

1. We don't allow usernames which imply shared use. Please rename at your earliest convenience.
2. You cannot just slap all your sources at the end of the article; they need to be cited in-line.
3. Anything a subject writes doesn't help for eligibility for an article due to being written by the subject.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanabriap (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Contrataciones abiertas, incluyentes y sustentables ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I switch this page to Spanish Sanabriap (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can head to the Spanish Wikipedia and type in Usuario:Sanabriap/Contrataciones abiertas, incluyentes y sustentables and click on the red link to create a userspace draft, or create it directly in the mainspace by typing Contrataciones abiertas, incluyentes y sustentables and clicking on the red link. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sa2840 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Brianna Wiest ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance in reviewing this article for publication on Wikipedia. Recently, I received notice that, “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.” However, I believe that this subject does qualify for a Wikipedia article. Brianna Wiest (the subject of the article) is a notable topic and has “gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time.” Wiest is a global bestseller, appearing on the Today Show, an Amazon #1 best seller, has sold over a million copies of her books, and her books are translated in over 40+ languages across the world. In the Wikipedia article I submitted for publication, I included and linked to evidence from reliable and independent sources. These sources show that Brianna Wiest qualifies for a stand-alone article as she has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent. Sa2840 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how she meets the definition of a notable creative professional. Being a best selller on Amazon isn't part of the criteria, partially because anyone can sell pretty much anything on Amazon. Interviews do not contribute to notability as by definition an interview is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnny Square one (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Square One Insurance Services ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JlwoodwaI appreciate the time taken to review my draft article on Square One Insurance Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Square_One_Insurance_Services). I understand that it was declined due to concerns about the references not demonstrating notability.

I want to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards, so I’d like to clarify a few points: Could you specify which references were considered insufficient, and what kind of sources would be more appropriate?

Given that I have disclosed my affiliation with Square One on my user page, are there any additional conflict-of-interest guidelines I should follow when improving the draft?

I want to ensure the article is neutral, verifiable, and meets Wikipedia’s guidelines before resubmitting. Any guidance on how to strengthen the references and improve the article would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and feedback! Johnny Square one (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have done little more than state your company exists and tell where it offers its services. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes in depth and in detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. Appropriate sources cannot include brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, interviews, press releases, etc. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 210.50.85.201 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Zeneisho ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For me, the first contact, Wikipedia is a maze. But somehow I was able to submit a brief article on the subject of Zeneisho, a form of calligraphy which began in Japan and continues. The article was rejected to which I replied at greater length, my second submission which I cannot find and don't know what happened to it. Can you help? Graham James 210.50.85.201 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will point you to what I said above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rotchai zarnee (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Parami University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is it possible to resubmit my draft here? Rotchai zarnee (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This forum is not for submitting drafts. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 103.152.75.1 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:How To Survive Duolingo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because I wanted to know, but there was nothing to get the info from. 103.152.75.1 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept "how-to" guides. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we accept hoaxes. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Roysarajit (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Shukbr ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Shukbr ROY SARAJIT (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roysarajit: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Viljowf (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Furhat Robotics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've declared a COI, and there was an issue with an LLM-formatted source list (affecting the reference list only, the content is not AI-generated) - all corrected now. The editor is still rejecting my submission, although no specific issues are highlighted. The editor gave this feedback: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. The comment the reviewer left was: Declining due to WP:NPOV until the source list can be given greater scrunity, and asking the editor to respond to the concerns via the talk page to identify next steps for WP:FCOI.

When asking for clarification, I received the following reply: I am not claiming that the article is wrong in a specific way, my statement is that the article will need increased scrutiny for accuracy of content + references; I believe this recommendation to be in line with WP:LLM. Due to the FCOI this scrunity should probably should not come from you. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:LLM and it offers no clear guidelines on AfC submissions. All of the editors' prior concerns have been addressed and fixed. Please could you advise on next steps? Viljowf (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclusionwriter (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:FAIRER Consulting ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my draft submission was rejected due to it appearing more like an advertisement. Please could I have some clarification. Is the language itself too promotional? Does it need more third-party sources? Are there particular sections I need to remove in order for this to be approved? Thanks very much. Inclusionwriter (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionwriter I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion of the title.

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 told about the activities of your company and its personnel. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS, amd have your superiors read it, too. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CheeseACake (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Blix Tower ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

because on wikipedia, the building already exists as a tallest building in metropolitan bxl CheeseACake (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleted as a hoax. Knitsey (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bdzizzo (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Matrix Fitness ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there a necessity for everything to be coded properly before publishing? Bdzizzo (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bdzizzo You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking to your draft, I've fixed this for you.

I would worry less about the formatting and more about the fact that you have not established that this company is a notable company. You should also review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix Fitness to learn why past attempts to write about this company have not worked. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Navig2002 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Musicbed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi team, thank you for your reviewing my question here. I know a little bit about the stock music and royalty-free music industry and wanted to add more industry companies to the site. I saw that one company - Epidemic Sound - Epidemic Sound already had a page. So I decided to create a similar but richer profile for a competitor and I am planning to add more industry sites. Unfortunately, my first page is not accepted whatever I do - I rewrote several times, did more research, found more authentic information, but to no avail. I hope you can help me with more specific tips. Thank you! Navig2002 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navig2002 The whole url is not needed when linking; I've fixed this for you.

Companies do not "have pages" here that they own and control. Wikipedia has articles about topics including companies that meet the definition of a notable company. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company. You've done a nice job of summarizing what the company does, but not what sources say is important/significant/influential about the company. Notability is not inherited by association- that they possess music from notable performers or created a film about a notable topic does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for fixing my question and giving me more details about notability. This is appreciated! Navig2002 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarantulagirl (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sarah Jones Clarke ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first draft was rejected for not having enough references to justify it as a wikipedia article. I added some more but I'm not sure if it's enough or what else i can do to improve the article before re-submitting it. I was also thinking maybe it should just be a section on her (more notable) sister's page at Rebecca Sophia Clarke? not sure! any help is appreciated :) Tarantulagirl (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarantulagirl: Refs 1 and 2 appear to be the same source, and it seems to just be a brief mention of the subject. Ref 3 appears to be a self-published source, not a reliable one. Per WP:BIO we require subjects to have significant coverage in reliable, published sources. Please try to find sources that satisfy those criteria. Best, ~Liance^talk 22:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that makes sense, thank you. if i'm having difficulty finding enough reliable, significant coverage of her, would it make sense to add her to the sister's page instead since their careers are connected? and just abandon trying to give her her own page? Sorry, I'm a very new editor Tarantulagirl (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ogbajiekev (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Jerry Elo Ikogho ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help to make the article better Ogbajiekev (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide us with a link to the draft? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogbajiekev: @Thehistorianisaac: The draft was deleted as pure promotion. Ogbajiekev, since you are being paid to create this draft, the expectation is that you will make sure that you are familiar with basic policies and guidelines before you submit drafts for unpaid volunteers to review. Please read the information on your user talk page carefully, and follow the links in the notices. --bonadea contributions talk 05:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; thanks for telling me Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Elijah.Penunuri (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:This Moment (Mimi Webb song) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No fair! Elijah.Penunuri (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. It got rejected and will not be considered any further
2. No sources at all. the rejection was, very frankly, justified. You can't make an article on something you can't even prove exists. Additionally, even if it exists, you have failed to show that it is notable.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sudipmisraiitkgp (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sudip Misra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with the draft as to why it is rejected since there are independent sources mentioned also. Sudipmisraiitkgp (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Krista Grace (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:TargetNXT ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What kind of reliable sources I can add for verification, can i get any information particularly like newsletter or publication, Google Map location or any other sources.

Instead word of Reliable source suggest me with exact name Krista Grace (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krista Grace: The decline notices on your user talk page explain what is necessary, and they contain links to relevant and important policies including the reliable sources guideline as well as other equally important guidelines for sources. You are a (declared) paid editor, which means that there is an expectation that you will read up on what Wikipedia editing involves and what is required in an article, before you submit a draft for review by volunteers. That you ask questions is fine, of course, but if you take a bit of time to read the information that has already been provided to you, you will see why newsletters and Google maps are not reliable, independent, secondary sources (which, again, is what is required). --bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Imperialrajputra (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Battle of Duduli ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i work in this project but its not completed yet may be i Imperialrajputra (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 49.43.129.232 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Hotel Management Stusies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my article is getting declined again and again? 49.43.129.232 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The reviewers have left you reasons; do you have more specific questions about them? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am working on rewriting the draft we originally submitted. We now have a better understanding of the preferred use of external sources and the requirements for full disclosure. It would be very helpful to review the original draft text so we can assess the tone for neutrality and make necessary improvements. It appears the original submission was deleted, so I’m hoping it may still be recoverable or accessible. Thank you in advance for any assistance. Saasupdate (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saasupdate: the deleted draft was purely promotional, and would be of no use to you. We are not interested in what you want to tell the world about your business. We are almost exclusively interested in what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about your business and what makes it worthy of note. You first job is to find such sources, and to summarise their coverage, citing each source against the information it has provided. If you do what you appear to have done, namely write what you want, and then try to find sources (or not) to corroborate that, that's what we call writing WP:BACKWARD, which is an approach virtually guaranteed to fail.

Please make a paid-editing disclosure, by placing the {{paid}} template, appropriately filled-in, on your userpage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CheeseACake (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Blix Tower ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This building already exists, if you go to Esseghem District in Jette, Brussels, you might see the Blix Tower in your location CheeseACake (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been deleted as a hoax. Stop requesting hoax articles as you did yesterday. Knitsey (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User now blocked. Knitsey (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DandelionDan (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Families Magazine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've created an article and it's been disapproved. I am trying to find out what I need to do to make it better!

Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Families_(Magazine) DandelionDan (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DandelionDan: None of your sources are any good. The first is the magazine's website (connexion to subject), the second is a content-free profile (too sparse), and the third is a franchisee recruitment page (connexion to subject, and I will note I find it odd a magazine is seeking franchisees). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I'll have another look and try to find better sources. Thanks for the help! 2.102.106.3 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tmcfarlandpr (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Preston Cook ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am interested to know if you can offer any kind of progress report on approval of this page - understanding that the process could take 3 months to approve. Thank you.

Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmcfarlandpr: Drafts are reviewed in a random order, so there is no way to know when the draft will be reviewed, other than it may take 3 months or more. cyberdog958^Talk 16:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SallywongRobot (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Ricky Ma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hope you are doing well! I have received the review and comments from Sophisticatedevening. After addressing their feedback, I've edited the article and resolved the issues mentioned. Could you please let me know how I should inform the reviewer, and confirm if my article is now correct? SallywongRobot (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SallywongRobot: Once you make the changes to the draft, and you feel it is ready, you can just press the “resubmit” button in the template at the top of the page and it will be put back in the queue to be reviewed again. It may be reviewed by the same reviewer, but more than likely someone else will re-review it. cyberdog958^Talk 16:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Josh2R (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Zephline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get someone who is more experienced and neutral in this matter to edit the article? Where can I find someone to do this? Josh2R (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thesmartiest1 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sabba Mirza ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - I've recently been working on my first ever article. Some while ago it was declined for a lack of sources, which I understand. I've now added a lot of what I believe are pretty reliable references, and also some of most relevant to the topic of the article, but today it was declined again - this time due to a lack of sources. I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with the sources I've used, and the page on 'Reliable Sources' does not seem to go against what I've written

Any help is much appreciated! Thesmartiest1 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Duacky (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Jinko (Game) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why did i get rejected? jinko is one of the best games on earth? Duacky (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Duacky, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, even if Jinko is "one of the best games on earth" it still needs to be sourced properly. If you can find sources (Web articles, news, etc) that talk about Jinko, it will be accepted. Please see WP:GNG which might help clarify what is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Happy Editing, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Madhav Immigration (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Hotel Management Stusies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WHAT NEED TO BE CHANGED IN MY ARTICLE? Madhav Immigration (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trdta4 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Submission declined: translated article about a book ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I recently submitted my draft of Draft:Our Holocaust (book). The draft is a translation of the same article from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
It was declined and I was given the following reasons.
1. Reliable sources - the original article references one source - an interview with the author. I brought this reference as is.
2. qualification for a Wikipedia article, esp. regarding the "notability of books".
The article clearly states the award received by the book, and the fact that the novel is the first for a prominent author. The author's article in Wikipedia (Amir Gutfreund) mentions this book and its translations.

I would appreciate your help in improving this article so that it may be resubmitted. Thank you. Trdta4 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]