Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

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


Skip to top
Skip to bottom


June 18

[edit]

02:58, 18 June 2026 review of submission by Joesephbartolozziglazer

[edit]

What criteria did this article not meet? Joesephbartolozziglazer (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The previous decline notices explain exactly the criteria which were consistently not met. Athanelar (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, the article was not supported by reliable, independent sources. The sources that were reliable and independent have nothing to do with the subject's claim to notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

03:37, 18 June 2026 review of submission by DetailsRule

[edit]

I don't understand why this draft keeps getting declined for the same reason despite the issues raised (informal language etc) being altered. I suspect you are not actually reviewing the lastest draft or automatically sending a prior critique. Can I please have specific detail as to why it is declined?... thank you. DetailsRule (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DetailsRule Your draft has only been declined a single time and is currently awaiting re-review, so I'm not sure what you mean. Athanelar (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DetailsRule, I'd love to see more articles about Australia on Wikipedia, so I hope you'll take this as an offer of help rather than discouragement. Having drafts declined sucks, so I want you to be aware of the next possible stumbling block before you run into it.
Although this was not raised by the last reviewer (we are limited in how many issues we can tag per review), you will also need to find some better sources. WP:42 lists the three criteria that make up a suitable source, and each source must individually meet all three of those criteria to help demonstrate that a subject should have an article. I've gone skimming through your sources and at the moment the only ones you could use to show that Halstead qualifies for a Wikipedia article is the Street Machine obituary and possibly the Just Cars one. The other sources all have various problems. You can still use them in your draft, but you will need to find a couple more sources that meet WP:42 before the draft could be accepted. If it helps, the sources don't need to be online (although it's easier for reviewers to assess them if they are). Meadowlark (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 18 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34873-47

[edit]

Can you new pages Scareflix pls? ~2026-34873-47 (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-34873-47: I've no idea what you're asking, but let me ask you this: are you Visionaryvoicemedia? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you new page Brian Schoby pls? ~2026-34873-47 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:32, 18 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34873-47

[edit]

Draft is no longer ~2026-34873-47 (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-34873-47: can you please stop making these nonsensical comments, while referencing drafts with which you clearly have no connection. If this continues, I will have to block you to prevent further such disruption. Fair warning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ~2026-34873-47 (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 18 June 2026 review of submission by Lily Weed

[edit]

Hello!

There are no book, websites, or excepted things about Mrs. Anna Keyes Knowlton. Can you help me find ways the help with this because most information comes from primary sources (documents from Ashford it's self). The reason there is nothing 'credible' about the girl is because history forgot most of the women who supported the American cause. An help with this will me greatly appreciated!

From, Lily Weed Lily Weed (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lily Weed: we can't research your sources for you, that you'll have to do yourself. You may ask at one of the WikiProjects listed on the draft talk page, in case someone there has access to sources that could be useful here.
What I can tell you is that sources must be published, so things like receipts are not acceptable. Primary sources are acceptable for verifying information, but not (in most cases) for establishing notability.
Offline sources are acceptable, but they must be cited with full bibliographic detail to enable them to be reliably identified for verification purposes; see WP:OFFLINE. It would also be helpful to have some indication (eg. by way of a short quotation) of what the source says about the subject, to help reviewers who don't have access to the source.
If you cannot find sufficient sources to base the draft on, then it won't be possible to have this published. It's perfectly possible, likely even, that this person isn't notable enough to justify an article. After all, the vast majority of people aren't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:29, 18 June 2026 review of submission by PoliticsAnalyst

[edit]

Hello! I submitted this article for review and am a little bit confused in what I need to add in order to make it acceptable by the guidelines, or if the article does not meet the criteria for creation at all. Thank you for taking time to review my article, and for replying to this message! PoliticsAnalyst (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criteria are at WP:NALBUM, or failing that, the general notability guideline. Which ctiteria do you think your subject meets, and what sources do you have to support that? Athanelar (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I understand I need to provide stronger evidence of notability. Press Start meets WP:NALBUM criteria because:
1. Akylas's debut album reached Top 10 charts in multiple European countries
2. Generated over 9 million TikTok views
3. 1.5+ million monthly Spotify listeners
I currently have 2 sources (Gazzetta and HuffPost Greece).
Should I:
- Find additional major media coverage (BBC, Rolling Stone, etc.)?
- Add chart certifications from official music databases?
- Include reviews from major music publications?
If Press Start as a standalone article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, would it be acceptable to incorporate this information into the main Akylas article instead? That way, the album information is still documented on Wikipedia, just as part of his artist biography.
P.S.: I also contribute to the Greek Wikipedia, would it be smarter to just post it there? PoliticsAnalyst (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PoliticsAnalyst: of the things you list there, the TikTok and Spotify numbers are meaningless. Reach top ten in the charts would potentially make this album potentially notable, but as I said in my decline, we need to see evidence of that.
You are certainly free to contribute this to the Greek Wikipedia, and it may be (in fact, this is likely) that their notability and referencing standards are lower, so you might even get this accepted more or less as it stands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 18 June 2026 review of submission by Neurt06

[edit]

Hello,

I've added multiple reliable sources in variations tot the references. Still it says i do not provide enough reliable references. Do i have to add even more or is there some other issue in this draft?

Kind regards,

Jorg Wiltink Neurt06 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliability" is not the only standard your sources need to meet. As the decline notice says; you need reliability, independence, and significant coverage excluding routine reporting. See WP:42 and WP:NCORP.
I would also suggest, more than anything, you read my advice for paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Neurt06: also, just in case you were expecting the decline notice to magically disappear once there are sufficient sources, it won't; that template will stay there until the draft is (possibly) accepted. If you feel that you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the earlier decline, you will have to resubmit the draft for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 18 June 2026 review of submission by Zackpaps

[edit]

I have now addressed the points raised in the review by revising the article's wording to remove promotional and over-attributed language, consolidating duplicate references using named references, adding a See also section, and adding relevant categories.

When you have a chance, would you mind taking another look at the draft and letting me know whether there are any remaining issues that need attention before resubmission? I would appreciate any further guidance to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia's standards and AfC requirements.

Thank you again for your time and assistance. Zackpaps (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackpaps A specific issue which has affected previous drafts was the use of AI / LLM. Clearly the article has been changed but there are still hallmarks of LLM in the current draft, and the note above does not mention this (which is another trait of LLM). What can you tell us about the use of AI here? 17:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC) ChrysGalley (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Used AI in my first draft only to act as a skeleton of what l was going to write. Zackpaps (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AI-assisted tools were used during the drafting process to help with organization, grammar and identifying areas that required additional sourcing. However, I have been revising the draft manually and verifying the content against the cited reliable sources. Following the previous review comments, I substantially rewrote sections of the article, removed promotional and media-focused language, consolidated duplicate references and made further edits to better align with Wikipedia's style and sourcing requirements.
If there are still specific passages that appear inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards or that exhibit characteristics commonly associated with AI-generated text, I would appreciate guidance on those sections so I can revise them further. Zackpaps (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you resubmit the draft for review, you will get feedback on it. --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that LLM-written communication is improper everywhere, including discussions about content.
Using an LLM to write the skeleton of an article is the equivalent of using bread sticks as the frame of a car. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 18 June 2026 review of submission by Case Against

[edit]

Just checking about the rejection. This person is of note as indicated by an MBE - a high honour in the UK. The activities were local therefore articles in local newspapers that are no longer on line - is this an issue? Case Against (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Case Against: what is it you want to check, specifically?
An MBE does not make anyone notable, if by "of note" you mean that. Having said which, this wasn't declined for insufficient evidence of notability, but rather insufficient referencing. There is far too much unreferenced information. In articles on living people, especially, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, all private personal and family details, as well as any direct quotations must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. You currently have whole paragraphs, and entire sections even, without a single citation.
Also, if your sources are available online, please cite those; this would make verifying them much easier. And if only offline sources are available, they must be cited with full bibliographic detail so they can be verified; see WP:OFFLINE for more on that.
Considering all that, you should really revert the resubmission, because this draft will inevitably be declined again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing- each paragraph was drawn from a newspaper article which was cited. But I tidied it up a bit for any doubt and have added some extra articles. Case Against (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Case Against: that's as may be, but the reader or reviewer has no way of knowing that. All they see is a chunk of text and no source being cited against it. It may all be perfectly true (then again, it may not...), but there's an old Wikipedia adage that WP:verifiability, not truth, is what matters. That can mean slightly different things, but in this context it means – somewhat perversely – that being adequately referenced is more important than being true but unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A good philosophy for life. Thanks for the update and fine tuning. Wikipedia land is an important kingdom that deserves protection and excellence. Case Against (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 18 June 2026 review of submission by Subayani

[edit]

I'm trying to figure why the citations I've used aren't enough? It is listed by NCUA, got accolades from WSJ, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, etc. I see several other organizations that have much less and lighter cited sources but they are approved? I think I'm just stumped what else I can use. The organization have just been recently named by Forbes as one of the best credit unions in state (came out yesterday). would that work? Subayani (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Subayani: your draft cites mostly primary sources, which cannot be used to establish notability per WP:NCORP. And the few secondary sources are all of the 'best credit unions' type, which do not provide sufficiently significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Subayani Take a moment to read my advice for paid editors. If that doesn't dissuade you, then see WP:NCORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Athanelar (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 18 June 2026 review of submission by Vignankamarthi

[edit]

Draft:Sagar Kamarthi has been declined twice on general-notability grounds (lack of significant independent coverage). I believe the subject qualifies under WP:NPROF rather than the GNG. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers, the society's highest membership grade, capped at no more than 20 recipients per year (criterion C3), and he has an h-index of 36 with more than 5,300 citations per Google Scholar, including individual papers cited several hundred times each (criterion C1). Could an experienced reviewer advise whether these meet C1/C3, and what, if anything, the draft still needs? Thank you. Vignankamarthi (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vignankamarthi: I would't say h-index of 36 is particularly high, but I do think the IISE fellowship would meet WP:NACADEMIC #3, as it is to my knowledge very selective and quite a distinction. Courtesy ping: Thilsebatti, as the declining reviewer how would you feel about this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I would never consider h-index of 36 for a NACADEMIC pass. Having said that, at the time of review, I did not considered the prestige of the IISE Fellowship as an eligibility for satisfying #3. Now after looking deeper, I agree that the fellowship may well support a claim of notability under #3. But I'm not sure about its distinction. If you or someone else (more expert at NACADEMIC) thinks that the distinction is sufficiently prestigious, I would have no objection for the re-reviewing of the draft. Regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, this is really helpful. I'm happy to set aside the h-index point and rest the case on criterion 3. Given DoubleGrazing's view that the IISE Fellowship (the society's highest grade, capped at 20 per year) meets WP:NACADEMIC #3, and Thilsebatti's openness to re-review, what would be the best next step: should I resubmit for a fresh review on the C3 basis, or would either of you be able to re-review it directly? Thank you again. Vignankamarthi (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

[edit]

00:54, 19 June 2026 review of submission by Congressmen.in

[edit]

Can you direct what the actual issue is with the submission Congressmen.in (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Congressmen.in: as the decline notices state, this was declined for tone/language, and for being likely LLM-generated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 19 June 2026 review of submission by Saliksibask

[edit]

Hello,

I have a disclosed conflict of interest with 4SPACE Design, as I am affiliated with the company. I am not asking anyone to approve the draft, and I understand that the article must meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements.

I would like to ask whether the following type of source would be considered useful for establishing notability under the guideline for organizations and companies:

A Khaleej Times interview-style article Based on questions sent by the publication and answered by the company/founders Written or prepared by the publication’s editorial team Published without “Partner Content,” “Sponsored,” “Advertorial,” or similar paid-content labels Mainly about the company, its founders, history, projects, awards, and role in the UAE interior design/hospitality design sector

Would this type of article be considered independent secondary coverage, or would it be treated as a weak/primary source because it is based largely on interview responses from the company?

For comparison, Khaleej Times shared this interview-style example: https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business-technology-review/from-scroll-to-scale-how-social-first-trends-are-rewriting-retail-rules

I would appreciate guidance on whether this format could support notability, or whether the draft would still need more independent journalist-written company profiles or third-party analysis from other publishers.

Thank you. Saliksibask (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, by their very nature, are not independent of the subject, as the information within comes directly from the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Saliksibask: I think by "interview-style article Based on questions sent by the publication and answered by the company/founders" you mean... an interview. In which case, the answer is 'no': interviews are primary sources, not independent, and often also not reliable since they tend not to be subject to fact-checking or editorial oversight. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It constantly amazes me how people copy-paste this absolutely substanceless doublespeak from their AI chatbots without stopping to think and realising that it makes them sound like, at best, a slimy charlatan trying to talk their way around our policies and guidelines and, at worst, an idiot. "Interview-style." Good god. Athanelar (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And then AI reads it here, and 'learns' that that's how people talk about such matters. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, AI being shitty at comprehending how Wikipedia works assists us in finding AI-generated writing. To paraphrase the old quote, when your opponent is making a mistake, it is best to not interrupt them! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this draft has been rejected, not just declined. This means the subject won't be considered for further review. Generally, Wikipedia articles about notable companies aren't written by anyone associated with the company. There are zero valid reasons why a company representative would attempt to write an article about their employer; the typical reasons are publicity and SEO, and that is prohibited here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 19 June 2026 review of submission by Mr HM MOSES

[edit]

hello the management, how can i improve on my article writing on wiki becuase i would like to contribute more but i cant do it to my best. Mr HM MOSES (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr HM MOSES: there is plenty of advice available on Wikipedia editing, see eg. A primer for newcomers and/or Contributing to Wikipedia. If you have general questions (as opposed to ones specifically related to the drafting/reviewing side of things), you can go to the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 19 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-35649-70

[edit]

i have some more notable publications ~2026-35649-70 (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-35649-70: if you are O S Prasanth, please remember to log into your account when editing.
This draft has been rejected. If you now have evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may approach the rejecting reviewer to appeal the rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2026-35649-70. If you mean that you have more sources that you think can be used as references, I suggest that you review each of your proposed sources against all the conditions in WP:42. Unless a source meets all of those conditions, it is useless for establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 19 June 2026 review of submission by Najib.Antoun

[edit]

I'm a disclosed paid editor (COI noted on my user page) working on Draft:Elie Saab Jr., which has been declined twice for notability. Before resubmitting, I'd appreciate an experienced editor's read on whether the sources below meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC — specifically whether they are significant, reliable, AND independent coverage of the person (not the brand or his father). I'd rather get a straight assessment now than resubmit prematurely.

  • Forbes Middle East – "How Elie Saab Jr. Is Expanding a Legacy and an Empire" — I'm unsure whether this is staff editorial or contributor/sponsored content.
  • Inc. Arabia – interview
  • AE World – interview
  • All-I-C Magazine – interview (joint with his father)
  • Business of Fashion / Spotify podcast – "Rebuilding Lebanon's Fashion Industry"
  • The Gstaad Guy Podcast (YouTube)
  • WWD – "Zegna and Elie Saab Leaders on Long-Term Success" (panel coverage)
  • Boat International – interview re: Maiora 42 Exuma collaboration
  • Vogue – "Elie Saab Opens Madison Avenue Flagship" (appears to be about the brand)
  • New York Times – "Why Elie Saab Will Never Leave Lebanon" (appears to be about Elie Saab Sr.)

My own concern is that most of these are interviews (primary), brand/event coverage, or about his father rather than in-depth independent coverage of him. Am I reading that correctly, or do any of these count toward notability? Thank you. Najib.Antoun (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Najib.Antoun: it's pretty difficult to assess sources that are only described like that, we need to actually verify and read them. And we won't do that here at the help desk, you will have to resubmit your draft for a proper review.
That said, I can tell you that interviews and podcasts are primary sources, usually not independent (when it is the subject talking), and typically not reliable either (no fact checking etc.), so that rules out most if not all of the ones on your list. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 19 June 2026 review of submission by Budew1234

[edit]

I need help with the draft because they're saying that the properties in the draft needs to be similar to the properties on the article -2. What do I do? Budew1234 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I tried to make the properties section similar. Forgot to say that. Budew1234 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review request for Draft:Andrew Searles

[edit]
@Mark.jiggs You will receive feedback when the draft is reviewed. But please don't use LLMs such as ChatGPT to edit or communicate on Wikipedia; this is against the WP:LLM and WP:LLMTALK guidelines. [mention 1 or 2 high-quality outlets you used, e.g., major newspapers or academic journals]? You didn't even look at what your LLM spat out? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked hard to ensure it strictly follows Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines by including independent, reliable sources such as [mention 1 or 2 high-quality outlets you used, e.g., major newspapers or academic journals].
Absolutely astounding. Athanelar (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that, I was fixing the english in the text and i didn't read it fully, Sorry my bad, But are we going to be able to add information about Elie Saab Jr. on Elie Saab page. Najib.Antoun (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Najib.Antoun: your message appears to have no connection whatsoever with this three-day-old thread, why have you posted this here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

22:36, 19 June 2026 review of submission by Joe Finkel

[edit]

Hi! I've written and submitted my first article, about an historical Art Deco building in Manhattan, and the draft has been declined. The reason given is "This draft reads like an advertisement." I'm not quite sure what I can do to improve that, I haven't used any subjective language, and I've only included information cited in outside sources. Would you be able to review it and give me some advice? Joe Finkel (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: ArthurTheGardener Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Joe Finkel, I've replied on your Talk page. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

[edit]

01:06, 20 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-35920-01

[edit]

Hello. I am the subject of Draft:Maxim Tabachnik and have disclosed my conflict of interest. The draft was declined under the general biography standard because it was said to lack two reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the person.

Could someone advise whether the draft may instead be assessed under WP:NACADEMIC? The subject is a political scientist whose work focuses on nationalism, citizenship law, and post-Soviet politics. He is the author of a Palgrave Macmillan monograph, ‘‘Citizenship, Territoriality and Post-Soviet Nationhood’’, and peer-reviewed articles in ‘‘Nations and Nationalism’’ and ‘‘Post-Soviet Affairs’’. The monograph has received academic reviews in ‘‘Insight Turkey’’ and ‘‘Nationalism and Ethnic Politics’’. His work also has citation impact on Google Scholar, and he has a GLOBALCIT profile and EUI report connected to Azerbaijani citizenship law.

I understand that self-authored publications alone are not enough. My question is whether the combination of academic reviews, citation impact, publisher, peer-reviewed articles, and GLOBALCIT/EUI expert work could potentially satisfy academic notability, or whether the draft should wait until there are more independent biographical/profile sources. ~2026-35920-01 (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're writing about yourself, please just say so; referring to yourself as "the subject" and "his work" comes off as obfuscation.
The general biography notability criteria is broader than the academic criteria, not narrower, so any assessment covers both. Which of the academic criteria do you assert that you meet? WP:NACADEMIC also gives advice on what is acceptable for establishing notability.
Have you read the autobiography policy? While not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is discouraged. There are also good reasons to not want an article.
Please read the scam warning and never pay someone to edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-35920-01I have to say there are signs of assistance by AI here, which simply isn't allowed. Generally speaking, people of this sort of profile won't get an article in Wikipedia, we aren't like LinkedIn. By way of illustration if you were also a professor on top of your other work, then most professors would still not qualify. There is a set of individuals - journalists, museum curators, photographers, political analysts, business people - who find it difficult to get articles compared to say mediocre football players and talentless actors. That's simply because in this era they don't attract much independent coverage: other unrelated people talking, writing, commentating about them in depth. It looks to me that your best bet if you really want an article (which incidentally is a mad and bad idea) is to focus on WP:NAUTHOR, for which one interpretation is "two books, two book reviews each book". The book reviews have to be of significant length, truly independent, and so they can be negative reviews. And it's best if those reviews are summarised in the draft to show these qualities, rather than just a name-check. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 20 June 2026 review of submission by ZachScientia

[edit]

Please help me on the efn notes please and more. ZachScientia (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the error. Keep working on it; you don't yet have the sources that meet WP:Golden Rule to prove that it's notable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 20 June 2026 review of submission by TPSHJS

[edit]

I would like to replace an image in a draft article but cannot see how to do this. TPSHJS (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. I would.just remove any images and wait until the draft is accepted before worrying about it.
That said, if the image has a different file name, simply edit the draft to remove the old file name and put the new one. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge I have uploaded the new image but when I insert it in Edit, onmly the image name appears. If someone can advise how to do this I would be greatful. TPSHJS (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's the name of the new image? 331dot (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @TPSHJS.
That's because File:HJS office Dept of Chemistry.jpg doesn't exist.
Did you mean File:HJS office Dept of Chemistry TTU.jpeg? That's the image you uploaded today.
But, as 331dot says, images are not relevant to the review process. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 20 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34366-58

[edit]

ive done request changes can it be passed now ~2026-34366-58 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it and it is pending, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It will be reviewed, but it is very unlikely to be accepted in its current form. The sources are still vague, poorly linked, and frequently either not independent of Menendez or only barely mention Menendez, and the text still looks like something an LLM/chatbot wrote. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

[edit]

09:06, 21 June 2026 review of submission by Hellothroughthis

[edit]

I need this for beginners of chess to know up until grandmaster level Hellothroughthis (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the line at least for now. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This got rejected twice for being an AI draft without any changes in between. After the third resubmission, with the only change being to meddle with the AFC log file to make "decline" to mean "accept", then this reviewer felt that there was no attempt being made to address the previous reviewing comments, and stop using AI. If there is a plausible attempt at a human written article and some good quality sources, then by all means come back to me and I'll take another look. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They won't come back, at least not with this user account, given that I've blocked them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 21 June 2026 review of submission by Ghorbani59

[edit]

The Wikipedia page that I created about Hanieh Fattahi has been rejected. In the comments, the reviewer writes that her is not significant. However, I disagree with this assessment. She invented a new metrology technique, which was realized by her group. In 2026 she and her team were awarded the Helmholtz prize for this invention, which is known as the Nobel prize of Metrology. She is a well-known scientist with numerous awards and recognitions testifying to her qualifications. I already added some more external links to the revised version. Could you please let me know how I can improve the page so that it gets accepted? Ghorbani59 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghorbani59: this draft has been declined, not 'rejected'. Rejection would mean the end of the road, whereas decline means you may continue working on it and resubmit for a new review.
You need to demonstrate that this person satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the subject-specific WP:NACADEMIC notability guideline. The reviewer is saying this hasn't yet been achieved.
I would normally accept the Helmholz price as (partial, at least) evidence of notability, but when it is shared with half a dozen others (ie. it is awarded to a team, rather than an individual), my gut feel is that this dilutes it somewhat. I could be wrong, on both those points.
Additionally (and this wasn't the decline reason, but I'll mention it anyway), you must ensure that the information is supported by inline citations to reliable published sources throughout. Currently there are several statements, as well as some private personal details such as WP:DOB, which are unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing, thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I truly appreciate your feedback. Fattahi is the head of the research group and the award is given to her and her research team (her phd students) on developing a new concept. Helmholtz is a very prestigious award known as the noble prize in metrology and the team is awarded the prize in the category of applied metrology. I am sure that you agree that as editors we are not here to judge or peer review, but to make sure of reporting facts and her contribution is very clear in this case supported by all the referenced materials, list of her phd students and available phd thesis. So my question is that why such a prestigious prize is questioned? Do we downplay the Nobel prize when it is shared between three scientists? My second question is regarding the comment on peer recognition. It is not clear to me that what the comment refer to by "She has made a good start, but as yet her citations do not show major peer recognition of her work". How the reviewer assessed the peer recognition of Dr Fattahi? The available online materials testify to her major contribution in the field. Again we are not here to judge the performance of a person but the report. I tried to ask these questions directly from the original reviewer but unfortunately until now was unsuccessful in receiving his additional comments. Regarding the personal information, they are extracted from the available interviews with her available online. I will add the citations to "the external links" of the page. Thank you so much in advance for your time, efforts, and patience and appreciate your remarks on how to edit the draft furhter. Ghorbani59 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you; I hadn't realised that Fattahi is the PI and the rest of the group are her students and postdocs. That said, I now notice that the declining reviewer shares my concern.
I think the case for notability is borderline at best. (We often decline drafts on tenured professors, because they don't quite rise to the very high bar of academic notability.) But I'm happy to bow out at this point and leave this for someone else to comment on who knows the subject matter better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 21 June 2026 review of submission by Samachar2728

[edit]

I want to post this Samachar2728 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samachar2728: The draft has been rejected, because it is not what Wikipedia is for. Please find a different platform, such as LinkedIn or social media, to post to instead of Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 21 June 2026 review of submission by Claudiatheis2025

[edit]

Hello,

My draft, Draft:Mark A. Farber, was declined because the sources did not establish notability under GNG/SIGCOV. The subject is an academic vascular surgeon, so I am considering revising the draft under WP:NPROF C1, based on scholarly citation impact rather than media coverage.

Google Scholar lists an h-index of 50 and more than 10,000 citations. A peer-reviewed study of academic vascular surgeons (Cheng et al., Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2019) reported a mean h-index of 24.9 ± 12.6 among full professors nationally. I would use this only as a benchmark and would avoid drawing percentile or similar conclusions.

My question is: can raw citation metrics, ideally corroborated by Scopus or Web of Science, be sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF C1, or is an independent secondary source explicitly discussing the subject’s scholarly impact in prose also required?

I want to avoid resubmitting the draft with the same structural problem.

Thank you Claudiatheis2025 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiatheis2025 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Question about WP:NPROF C1 for Draft:Mark A. Farber".
Do you have a connection to Dr. Farber? 331dot (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the header. I do not have a personal or financial connection to Dr. Farber, and I am not being paid or compensated to create or edit the draft. I know of him professionally by reputation in vascular surgery. My question is whether WP C1 could apply based on scholarly citation impact, or whether citation metrics alone are not enough. Thank you. Claudiatheis2025 (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a precise look up table on that one, and h-indices vary by discipline by an enormous amount. We're looking at putting sufficient source pointers together to give a plausible argument for significant impact. Personally if I come across a C1 claim with an h-index of 50 then normally I would feel we are in the right area. It's those below 20 that are less convincing. I suspect there is a particularly strong argument for Endovascular repair of traumatic thoracic aortic injury since that paper alone has had "significant impact", or at least can be argued as such - that could be drawn out with a bit of the background to the panel's work and outcome. If you work in that area then you perhaps know the best examples of that sort of impact. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

[edit]

04:49, 22 June 2026 review of submission by Goleisureintl

[edit]

REASONS FOR REJECTION Goleisureintl (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a part of the reviewers feedback you were unsure about? In solidarity, nil nz 04:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia Goleisureintl (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer also left the following, more specific feedback:
We have an article on CT scan. We don't need articles on CT scanning of different body parts, unless there is particular encyclopaedic value in having them. We certainly do not need to have an article on CT scanning of specific body part in a particular location (besides, this draft doesn't even mention Navi Mumbai, so why is it in the title?!).
And to top it off, the sources seem to be hallucinated, since none of them actual return what it says in the citations. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
In solidarity, nil nz 04:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
what do i do now Goleisureintl (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Find something else to work on instead :) In solidarity, nil nz 05:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ok sure will do Goleisureintl (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 22 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34360-03

[edit]

How do I rewrite it in scratch? Could somebody help me on adding more information on this draft? What editors could I definitely invite with? How did you know this is LLM generated, by detection?

"Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World" ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-34360-03, can you tell us whether you used an LLM to generate the draft? By "write it from scratch" I mean research and write a draft manually, as we've done it for 25 years, by finding and reading secondary sources (there are a few reviews from reliable newspapers and magazines that you can use), then summarising them in your own words. Don't use an LLM at all for Wikipedia tasks. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 05:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I started from Gemini. If I did that, I could start all over again, and add my own analysis to the draft. I already found the sources and references of the book itself. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "started from Gemini"? Can you be more specific? Or share your prompts or chat logs here? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did use prompts from LLMs to create a whole draft Such as Introduction and Author, Thematic Analysis, Summary, Reception, and Trivia. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't want you doing that. See WP:LLM. This is a human written project and we want humans to do the work. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
331dot is right. Keep the sources and delete all the text. Reread the sources, maybe find some more with a search engine or library catalogue, then write the whole draft in your own words. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 12:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no detection too was needed, since it was quite clear that this was text spat out by an LLM/chatbot. In addition, even if you do completely rewrite the article yourself, we absolutely do not want your own analysis added. Wikipedia reports dispassionately what independent, reliable sources have said about notable subjects; we absolutely do not connect any dots ourselves, nor do we provide any independent analysis ourselves. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs @ClaudineChionh @331dot What I might do instead? ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Claudine Chionh's first response to you: research and write a draft manually, as we've done it for 25 years, by finding and reading secondary sources (there are a few reviews from reliable newspapers and magazines that you can use), then summarising them in your own words. --bonadea contributions talk 21:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 22 June 2026 review of submission by Rosan.Meyer

[edit]

Hi. My submission has been rejected due to unreliable resources, however all publications are peer reviewed and none have been included that are in the list of "unreliable resources". Please help, as in order to re-submit I need to have reliable sources, but all of them are. Kind Regards Rosan Rosan.Meyer (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a professional interest in this area, so I wouldn't want to review the article. However the problem appears to be WP:MEDRS. There is the allergen issue, and then there is the scoring technique. These can't be completely divorced from each other, clearly, but here rather a lot of the source material is based on the allergy side, and relatively little on the Score technique. Then the sources used for the allergen factors go rather heavily not to meta studies but to primary sourcing: original research on cow's milk allergic responses. See sources 9, 10 (but not 11) and 12. I would suggest you just focus on CoMISS itself, and not delve so much in to CMA. The sourcing for specifically CoMISS probably could do with some improvement, I can see 2 sources there, but again you need to focus on second stage analysis rather than original research. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosan.Meyer: just to add, as the most recent reviewer already commented, the draft should be more thoroughly referenced; that is what the first part of the decline reason "not adequately supported by reliable sources" refers to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the reply. I appreciate it. This is confusing factor for me, the article by standards for somebody that has published more than 150 peer reviewed articles in journals is adequately referenced. We have 21 references of peer reviewed publication, of these publications 12 are specific to CoMISS (so more than 50%). I can of course reduce the references on allergy side and just include the ones on CoMISS, but there are couple of associations (i.e. ESPGHAN ad DRACMA for example) that recommend using this tool, which will not be tool specific. Rosan.Meyer (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosan.Meyer Writing for Wikipedia is very different from academic writing. Journal articles are usually expected to contain original research and often rely heavily on primary sources, while Wikipedia articles should mainly summarize what secondary sources written by people unaffiliated with the topic have said about it. At first glance a lot of your sources about CoMISS are non-independent since they were written by the original developers of CoMISS, as well as primary since they present the results of new experiments; these non-independent primary sources should only be used sparingly. At the very least you need to replace the "citation needed" tags with citations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is very helpful Rosan.Meyer (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 22 June 2026 review of submission by Mountroof962

[edit]
Dismounted: draft deleted, editor blocked for making promotional edits. (non-admin closure) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like assistance in reviewing and submitting a draft article about Mount Roofing and Structures Pvt Ltd. The article aims to provide encyclopedic information about the company's operations, manufacturing capabilities, industry recognition, and contributions to India's building materials sector, supported by reliable sources. Mountroof962 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft G11'd, user blocked) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

15:26, 22 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34028-35

[edit]

Is he notable enough for the English Wikipedia? German editors seem to think he is notable enough for their wiki.

The German version is at de:Ulrich Meierfrankenfeld. At de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/22._Juni_2026#Ulrich_Meierfrankenfeld, the editors say he is influential enough.

According to WP:NACADEMIC, I think he is notable enough for the English Wikipedia due to #1: "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". ~2026-34028-35 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-34028-35 - if you think C1 applies then this needs to come out better in the draft, and be sourced accordingly. I can see what he has done, and how, but no evidence that this has had a significant impact. Comparing Wiki language versions doesn't really work. Each Wiki has its own rule and own interpretations, it's quite normal that someone may qualify in one language and not in another. Under English wikipedia, if there isn't a clear-cut pass on WP:NACADEMIC then we need general notability criteria to apply, so the WP:GOLDENRULE as mentioned in the previous decline. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just resubmitted; I have lots of good evidence that his work should easily fulfill C1. ~2026-34028-35 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 22 June 2026 review of submission by GordafardiKaveh

[edit]

All sources are reliable sources. I am assuming the nature of the source might be the issue. Would you be kind enough to provide more details so we can better understand how to improve? Thank you. GordafardiKaveh (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GordafardiKaveh is that the royal "we" or are you representing the subject via an organisation? The flat requirements here are the WP:GOLDENRULE and the need for inline reliable sources for every fact that can be questioned, not a heap of less-than-relevant sources at the end. So you need to read WP:YFA, then WP:BLP, then WP:REFB. It is not a 10 minute job, but you need truly independent and reliable sources (journalists, academics, writers) discussing the subject with significant coverage. And journalists don't like writing about other journalists, on the whole. If you don't have that to begin with, then you should consider other ways to help out Wikipedia. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GordafardiKaveh: Who is "we"? What is the nature of your association with Mahyar Tousi?
Many of your sources are not reliable. We don't cite Wikipedia, for example. And you have a lot of YouTube sources, for which reliability depends on who uploaded it.
Inadequate citations are grounds for a reviewer declining a draft. Right now you have zero citations, just a bibliography list at the end. See WP:CITE for instructions on citing sourced properly. Also as GhrysGalley wrote, you need multiple sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule.
And don't use AI to write for you. That isn't allowed on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 22 June 2026 review of submission by KyleSettlemyer2000

[edit]

What do I need to edit before submitting again? Thanks! KyleSettlemyer2000 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, rejection is the end of the line for a draft. If you are able to address the concerns raised by prior reviewers, you may edit the draft to do so and then ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider the rejection. You have not demonstrated that this band meets at least one aspect of WP:BAND, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources- for a band that should involve critical analysis and commentary about the band's music. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @KyleSettlemyer2000.
The draft was rejected, after five failed submissions: the rejecting editor evidently felt that if you hadn't met the various requirements listed (and linked) in the decline notices, you weren't going to be able to.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
What stands out for me about the draft is the endless list of people they have performed with. Notability is not inherited, and the lists look like somebody trying to substitute quantity for quality. Wikipedia doesn't care who they performed with, unless somebody wholly independent wrote at some length about it. You would need several sources which each met all the criteria in WP:42.
If you have several such sources, then an article may be possible, and you would then need to approach the reviewer who rejected the draft and ask them to reconsider. I suspect that if you have such sources you would need to nuke the entire draft and start again, summarising what those sources said, and little else. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

[edit]

time I found a little more reliable source showing she is recongizable. https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/cosmic-princess-kaguya-netflix-anime-streaming-debut-trailer-1236624308/ https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=137736 https://www.anime-expo.org/talent/ryan-bartley-3/ https://toonamifaithful.com/toonami-faithful-interviews-ryan-bartley-at-anime-expo-2019/ The subject clearly meets the criteria outlined in WP:PERSON and WP:ENT. She has received significant secondary coverage in high-quality, reliable, independent sources with Variety is the strongest evidence. this is to create a page for Ryan Bartley, American voice actress. ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how you are supposed to be propose an article? ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-36361-89: you don't 'propose' an article, at least not here; you draft one, and then submit it for review. Start by going to WP:YFA, where there's a wizard which takes you through the draft creation process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What wizard? @DoubleGrazing ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The one that starts by clicking on the big blue button with the text "Create your draft with the Article Wizard!", approx half way down the YFA page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2026-36361-89.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Of the three sources you mention above, the first simply contains a mention of Bartley, and says nothing in depth; the second is a bio that almost certainly comes from her or her agents, and so is not independent, and the third is an interview, so is not independent.
None of these three will contribute in any way to establishing that she is notable, which depends on sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Until then no article will be created, how many reliable sources do I need to show proof? I would also like to get help finding the sources to help create Ryan Bartley. @DoubleGrazing @ColinFine ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get involved in researching sources or drafting content here at the help desk. On a more general note, if you want to write a draft about Bartley (whoever that may be), you will have to put in the work; no one is going to do that for you, unless maybe by some miraculous coincidence you happen to find another editor with an interest in this person specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2026-36361-89.
You need several (normally at least three), not just reliable sources, but independent, secondary, reliable, substantial sources. Again, see WP:42.
And as DoubleGrazing says, it's you that wants an article about her, so it's you that needs to do the work. Absolutely your first task should have been finding the sources, because if you cannot find them, that's a pretty clear sign that she does not currently meet the criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

[edit]

03:31, 23 June 2026 review of submission by Schenr

[edit]

Can I please submit this draft for review? Schenr (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Schenr: you can, and you may; just click on the blue 'submit' button. However, that will be pointless at this stage, because the draft only cites the company's own website as a source, which contributes nothing towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do I have to do to get this successfully published? What information is required, or what is currently missing?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Schenr (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Schenr I suggest you read WP:Advice for paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Schenr: the process for drafting based on appropriate sources is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. And the notability guideline which your draft, and more specifically the sources it is based on, is WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Schenr You write that you are "affiliated" with the company; if you are employed by the company, you need to say this specifically according to the paid editing policy; employment is considered paid editing due to the general salary, you do not need to be specifically paid to or instructed to edit. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 23 June 2026 review of submission by JoeyS31

[edit]

I have followed advice about description and citations however this page continues to be rejected. This is a key contributor to the vacation club industry with an interesting, entrepreneurial background which is why the history should be published and set straight. I would appreciate any help to share a factual version. JoeyS31 (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Also see WP:PAIDADVICE. These explain why most company representatives fail in their efforts to write about their companies. You are just telling of the routine business activities of your company, not significant coverage- meaning critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by others wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about the company- in other words, how it is worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Most companies on Earth do not meet that definition. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 23 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-36240-01

[edit]

I'd like to know specifics of why my article was declined. We have had genuine coverage in the media, and are a regionally significant organisation. What sort of citations etc do I need to provide? ~2026-36240-01 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-36240-01: I can find no article Culmex Construction or draft Draft:Culmex Construction, and you have no prior edit history under this temporary account, so I cannot do much to help – could you please check the title of the draft or article you're referring to?
And/or if you have a registered user account, please log into it and post a reply so I can look into that account's edit history. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I found it at User:JPWMoore/sandbox (presumably this TA is JPWMoore) Athanelar (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well done, thanks @Athanelar!
@~2026-36240-01 / @JPWMoore: your draft cites only one secondary source, and that appears in a hyper-local publication and doesn't really provide significant coverage about the company; the rest of the citations are all to primary sources. None of these contribute towards notability per the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually click on the citations your will see that the other source if the Federation of Master Builders website, which is a secondary source, and a very reputable one within the industry. The other secondary resource is in reference to the company's involvement in a nationally-televised program, albeit from a local media publication. I found nothing in the notability guidelines that said local publications are not acceptable as sources - in fact Wikipedia has many thousands of local citations. To call it hyper-local is also to misunderstand the nuances - this publication is the biggest in our immediate region. JPWMoore (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JPWMoore: thank you for explaining our notability criteria to me, I do appreciate it.
The Federation of Master Builders may be a third party source, but it isn't a secondary one; nor are the others, apart from the Tiverton Gazette piece.
And no, there is no rule against using local sources, but if all you have is local sources, the presumption of notability is at best borderline and quite easily rebutted. In any case, a single secondary source is not enough to satisfy the WP:NCORP guideline, we need a minimum of three, of which at least one, ideally more, should be regional or national media outlets. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you represent Wikipedia then I would expect more professional conduct than using sarcasm. It was your error in the first place to call what you are now explaining as a "third party" source a primary source, when it is not. The local publication did provide significant coverage, but it is kept behind a paywall on the website cited. JPWMoore (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "represent" Wikipedia any more than anyone else. I volunteer my time here, like most editors do, that is those who aren't here to promote their business.
I normally try not to play the 'experience card', but I do find it remarkable that you, with half a dozen edits to your name, presume to lecture us on what is, or isn't, a primary source. Especially considering that you don't seem to understand the concept.
Anyway, I'm done here. Someone else will deal with your queries going forward. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone responding to you is a volunteer, spending their own free time to improve Wikipedia. The FMB is a third party source, and also a primary source. DoubleGrazing's assessment was not an error.
You need to find sources which each meet all three criteria of WP:42, and which also do not fail WP:CORPTRIV. Sources based on interviews are not considered independent, so the Tiverton Gazette doesn't help you (it's also not in-depth; it tells us basically nothing about the company). The FMB is not significant, in-depth, or independent coverage. The Scaffolding Association also fails all three criteria of WP:42.
We understand that this is not what you want to hear. No doubt your company is important to you, and very notable from your point of view. But you simply do not have the sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. 99.9% of the companies in the world never qualify. It's not a value judgement on you or your work. It's an assessment of what you've presented against the requirements hammered out by the Wikipedia community (again: all volunteers) over 20-something years. Meadowlark (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JPWMoore There's also the matter of WP:SIGCOV/WP:CORPTRIV. The FMB source merely confirms that the company exists and lists some of its everyday business activities; this does not rise to the standard necessary to demonstrate notability as outlined in the WP:CORPDEPTH section of WP:NCORP
All other issues aside, the fact of the matter is that your reason for being here is obviously not out of a passionate desire to contribute to this encyclopedia, but rather because you want to tell the world about your company; that's a form of promotion, which is explicitly not allowed on Wikipedia, and so it's very hard for any amount of sources or 'neutral' writing to overcome the fact that your reason for being here is at odds with the purpose of the project. I suggest you read (and heed) my advice for paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many people carry "a passionate desire to contribute". I disclosed my connection, and was creating a page to show the company's notoriety around its involvement with a nationally televised program. If Wikipedia is gate-kept in such an unprofessional and abrasive manner, then it is not a platform that I'd like to be involved with. JPWMoore (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one has been unprofessional and abrasive with you. We're being direct and honest to avoid misunderstanding. Do you want us to tell you what you want to hear, or do you want us to be honest? Please know that we have a very broad definition of promotion here, broader than in common use. We consider a company telling about itself and its routine activities to be promotional.
Conflict of interest editing is not recommended at the first task a new user performs; you're finding out why- it usually leads to frustration and anger. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you walk into a Starbucks and ask them to sell you some patio furniture you're likely to be met with the same "abrasive gatekeeping". Yes, I am "gatekeeping" to the extent that I'm explaining to you that Wikipedia is not the place to do what you're trying to do.
As for how many people actually have a passionate desire to contribute; everybody responding to you here is a volunteer. I have just shy of 6,000 edits to my name. 331dot has over 200,000. You're not the first paid editor I've seen who struggles to believe it, but yes, most of us are in fact here just because we want to be. Athanelar (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All you've presented is sourcing that the company exists, not that the company is notable. Being a member of the Federation of Master Builders isn't some special achievement of note, there are some 1300 different affiliated businesses in the UK in just roofers alone. This may very well be an excellent construction company, but Wikipedia is not going to have a half-million Wikipedia articles for every excellent construction company in this world.
If you want an article for this company, you need to find independent coverage of this company, that is reliable, and provides significant information about the company. That doesn't mean database entries or passing mentions or local tidbits. If these things can be found, an article can be written. If not, then one can't be. There's nothing wrong with not being notable; almost every company and every person on the world is not Wikipedia-notable, and that includes billions of good people and millions of good companies. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 23 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-36468-26

[edit]

I've done all things right. Tell me what i'm doing wrong and what needs to be done right and how i can do it. I want this article published ~2026-36468-26 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The reviewers have already told you what was needed; if you've done everything you can, then this man does not merit an article at this time. Rejection is the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 23 June 2026 review of submission by Aramhayr

[edit]

Dear Guninvalid, thank you for reviewing and commenting. I am not going to appeal or resubmit this article anymore. Just curious: "Why Philip Hartman is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia?" Aramhayr (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aramhayr: That article was never drafted. (First edit 2012/Mar/29; WP:ACPERM is from 2018.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Object Class: Drygioni 18:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Aramhayr. See other stuff exists. I have tagged that article for its lack of secondary sources and possibly failure of notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hartman has a far stronger claim to passing WP:NPROF than Grobman; he won a Guggenheim Fellowship (explicitly listed as award that passes WP:NPROF#C2) and wrote a widely used textbook Ordinary Differential Equations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, @Helpful Raccoon. Obviously I only thought about WP:GNG, rather than the Academic criteria (which I don't really understand). I see you therefore appropriately removed my {{notability}} tag. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, WP:NACADEMIC is a completely different beast from the GNG, and it's mainly because academics don't generally make the news barring egregious misconduct or ethical lapses. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Object Class: Drygioni 16:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

[edit]

05:18, 24 June 2026 review of submission by Hindiedits

[edit]

When my article get review? 

Hindiedits (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hindiedits: your draft was reviewed on the 9th. It won't be reviewed again, until you resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 24 June 2026 review of submission by BioEditor2026

[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review this draft.

I understand the concerns regarding notability. However, I would like to respectfully note that the article is based on multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, including a feature published by *The National*, as well as coverage from *Al Bayan*, *Al Ittihad*, *Emarat Al Youm*, *Khaleej Times Arabic*, *Al Ain News*, and other independent publications.

These sources discuss Dr. Abdul Salam Al Belushi's professional career, his involvement in robotic-assisted spine surgery, and the recognition he has received within the medical field. In addition, the draft includes references to peer-reviewed academic publications and independent media coverage spanning several years.

I am continuing to improve the draft by refining the sourcing, formatting citations properly, and ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's notability and biography policies. I would therefore be grateful if the draft could be reconsidered or allowed additional time for further development before any final decision is made.

Thank you again for your review and guidance. BioEditor2026 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BioEditor2026: please don't use AI to generate your talk page comments, drafts, or anything else for Wikipedia. Nobody wants to read blurb cobbled together by some text-prediction-algorithm.
Your draft has been declined again, as you probably noticed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello , Thank You for your respond. I am a beginner at this field i need to learn more about this field sorry for inconvenience BioEditor2026 (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BioEditor2026 Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, it is not recommended as the first task a new user performs. Please see the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity(and can be restored if deleted, via WP:REFUND), simply edit your draft at least once every six months to keep it active. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Thank You for your cooperation and understanding BioEditor2026 (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell your connection to this man, you took a professional looking image of him where he posed for you. Please see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to inform you that my account is personal and I am interested in blogging and enriching content, my mother tongue is not English, I am currently a beginner in this field and I am trying to learn how to write content and link pages My goal of working on this character and why I chose it is a challenge for myself to show new content and introduce the works of characters who have distinctive works but they are obscure and do not highlight them although they have many contributions and have an international award. I know this Dr from a friend but i don't have any relationship with him i take all information from social media and search engine. Even his picture i choose one without copy write for free use. BioEditor2026 (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an image "without copyright". Images can have the copyright released, or one compatible with Wikipedia's, but they cannot be without one. Where did you obtain the image? It must have an explicit statement of copyright, you cannot assume. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 24 June 2026 review of submission by KingOfUNESCO

[edit]

What is the difference between this draft page (rejected) and the currently extant pages (see, e.g., Design Cities (UNESCO) and City of Music (UNESCO) ] KingOfUNESCO (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KingOfUNESCO I fixed your links, the whole url is not needed.
We judge each article or draft individually 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. See other stuff exists. Your only sources are the organization itself, not independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 24 June 2026 review of submission by Acaeton

[edit]

This article was rejected because the "major themes" section needed citation; but there are citations that support that section. What can I do to help fix this so that this article can be accepted for publication? Acaeton (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2026 (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 wrote "Exordia has received generally positive reviews from various authors and publications" and cite it, but you don't say what those reviews specifically said. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 24 June 2026 review of submission by Connectbcbswy

[edit]

My submission was rejected because it read too much like an advertisement. I do work for BCBSWY and did disclose that in my submission. I modeled our entry on the one that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has published. I felt like our version was more thorough, with better sources, and unbiased. Could you please advise on how to proceed? Thank you! Connectbcbswy (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header to link to the draft as intended.
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. We judge each article or draft 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.
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about themselves, their offerings, and their routine business activities. A Wikipedia article about an organization must primarily 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. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues, and see WP:PAIDADVICE.
You need to change your username so it represents you as the account operator, not your company. Please go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Your real name is not required. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 24 June 2026 review of submission by MaryG art

[edit]

Assistance requested: Draft:Vassiliki Theodorakidi (Resume tone resolved) Hello, My draft for Draft:Vassiliki Theodorakidi was recently declined by reviewer Helpful Raccoon because it "read like a resume".

I took the feedback very seriously and have just completely overhauled the draft to address these concerns: 1. I converted all the promotional-looking bulleted lists (exhibitions, awards, media) into strict, neutral encyclopedic prose. 2. I removed the promotional-sounding conceptual headings to ensure a neutral point of view (NPOV). 3. I have officially disclosed my Conflict of Interest (COI) on the draft's Talk page, as I am assisting the artist with the technical layout. I believe the subject meets the Notability criteria for artists, supported by independent secondary sources like the detailed profile in the South China Morning Post. Could an experienced editor take a quick look to verify if the resume tone has been sufficiently resolved, or guide me on any further adjustments needed? Thank you for your time and help! MaryG art (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews, for feedback, please resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for the reply, i will resubmit it. MaryG art (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page as well, for greater visibility(User:MaryG art). If you are employed by her or otherwise editing as part of your job, that makes you a paid editor which you must specifically disclose if applicable. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1360996599"