MyWiki:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tabs}}

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• 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. {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tabs/closing divs}}

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025 December 15}}

December 16

02:34, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Youreironic

• Youreironic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Modrinth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looking for reliable, secondary sources that are independent would mcdev.su and momentariymodder count as reliable, secondary sources that are independent Youreironic (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The first is a game forum and the second is a blog. As both are user-generated content, they are not considered to be reliable sources as there is no overview to ensure the information is correct. GGOTCC 03:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

So I am going to say that the page shouldn't be on Wikipedia cause it doesnt have any reputable sources (from my searching) but I still want the draft just in case how can I move it to my user? Youreironic (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Youreironic. Your account is old enough and has enough edits that you should be able to use the move function. You can move it to (eg) User:Youreironic/Modrinth.

There are restrictions on what you may have in your user pages (see WP:UP), but something that you hope can be an article one day is fine. ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

06:20, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Mohsenkalaantari

• Mohsenkalaantari (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Azadeh Etehad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Azadeh Etehad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello for this article what i must to do?! to accept?! Mohsenkalaantari (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mohsenkalaantari. Most of the draft is unsourced, and that is not acceptable for an article ona living person (see WP:BLP.

This indicates that you have written the draft backwards.

First find your reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, and make sure that nearly all of them meet all the criteria in WP:42.

Then put aside everything that you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

07:08, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Gfroi

• Gfroi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Taylor Swift & Travis Kelce global impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Taylor Swift & Travis Kelce global impact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So i want to add a infobox to my draft, but when I add the link to the image it only shows the link and not the image for some reason, and i need the image to be seen Gfroi (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gfroi, for copyright reasons, Wikipedia can't use photos that are uploaded to other websites, such as The Sun.

Instead, you should have a search through c:Category:Taylor Swift for a photo you could use instead. Nil🥝 07:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

well i did search and found on wikipedia commons and it still showed the link and not the photo Gfroi (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

also can i crop an image and add it to wikipedia commons? Gfroi (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gfroi. Neither infoboxes nor images have any effect on whether a draft is accepted or not. I suggest you stop worrying about these until you have got your draft in a state where it is accepted.

When you do come to look at images:

• Most infoboxes that take images just want the name of the file, eg File:Taylor Swift at the 2023 MTV Video Music Awards (2) (cropped).png, not a link or Wikilink.
• With a few exceptions which are probably not relevant, all images used must be free for use. Unless they are very old, this means that the copyright holder must have made an explicit legal declaration that they are licensed under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. Most images you find anywhere on the internet cannot be used. See image use policy.

ColinFine (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

alright thanks Gfroi (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

08:10, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Theindianchronicle

• Theindianchronicle (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sudheeran prayar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Sudheeran prayar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed that the Wikipedia page "Sudheeran Prayar" was deleted . I would like to understand the specific reasons for its deletion.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Sincerely, Theindianchronicle (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theindianchronicle: there has never been an article in the main encyclopaedia at Sudheeran Prayar, as far as I can tell. There was a draft at Draft:Sudheeran Prayar, but that was deleted several months ago as abandoned. Meanwhile, Draft:Sudheeran prayar is still there, but has been rejected for providing no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

08:25, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Truthtelleroftheworld

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

Brooooooo

Truthtelleroftheworld (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're wanting to demonstrate that you're not here to help us build an encyclopaedia, then this certainly makes that point rather clearly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

09:04, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Linh.ttt

• Linh.ttt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CMC Telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:CMC Telecom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rewritten from the Vietnamese Wikipedia page (https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMC_Telecom ), which was approved a long time ago and was originally written by us. I am not certain which specific issues have caused this draft to be considered promotional. All references provided are verifiable, and the content is intended to be factual and neutral. Thanks Linh.ttt (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Who is "us"? If you are employed, directly or indirectly, by CMC Telecom, the Terms of Use require you to make a paid editing disclosure; it does not require specific payment for editing or specific instructions to edit.

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others, especially when it comes to companies editing about themselves. It is up to the translator to make sure that the topic of their editing meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating.

Your draft just summarizes the routine business activities of the company; this is not in depth coverage that establishes that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The awards mentioned do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. Only those which receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources do- coverage that goes beyond telling of the activities and offerings of the company and goes into detail about what is viewed by others as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as important about itself. The English Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves(even if this is permitted on other Wikipedias). 331dot (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

So, if I were to write about a similar company in a manner comparable to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPT_University, which my team previously edited using a similar approach, would that be acceptable? Thank you.

Linh.ttt (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Linh.ttt: please answer the questions posed – who is "we" (and "my team"), and what is your relationship with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

We are an editorial team that writes about companies in the Vietnamese market. Linh.ttt (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

How many people have access to your account? Are you hired to edit about these companies? How do you select them? 331dot (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Linh.ttt.

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

User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

12:42, 16 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-34401-91

• ~2025-34401-91 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mary Ann Tedstone Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Mary Ann Tedstone Glover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I’m looking for help from an experienced editor with copyediting and reviewing a draft biography that has been declined multiple times for “LLM-like” writing style, despite sourcing and notability issues having been addressed.

The draft concerns a British composer and musicologist with independent press coverage and a verifiable credit on an Oscar-nominated animated short film.

I would really appreciate assistance from a human editor willing to review, rephrase, or adopt the draft so it better aligns with Wikipedia house style.

Thank you for any guidance or help you can offer. ~2025-34401-91 (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I fixed your header to link to the draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Request for copyediting help on declined AfC draft".

We don't do co-editng here at this help desk; if you'd like to solicit assistance, you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If you are the creator of the draft, please remember to log in. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

13:37, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Maurizio19giugno

• Maurizio19giugno (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Johannes Kuveenis the Elder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Johannes Kuveenis the Elder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello. I need to modify this draft, but I'm not familiar with "Source editing". How can I work through the Visual editing facility? TKS Maurizio19giugno (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have cleaned up the article and accepted it. If you want to use Visual editing, there should be an option in the top-right corner of the editing window that allows you to switch between source and visual editing. It looks like a pencil. If you can find the books in the Bibliography and cite them with inline citations, that would be perfect. -- Reconrabbit 15:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

14:10, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Anh2101011

• Anh2101011 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Anh2101011/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi, What do I need to edit further in order to successfully publish? Anh2101011 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I have placed the draft at Draft:Michael Caven, the preferred location for draft submissions(draft are best created via the Article Wizard).

Please heed the advice left by the reviewer. Much of your draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

14:35, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Maxgus91

• Maxgus91 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dorrett White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Dorrett White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not to sure what I need to do now. I listened to advice that was given upon decline. 1. We need primary source to reference. In the time, from decline dorrett white had an article written about her by a strong online news outlet, which is the new primary and I delete half the external links. I resubmitted and now my it's telling me the same thing Maxgus91 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You added a source, but its little more than images of her, and you didn't otherwise change the content of the article. You have not shown that she is a notable actress. You have documented her work but not summarized what independent reliable sources choose to say about her; such as critical analyses of her work by professional critics.

You have gone about this backwards; you wrote text and are now looking for sources to support it; you should first have the sources in hand before you begin writing. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

At the same time, I'm using articles the she is in and a full primary one. Or are you saying I should use exact wording from article almost like using quotes Maxgus91 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You generally should not copy verbatim the content of your sources. The sources you have provided are

1. mostly photos of her, not significant coverage
2. a brief interview with her, not significant coverage, not independent
3. a page with a photo of her, almost no text at all
4. a link to a film festival's website, no coverage of her
5. a film festival's website about a film, no coverage of her
6. the same

You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. All sources you use need to meet the criteria described at WP:42. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

i went ahead and change everything. I used 3 sources and left 3 paragraphs. From the best sources that she has rewritten pieces about her. Maxgus91 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The new source that you added is only a brief mention of her, not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Maxgus91. You have twice talked about adding "primary sources".

That is exactly what we don't want. An article should be mostly based on secondary sources, where people wholly unconnected with her have chosen to write at some depth about her.

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.

User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

17:41, 16 December 2025 review of submission by IPRD

• IPRD (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Balamurugan l (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Balamurugan l (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have a declined draft biography where multiple reliable, independent sources provide coverage of the subject’s research projects, inventions, and awards, but there is limited standalone biographical profiling focused exclusively on the individual.

I would appreciate guidance on practical ways to bring this draft to publishable standard, in line with WP:BIO and AfC expectations. Specifically, I would like to understand:

whether sustained coverage tied to notable research, patents, and awards can cumulatively establish notability for publication, and

what types of additional independent secondary sources (if any) would typically be sufficient to move such a draft out of draftspace.

My goal is to revise the draft appropriately rather than leave it unpublished indefinitely.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

— IPRD IPRD (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

IPRD Your disclosure on your user page is insufficient; you need to disclose when you're editing with a conflict of interest or a paid relationship(disclosure of the latter is a Terms of Use requirement), not just tell us that you might be doing so. In this case, you took a picture of this man, so I assume you're connected to him.

You must summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about him. If no such sources exist, he would not merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. The awards mentioned do not contribute to notability as they do not seem to have articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Tony Award). 331dot (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Please don't regurgitate LLM generated output when communicating with other people here. Use your own words. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

18:32, 16 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-41188-93

• ~2025-41188-93 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Buildertrend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Buildertrend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has been flagged for LLM, I've reduced the language as plainly as I can. Is there a way forward for me to publish this page? ~2025-41188-93 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. If you are employed by this company(as the username of the main contributor to the draft indicates) that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.

The draft is promotional because it just describes the activities and offerings of the company, this is not in depth coverage that shows how the organization is notable as Wikipedia defines the word with respect to companies. You instead need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the company- coverage that provides critical analysis of the company and its importance/significance/influence, not just tell us what they do.

However, since it was rejected largely due to LLM use, you may ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider their rejection to see if they will give you another shot. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

19:24, 16 December 2025 review of submission by Ritchy Dube

• Ritchy Dube (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Haven by Richard Dube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:The Haven by Richard Dube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - Do you see any reason why this article should not be included in the mainspace?

I draw your attention to the multiple reviews that establish notability and ask you to note the encyclopedica tone of the piece itself.

Formatting looks good also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchy Dube (talk • contribs)

This isn't the place to put a copy of your draft. If you want a new review and have changed the draft to address prior reviews, please resubmit the draft.

Writing about yourself or your work is ill advised as a conflict of interest(though its not forbidden to submit a draft). 331dot (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The draft has been submitted multiple times under different titles, formatting is all over the place, user is a time sink, ignoring all advice. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting to see that. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

December 17

01:59, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Jeremiah ex

• Jeremiah ex (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Elaine and Eduardo Saverin Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Elaine and Eduardo Saverin Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this has been the latest of a few rejection - could you advise what more needs to be added?

The latest subs has reflected legitimate sources Jeremiah ex (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

(User blocked as a sock.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

03:14, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Gone Extinct

• Gone Extinct (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mookee pigeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Mookee pigeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I was just making a post to explain the accusation of my article relating to the use of LLMs. I am morally and fundamentally opposed to the use of LLMs and AI as a whole, I completely disregard any work using LLMs and would never use the tools myself due to my stance. In saying this, I'm not trying to excuse my article, but rather confirm that it was written organically by myself over the course of some few days with constant revisions and natural writing processes. I can however, acknowledge that the article requires significant revision and even a total rewrite.

The article was written the way it was with its clunky sections and odd flow because of a few reasons, with the main contributing factors being the fact that I had written two successfully published articles back to back the days prior, leading to burnout, and the complete bankruptcy on academic sources on the mookee pigeon as a breed. These factors combined left me burnt out and exhausted during the writing of the article and a little frustrated at the lack of information available (which in turn led to an over-reliance on the few sources I could find). The essay-like style of the article is the result of these factors, and my own personal background as a high school student in the current year.

This is all to say that I want to improve. I have even made the decision to purchase physical encyclopedias on pigeon breeds in my quest to fatten up pre-existing fancy pigeon articles and create comprehensive new ones. Are there any readily available sources I could use online? Or any places I could go to look at all? Not sure if this is a good question for this forum, I'm very new to Wikipedia and just wanted to look for ways to improve (and stomp out any suspicion that I use LLMs while doing it). Gone Extinct (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gone Extinct, and welcome to wikipedia! I'm unsure why the draft was declined for LLM, but the reviewer @Mikeycdiamond may be able to expand on their reasonings. Looking at the draft, my one piece of advice would be to be careful not to rely too much on single sources, as that increases the risk of close paraphrasing; that said, totally understand that it can be difficult to find additional sources for some topics!

In terms of finding resources, you could drop by WP:WikiProject Birds (a group of editors looking to improve bird-related coverage on Wikipedia) and ask on the Talk page if any of them have access to sources, or know where to look. We also have The Wikipedia Library available to editors who've been around for 6+ months and have 500 edits – although you may not be able to access it now, it's definitely worth keeping in mind for the future.

And remember, there is no deadline, so it's always good to take a step back and have a break if you do feel burn out; your draft will still be safe and waiting for you :) Nil🥝 08:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I declined the article because the holding of the bird's features made me suspicious. I am sorry if I mistook your article for AI. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh no worries mate that's perfectly understandable, as I was writing the section on plumage I almost nuked it mid way through cause it was so clunky lol. And looking back, the bolded heading dot points are very close to how something like ChatGPT summarises inquiries. Appreciate your reply, I will try to revise this article and turn it into its best possible iteration. No hard feelings! Gone Extinct (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, super helpful! Over-reliance on specific sources really did hurt the article, hopefully I can scrounge up some better sites. And you're a hundred percent right, there's no deadlines and I shouldn't feel the need to push myself to write these articles back to back (I just tend to get hyperfixated lol). Anyways thanks again! Gone Extinct (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

04:26, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Reizayin

• Reizayin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ookami Mio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ookami Mio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was rejected and is unable to be resubmitted for not being notable, despite the fact Wikipedia:NotabilIty (music)#criteria for musicians and ensembles's points 2, and 5 being met. proof: https://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2403047/full/ Reizayin (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Reizayin: if you wish to appeal the rejection, you should in the first instance make your case to the reviewer who rejected this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I did, three days ago, to no response. Reizayin (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Reizayin: I'd say give it more time, three days is not much. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

11:27, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Anita Cheneshkova

• Anita Cheneshkova (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:DANUBEPARKS - Danube River Network of Protected Areas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:DANUBEPARKS - Danube River Network of Protected Areas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia team,

I am writing regarding my Articles for Creation submission about DANUBEPARKS – Danube River Network of Protected Areas.

I would like to explain the reasons why I am trying to create the article for that association, because it is not an advertisement.

I would like to document an established transnational governance and cooperation structure that plays a recognised role in European river basin management and environmental policy

Despite this, my recent submission was again rejected, apparently due to concerns about a perceived financial stake. I would greatly appreciate clarification or guidance on how to ensure my submission is fully compliant, so that it can be considered fairly by reviewers.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your guidance.

Best regards, Anita Cheneshkova

Anita Cheneshkova (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anita Cheneshkova: could you please make the paid-editing-disclosure as already requested. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

What makes your draft promotional is that it is you telling the world about your organisation or initiative or however you would classify it. We're not interested in that, you can save that for your website and other comms channels. We want to see what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about this subject. Your job is merely to summarise their coverage; see WP:GOLDENRULE for an overview of that process, and WP:ORG for the notability guideline your draft must satisfy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop using an AI to do your communication for you. We are all real people here, and we are here to talk to other real people, not to AI chatbots. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and advice. Sometimes it is hard for me to explain in English, but I will keep that in mind. Anita Cheneshkova (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

12:28, 17 December 2025 review of submission by 458spenlane

• 458spenlane (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jianqiao Ye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Jianqiao Ye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, how can I know my draft has been properly submitted. 458spenlane (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@458spenlane: it has been, yes; it has that mustard yellow (?) box, titled "Review waiting, please be patient." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I did not see the box, so just resubmitted. I got the box this time. 458spenlane (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@458spenlane Note that you used ChatGPT to help you format the draft - and ChatGPT added in a broken decline notice. ChatGPT isn't very good and often does this! qcne (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. I used chatgtp to workout the template and a draft scripts, which I was not familiar with. I then revised the wordings. It was however rejected due to detected signs of using LLM. The latest version was completely rewritten by following the format and style of an accepted contribution. 458spenlane (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@458spenlane ChatGPT is next to useless at creating this type of material. The footprint it leaves behind is terrible and the templates are usually woefully malformed. Put plain, please do not use it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@458spenlane  Declined The subject is probably notable, but the work to be done, while it might redone by someone else, really should be done by you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I declined it again. It seems to be an article about an academic but I didn't find anything definitive to determine that the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC, and the empty name-dropping "was reported by" looks like a remnant of LLM output. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

12:54, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Milkmansson

• Milkmansson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Toit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Toit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I see the message regarding 'excessive use of primary references'. The page source is getting pretty heavy to work with, with the markup. I was wondering if I could get some help with pointers at specific ones that could/should be removed? Its a little hard to know which ones are the ones that are problematic, I'm still a bit new at this. Thanks in advance! Milkmansson (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Milkmansson do not rely on Medium, nor Github. Be careful about Codecentric. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou! Milkmansson (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Milkmansson. To start with, remove anything written or published by anybody or any organisation involved with developing or promoting Toit. (It is possible that later, when you have a viable article, you add one or two of them back to support uncontroversial factual information like places and dates. But they cannot play any part at all in establishing notability or creating an acceptable article).

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

14:30, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Lizelfman

• Lizelfman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Freed AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Freed AI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - my article just got declined because it shows signs of using an LLM. However, I was super careful NOT to use an LLM, that's why my article is kind of short. I wanted to make sure I didn't get dinged for anything according to Wikipedia's strict rules.

Can you please advise? It's tough to find a path forward when Wikipedia thinks I've used an LLM but I haven't. All I can really say is "No I didn't"? Lizelfman (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Pythoncoder. qcne (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much, we get redundant compound headings like "Privacy and Security" and "Awards and Reception" (in title case in violation of MOS:HEADING) only from LLMs, not from human editors. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Title case is a pretty common thing for people to use when unfamiliar with the MOS. What's strange is that the clearly online sources have no URLs. -- Reconrabbit 16:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention that too. Often a copy-paste from an LLM includes just the text, not the underlying links. And the meaningless "Reports note that..." (like "has been profiled" in other LLM output), is another sign. All of this combined casts doubt on the "no I didn't" assertion. Even so, the sourcing, while sparse, is decent. It just needs cleanup. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a big red flag, as the absence of hyperlinks tends to suggest the text was copypasted from somewhere. Also the repeated mention of VentureBeat in the body text — and related to that, the overuse of “reported that” and similar expressions —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

15:05, 17 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-41344-64

• ~2025-41344-64 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Smartclip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Smartclip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I recently received a declined draft because it appeared to use LLM generated content. While I did consult with ChatGPT to identify areas of my draft that appeared promotional I did not copy and paste any text from ChatGPT or any LLM. I shifted the language from neutral but abstract verbs like “provide,” “include,” “support,” “enable” to ensure that it did not come across as promotional.

Could you please point to specific examples that suggest LLM involvement so I can address them? I did not use an LLM to write the draft. Thank you. ~2025-41344-64 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It does appear you copied and pasted (or maybe manually copied) the entire "Operations" section and those that follow, which bear many hallmarks of being AI-written (simple example is the liberal and superfluous use of boldface). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-41344-64. While it's possible that current LLMs can correctly identify "promotional" text (though I have my doubts), I'm pretty sure that they cannot reliably identify what Wikipedia regards as promotional copy. Put simply, if a draft is saying what the company/subject want people to know, it is promotional. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

15:08, 17 December 2025 review of submission by G3upo

• G3upo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Best American Short Stories 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:The Best American Short Stories 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first version of this article was declined and I'm asking for help before resubmitting. This book is part of a series, and the previous yearly editions have individual wikipedia pages, therefore I would like to add an entry for the 2025 edition. I have added further references, including references to library catalogs with detailed information on the book and the table of contents. Is this enough for a resubmission of the article? Is any other information still needed? G3upo (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the previous anthologies merit their own stand-alone articles either. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @G3upo. Adding references to library catalogues adds nothing at all to an article.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

Those are the only kind of sources that most of the article should be based on - and if there aren't several of those, there is nothing to put into the article, and it will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the associated articles about prior year editions fall into the same boat, and should probably be deleted. This draft is no better or worse than those articles already in mainspace. That isn't a reason to accept the draft, it's a reason to clean up the mess in mainspace. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I understand your points. I would be willing to rearrange these articles with some help and input. What do you think would be some first steps? Do you think it makes sense to merge the tables of contents of the individual editions to the main article on the series? G3upo (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @G3upo.

No, I don't. That would make The Best American Short Stories a huge bloated data dump.

If some of the individual anthologies can be given adequate sources to establish notability, then that should be done, and those can be kept, with their list of contents. Those that cannot be rescued in that way should be deleted, and there is no reason to find somewhere to retain those tables. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

16:19, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Audgirl

• Audgirl (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tomo Mortgage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft seems to have been auto-rejected because "not adequately supported by reliable sources." but I have ten sources and every check I've done seems to say these are reliable news sources. I would appreciate any help in figuring out how I can improve this draft. Audgirl (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, looks like my page got speedy deleted for other reasons.. will go back and try to figure out the bigger issue. Audgirl (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Audgirl: please don't use AI to create your drafts, it never works out well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Heard, thank you! The content really was hand crafted, but I used AI to try and get all the formatting right and check it against the standards. I'm going to try again by formatting only in the editor and hopefully that works better. Audgirl (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Audgirl There is no such thing ass auto-rejected. All acceptances, declines, rejections, nominations for deletion are by real, live, humans.

Please read HELP:YFA 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

As it happens, it was sort of auto-rejected (well, declined), because the user added – or AI did – the 'd' flag to the submission template, so the draft was born already declined. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It's kind of nice when an AI does the review for us, as if it knows that its own output wouldn't be accepted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

facepalm! I am going back and reading the how to guides (and not asking my AI assistant for help -- promise). And thank you to all the real humans for your guidance! Audgirl (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about it, @Audgirl. We get so many people here who jump into the very challenging task of creating an article without spending any time learning the skills they need. That one (using an AI which creates the draft ready-declined) is a recent one, but quite common. I suspect people see "The Encyclopaedia which anybody can edit" and interpret it as "The encyclopaedia which anybody can edit without having to learn how to".

User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

19:58, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Md Ziyaullah Shah

• Md Ziyaullah Shah (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Md Ziyaullah Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello my dear please solve my problem Md Ziyaullah Shah (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

May you specify what the problem is, and the point of this draft? GGOTCC 20:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that you are on the wrong website; you need to use social media to do what you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

21:19, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Pastagh0st

• Pastagh0st (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Flint Community Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Flint Community Players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! My draft was declined for not having "significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and I am not sure how the many different news articles as well as a master's thesis solely about the subject are not considered published reliable secondary sources. I've read the guidelines for notability and they seem to fit in my opinion. Am I missing something? This is my first article. Pastagh0st (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"Notable people" should only include people who merit/have Wikipedia articles. The congratulations from the Michigan Senate is a primary source; legislative bodies/politicians put out many resolutions of congratulations(I got one for my birthday), we need an independent source for this.

A thesis is original research. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm confused on why there would be a template to cite a thesis if a thesis is original research and therefore not allowed. Theses are even mentioned in the reliable sources page, stating: "Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties. Unfinished dissertations are generally not reliable sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources." So while not the ideal source, it still should be usable, shouldn't it? Pastagh0st (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Normally 331dot and I are in agreement, but in this case I'll make a minor quibble. Except for literature reviews or systematic reviews, all peer-reviewed literature is original research! If it wasn't, there would be no reason to publish it. We can report on it because it has been published under peer review. The same is true for a completed PhD dissertation that has been accepted; a group of peers (superiors, actually) review it and agree the work is worthy of a degree. A dissertation isn't accepted unless it describes original work.

That said, WP:THESIS (which you quoted) says that a dissertation can be cited, but it is normally considered a primary source, and we should avoid citing dissertations for anything below a doctorate, and we should also avoid citing dissertations that haven't been cited elsewhere. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist Pastagh0st I guess I wasn't clear on the fact that it was peer reviewed, apologies. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

21:49, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Jeffkozak15

• Jeffkozak15 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Erik Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Before I resubmit for approval, I thought I would check in with you to see how this looks.

I added lots of references and reworded the article to flow better, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Erik_Schultz Jeffkozak15 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jeffkozak15. That's what submitting for review is for. We don't generally do pre-reviews here.

But what I do notice is that you have added all the citations in a list at the end. Since the entire purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to provide a way for a reader to verify some information in the article, citations that are not attached to the particular information they verify are pretty well useless. Please see WP:REFB.

Also, it looks to me as if most of your sources are to catalogues and sales sites, and so will verify nothing more than that a piece exists. Please see golden rule for the criteria you should be evaluating most of your sources against.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

22:05, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Ashoksth

• Ashoksth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ThreatDown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:ThreatDown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’ve done my best to publish this article. Could someone advise on how to make it more neutral and aligned with Wikipedia’s guidelines? Ashoksth (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.

The awards are meaningless towards notability as they lack articles about themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).

You have just told the activities amd offerings of the company, not significant coverage of the company that provides critical analysis of the company. The vast majority of companies on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't work for the company Ashoksth (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

22:23, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Wphelan82

• Wphelan82 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Weber House and Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Weber House and Garden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the feedback on this submission. It says it was declined because it reads like an advertisement. Could this be because it is not considered notable enough? Or is it due to the way the article is written? The information is sourced from reputable outlets including The Chicago Tribune, PBS affiliate WPTV, The Pantagraph, The Pontiac Daily Leader, and other newspaper features. The property itself is quite rare and unusual. Just looking to see whether this can be written or it is doomed for rejection based on a lack of notability. Thank you for the feedback on this submission. Wphelan82 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

22:32, 17 December 2025 review of submission by Mattygezart23

• Mattygezart23 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mattygezart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IDK HOW 2 WIKIPEDIA Mattygezart23 (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:YFA your draft has zero chance of being accepted though. Theroadislong (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mattygezart23.

Successfully writing an article about yourself is so incredibly difficult that you are very strongly discouraged from trying.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

This means that in order to successfully write an article about yourself, you would have to

1. Find several sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:42. For most people in the world, these do not exist, and no article is possible. Even for YouTubers.
2. If you can find them, you would then need to forget everything you know about yourself, and everything you want people to know, and write a summary of what those sources say. Even if they miss out the important bits. Even if they say things about you that you really don't like. Even if they get it wrong.

Do you see why this is almost impossible? ColinFine (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

22:58, 17 December 2025 review of submission by AlabamaShakes

• AlabamaShakes (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Influent Language Learning Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Influent Language Learning Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft for Influent has been declined twice for lack of significant reviews, however I do feel strongly that the coverage I have cited is rather significant for an educational game. Traditional outlets generally will not cover games like Influent, so I feel it is important to take other factors into consideration for games focused specifically on learning. Within the articles that do cover Influent, TheGamer lists it as the #1 language learning game of 2024. Also of note, Influent won two awards this year at a Serious Games competition in Europe, including the Overall Winner award. As a result it was also named a Finalist in the Serious Games Showcase and Challenge 2025.

For a game that is not entertainment-focused and instead makes language learning the goal, I strongly believe it should not be held to the same standard as entertainment-focused games when it comes to review coverage from just the traditional games review sites. A review aggregator like metacritic simply should not serve as the deciding factor for whether educational video games are considered notable enough for a Wikipedia presence. AlabamaShakes (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

References

You disclosed a COI, what is the general nature of it?

Awards/recognition are meaningless towards notability unless the award itself merits an article(like The Game Awards).

If you want to create a lower standard for educational video games, you may discuss that in the appropriate forum. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

December 18

00:35, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Kylebutt

• Kylebutt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rao–Sandelius shuffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Rao–Sandelius shuffle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The original request was closed due to lack of "reliable sources".

I'm at a loss, as all the important claims in the article are supported by sources. It would be helpful to know if the problem is with the sources themselves, or what the reviewer thought was unsupported.

All the citations are journal articles. Two are the original papers that led to the algorithm being named the "Rao-Sandelius" shuffle. The others are papers that analyze or implement the algorithm. Kylebutt (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@CFA: would you clarify? The draft looks OK to me. An algorithm that is cited in multiple scholarly sources should be presumed notable enough for a standalone article, and we have ample precedent. Strangely, I couldn't find a guideline covering this. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kylebutt. Two of your four sources are the original papers by Rao and Sandelius, so are primary. This leaves only two independent sources, which is fewer than is usually wanted.

The Bacher et al. paper, on a quick look, appears to be a good source. For the Mitchell et a, I haven't looked at the text, but I notice that Rao-Sandelius is not mentioned in the abstract, which makes me wonder.

But even if there is good coverage in that, you have only two independent sources. A third would be stronger. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

02:52, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Gurkaanid

• Gurkaanid (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:1969 Arab League summit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:1969 Arab League summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The sources for the events within the summit chambers (In particular, Nasser's walking) are all from either U.S State documents or Israeli newspapers. Arab language sources on this event don't mention Nasser leaving, only the conclusion of the event ("no resolution was decided"). Would it be acceptable if I included "American and Israeli sources suggest..." in relation to the Nasser walkout, and thus keep the sources? In addition, I have an Arab language source that suggests Gaddafi was also considering walking out, but didn't due to Nasser's intervention, but I could only find one source, so I didn't include it. Gurkaanid (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The Last Duty (novel)

I created an article (The Last Duty) and it has been accepted but it's yet to be connected to or moved to Wikidata Lekkyson4wiki (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! No need to worry, it is an automatic process that may take a few weeks. If you feel the need, you can create/add the article to the topic's entry at Wikidata. GGOTCC 05:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok. How do I do that? Lekkyson4wiki (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to. If you are willing to wait a week or two, there is a bot that adds new articles to Wikidata automatically. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

All right. I only became bothered because I've written two articles before and they were connected to Wikidata within two weeks. So, when this article exceeded the two weeks, and now, a month, I thought it was forgotten. Lekkyson4wiki (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

07:19, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Malaya Kumar Biswal M

• Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Grahaa Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Grahaa Space (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can any experienced wikipedia editors help me to expand and review this article? The submission got declined, now we have revised it in accordance to WP:NCORP. Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't do co-editing at this help desk, you could try asking at the business WikiProject. I can tell you that you have not established that your company meets WP:ORG. You have just summarized its routine business activities and offerings, not significant coverage of the company that independently provides a critical analysis or discussion of the importance/significance/influence of the company.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Most companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles; companies trying to force the issue and create one themselves are rarely successful. Articles are usually written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage of a topic in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

09:14, 18 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-39782-86

• ~2025-39782-86 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kathy Speirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Kathy Speirs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you advise whether the current sources establish notability? ~2025-39782-86 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Interviews do not establish notability, because they are not an independent source(being the person speaking about themselves). Most of your sources are about her film, and not her personally- that may merit the film an article, but not her. It's possible for a person's works to merit an article but not them personally. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

12:38, 18 December 2025 review of submission by AlphaCore

• AlphaCore (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Benson Sunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Benson Sunday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey,

As a reviewer, I passed the references cited as reliable, but 3 of them were from the Guardian, and all references were on a single event in which he was involved. Before taking a decision, I just want to get feedback from more experienced reviewers. Please ping me in the response. AlphaCore talk 12:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaCore: The first two sources in the draft are actually the same source – they are slightly edited versions of the same press release, so only one of them should be used. As for the Guardian sources, I agree they are reliable but they are not about Benson Sunday (and neither is the press release), so I would not say that notability is shown. Here is a good resource for evaluating sources from Nigeria: Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea I referred the same for checking reliability. My doubt was about the it's notability. Thanks. AlphaCore talk 18:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

14:58, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Jun Mulat

• Jun Mulat (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Streets of Tagbilaran City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Streets of Tagbilaran City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

im struggiling Jun Mulat (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the streets of Tagbilaran City aren't a notable topic, and topics that aren't notable cannot be published to Wikipedia. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Then why wikipedia approved the list of Streets in Cebu? why can't they approve List of Streets in Tagbilaranof Streets in Tagbilaran? Jun Mulat (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Secondly, the Streets of Cebu article also isn't notable, and I nominated it for deletion. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

15:13, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Helka25

• Helka25 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tibor Hortobágyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Tibor Hortobágyi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hope I understand correctly that there can be no external links in the main text, only references within Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia should be included in the references section. Is it advisable to reduce the number of links, by not referring country or city names if they are already included in the names of institutions? Helka25 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Helka25 You understand correctly. I'm not sure I understand your second question. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Helka25 I believe you're asking about MOS:GEOLINK/MOS:OL?

Usually, countries don't need to be linked, and neither do major cities unless linking provides important context for readers. Nil🥝 22:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Helka25 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, you are right, my question isn't clear, but I've since received an answer. Helka25 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

16:50, 18 December 2025 review of submission by YoannaAB

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.

---

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

Why is it declined? It is an important buisnessman in Indonesia. YoannaAB (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

16:55, 18 December 2025 review of submission by YoannaAB

• YoannaAB (talk · contribs)
  • Abawi surname (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had written that the surname Abawi has multiple orgins including Indonesian, which is the most common. It was deleted right away. But Abawi has a deep history in Indonesia, which Ab comes from Abang meaning brother or protector in Malay and Awi meaning bamboo which is seen as very precious. It is not nice that it gets deleted, because it also hurts. It is part of Indonesian's family legacy. Just because it happens one famous Afghan has that surname does not automaticlly make it Afghan. It is Indonesian from orgin. YoannaAB (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

We only deal with drafts here, you haven't edited or created a draft. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry, wrong page directed. YoannaAB (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked as a fairly obvious sock or meat. Either that, or an astonishing coincidence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

17:05, 18 December 2025 review of submission by MTranEditor

• MTranEditor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bay Atlantic University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Bay Atlantic University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking a pre-review of Draft:Bay Atlantic University. The article was previously declined due to tone and source quality concerns. I have since rewritten the draft to ensure a neutral, encyclopedic tone and have replaced several citations with independent, reliable sources. I would appreciate feedback on whether these changes sufficiently address the previous rejection before I officially resubmit. Thank you so much for your help! MTranEditor (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we do not do pre-review reviews; if you want feedback, and feel that you have addressed the issues raised by the last review, you need to resubmit the draft.

That said, I will say that you have just summarized the routine activities and offerings of your university, which does not establish that the university is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read WP:BOSS and WP:YESPROMO, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. In short, you're not likely to be successful in writing about your employer. The vast majority of organizations on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@MTranEditor: we don't do pre-reviews, sorry, because a pre-review is just an alternative spelling for review. If you have specific questions, you may ask those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

17:39, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Houseofsteves

• Houseofsteves (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:T. J. Beisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:T. J. Beisner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Curious why this would not be worthy of inclusion when there is significantly more attribution and sourcing than his co-worker's page that is published only using employer biographies?Alvin Brooks III Houseofsteves (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Houseofsteves I fixed your link; the whole url is not needed. It appears that you have based your draft on another inappropriately written article. That another article exists does not necessarily mean it has been reviewed or approved by anyone or that it meets current standards. This is why each article or draft is judged on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles or even Featured Articles. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

19:22, 18 December 2025 review of submission by HEISTED X

• HEISTED X (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:V.F.D. Confidentials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:V.F.D. Confidentials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just want it to exist HEISTED X (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@HEISTED X In this form it has been rejected. While we appreciate your desire it will not be fulfilled. This is unsuitable to be an article. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

19:33, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Eva Hillier

• Eva Hillier (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Chance Peña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Chance Peña (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My wikipedia page for Chance Peña has been declined for submission three times due to unreliable sources. Is there a way that I can find out which of my sources are and aren't reliable so I can make any modifications? Furthermore, are there any ways I can detect the reliability of future sources I use? Eva Hillier (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Eva Hillier Please confirm that you have read the substantial comment left by a reviewer. It tells you everything they believe you need to know. If you do have further questions please come back to this thread and ask them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

20:56, 18 December 2025 review of submission by Bbrockman13

• Bbrockman13 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Citruslabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Citruslabs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've made this more neutral sounding already and removed the promotional information. Are there any other tips to why this is still getting rejected for sounding like an advertisement? Bbrockman13 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

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 summarized the routine business activities and offerings of the company. Instead, you should 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. The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles.

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID, or your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

23:18, 18 December 2025 review of submission by LBMoche

• LBMoche (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:National Institute for Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:National Institute for Play (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thank you for reviewing our drafts. I understand now that our organization is not quite ready for Wikipedia. We would like to remove the latest draft from your files and submit an individual page instead for Dr. Stuart Brown, Founder of the National Institute for Play. I note in your instructions that submissions should not be deleted, so welcome your guidance. We'll plan to start a new submission proposal for Dr. Stuart Brown separately, if that sounds good. Thank you! LBMoche (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@LBMoche Please quantify 'we', and 'our'.

You may suggest the page you no longer wish to proceed with be deleted. Place {{db-user}} at the head of the draft. Copy it for the text you see here. For what it does please see the link inside {{db-user}} 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 01:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LBMoche

If, as I surmise, you work for the Institute, then please read WP:PAID and WP:BOSS.

User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

December 19

02:37, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Jun Mulat

• Jun Mulat (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Streets of Tagbilaran City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Streets of Tagbilaran City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to make it notable? why the List of Streets in Cebu is accepted? and why Streets in Tagbilaran is not approved? Jun Mulat (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

List of streets in Cebu was not created via AfC, as this is an optional process. However, that article has been nominated for deletion and would likely not be around for much longer. The issue with your draft is that it only contains three roads, lists irrelevant information, and contains citations which are not about roads in the city. Not to mention, no context is given as to where these roads actually are and does not make sense. Articles about similar topics, such as List of state highways in Maryland, has additional information as to the scope and context of the article, where the roads are, and where they go. GGOTCC 06:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

a am still preparing the rest of the draft to be submitted, the three streets i sent in advance just to try. Jun Mulat (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

ok, ill edit it...add additional scope and context. Jun Mulat (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Jun Mulat has created four drafts on essentially the same subject, all have been rejected, and I have suggested they do not create any more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jun Mulat.

Wikipedia articles must be on subjects which are notable by Wikipedia's standards - this mostly means that several people must independently have written about the topic. Where have people written (in reliable sources about the subject "Streets of Tagbilaran City"? Not about the city, or about indvidual streets, but about the streets as a subject? Unless you have some answers, this cannot be a Wikipedia article.

User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

04:17, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Dileepnnit

• Dileepnnit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Narayana Nethralaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Narayana Nethralaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi everyone,

I've prepared a draft for Narayana Nethralaya (eye hospital): Draft:Narayana Nethralaya

I have a declared COI. Before submitting it via AfC, I'd like volunteer feedback on whether it meets notability guidelines, if the sources are strong enough, tone is neutral, etc.

Any advice would be very helpful. Thank you! Dileepnnit (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Dileepnnit I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Feedback requested on hospital draft before submission". I also fixed the link you provided, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Narayana Nethralaya]].

We don't do pre-review reviews; if you would like feedback, you need to submit the draft for a review. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

04:22, 19 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-41621-57

• ~2025-41621-57 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mowgli 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Mowgli 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can i know the reason why is it rejected, i read the notibility rules and i think it justified the rules can anyone explain clearly why this article is rejected? ~2025-41621-57 (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

If you created the draft, remember to log in before posting.

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 the messages left by reviewers at the top of your draft. The main concern seems to be that the sources provided are not reliable sources. You are correct that released films that have had critical reviews by professional critics are generally notable, but the sources need to be proper sources. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

05:22, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Lawandpolicy27

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.

---

• Lawandpolicy27 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scott Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Scott Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received feedback on this page. I have addressed the concerns by adding evidence of independent and reliable coverage to establish notability in accordance with the guidelines and by revising the article to reflect a more formal, neutral tone. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether these edits adequately respond to the concerns. Lawandpolicy27 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Lawandpolicy27 We don't do pre-review reviews, if you feel that you have addressed the concerns, you need to resubmit the draft for feedback. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

09:56, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Inuser12

• Inuser12 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bangladesh Rifles Welfare Council, Gopalganj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Bangladesh Rifles Welfare Council, Gopalganj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings to the esteemed editors and volunteers of the Help Desk,

I am a new contributor and have recently prepared a draft titled 'Draft:Bangladesh Rifles Welfare Council Gopalganj'. I humbly request your expert guidance and would be immensely grateful if you could spare a few moments of your valuable time to review my work.

Specifically, I would appreciate your advice on whether the current citations meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and if there are any areas where I could further refine the content to better align with Wikipedia's standards. I am very eager to learn and improve this draft based on your suggestions.

Thank you very much for your patience and kind assistance. Inuser12 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Inuser12 We don't do pre-review reviews, for feedback, you need to submit the draft.

Please see your user talk page for important information; users are not permitted to edit about social groups in South Asia(including Bangladesh) until their account is extended-confirmed(meaning it is 30 days old with 500 edits). While your account is old enough, you are far from 500 edits; probably you shouldn't have created the draft at all- but leaving that aside- if it is accepted, you could not edit it directly until you have 500 edits, though you could make wholly uncontroversial edit requests. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

12:57, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Shehulhadii

• Shehulhadii (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Abdurrahman Bashir Haske bio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Abdurrahman Bashir Haske bio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want my draft to be reviewed Shehulhadii (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shehulhadii You failed to submit the draft for review. Please click the big blue Submit the draft for review! button. qcne (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

13:18, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Sarapeattie

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

Why is Dee Hook not sufficiently notable? Her films have played in festivals all over the world. I had just come back to this article to add an award she had won. Sarapeattie (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a really detailed comment from the reviewer – read it again, and if you have more questions you can ask for help at the Teahouse (like the reviewer comment says). The draft is just a list of external links with a very little (unsourced) text at the top, so there is nothing there to review at the moment! --bonadea contributions talk 16:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sarapeattie

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

You don't appear to have a single properly formatted citation to a source in your draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

14:15, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Jun Mulat

• Jun Mulat (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Streets in Tagbilaran City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Streets in Tagbilaran City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to help wikipedia through posting an article about the list of Streets in Tagbilaran City. How to make my article win approval and published ? Jun Mulat (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jun Mulat: as I already told you, this is not an encyclopaedic topic, it is just a listing of arbitrary information. I suggest you drop this approach. If you wish to write about a particularly notable street in Tagbilaran, do some research into proper sources and summarise what they have said; see WP:GOLDENRULE for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jun Mulat: This draft has been rejected twice over and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

15:28, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Weplayasmusic

• Weplayasmusic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Weplayasmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why you are rejecting Weplayasmusic (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

For the reason that your previous (identical) draft was speedily deleted: it is an advert, not an encyclopedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 15:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

...and if you continue in this vein, you will soon be blocked. I suggest you find a different topic to edit about, and/or a different platform to promote yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

16:33, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Sgramirez05

• Sgramirez05 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SouthEast Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:SouthEast Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page I have submitted is simply a page about a company in East Tennessee that has the exact same name as two other companies who in fact also have Wikipedia pages and the reason for wanting to submit our page is to differentiate from those other companies with the same name.

• Southeast Bank
• Southeast Banking Corporation

Thank you for consideration. Sgramirez05 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Sgramirez05 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Why was my submission declined". I also fixed your links, the whole url is not needed, just [[Southeast Bank]].

Wikipedia is has no interest in affecting search results for your company; for that, you would need to contact Google or other search engines. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion, such as the criteria for companies. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and their activities. The vast majority of companies on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles, because most reporting about companies is about their routine business activities and not significant coverage- critical analysis of the company that describes how it is important/significant/influential as a company. I'm sure your bank is important in East Tennessee(which I'm aware is a distinct region) but that local importance doesn't usually translate into Wikipedia-style notability.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues- you are, frankly, very unlikely to be successful in writing about your company.

My honest advice to your bank would be to consider changing its name in order to differentiate itself from other companies. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

See aslo Wikipedia:Teahouse#My article was declined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

16:40, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Biomandna

• Biomandna (talk · contribs)
  • ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • ? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my draft was declined Biomandna (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

It was rejected, @Biomandna. Did you have a specific question about the rejection...? qcne (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

why Biomandna (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Biomandna We do not host original research, as I already said. Please go elsewhere to write about this. qcne (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

19:12, 19 December 2025 review of submission by Biomandna

• Biomandna (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Human evo Timothy Hubbard David jr theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Human evo Timothy Hubbard David jr theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why did it get rejected Biomandna (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summery of existing information on a topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a place for sharing original thoughts. GGOTCC 19:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Biomandna addition, please read What Wikipedia is not CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

December 20

08:11, 20 December 2025 review of submission by Skauldelindia

• Skauldelindia (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SNTP Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:SNTP Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We would like to respectfully clarify the reliability and relevance of the first source uploaded with the article. The said source is an official RTI (Right to Information) response issued by the Government of India, wherein the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has explicitly stated that SNTP Technologies is India’s first and only company to be granted an All-India ISI license for reinforcement (rebar) couplers.

As this information has been provided directly by the statutory national standards authority (BIS) under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, through an RTI mechanism, it constitutes a primary, authoritative, and verifiable government record, and is therefore among the most reliable sources available for factual verification.

The notability of this information is relevant in the broader context of the rapidly expanding construction and infrastructure sector in India, where the availability and adoption of standardized, regulated, and certified products is of significant public and industry importance. The article aims to present this fact in a neutral and encyclopaedic manner, without promotional intent, strictly based on verifiable documentation.

We remain open to further guidance on improving compliance with Wikipedia’s sourcing and notability guidelines and are happy to provide additional independent or secondary references if required.

Thank you for your consideration Skauldelindia (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a company. This draft does not contain any inline citations let alone describe the company. Primary sources are not helpful as it, by itself, does not illustrate importance or notability. If the license is that important, it will be reported on by independent sources. While most companies are not notable enough for an article, the only claim to notability is a license. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more.

Since these issues, and more, have been in every revision of the draft, it has been rejected and you can not move froward with the draft. GGOTCC 08:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

08:21, 20 December 2025 review of submission by ~2025-33892-35

• ~2025-33892-35 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vansh P Keserkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Vansh P Keserkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

sir please tell me what should i do now

~2025-33892-35 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The article has been rejected. It would be best to find another topic with sources that meet WP:42 or learn editing skills with existing articles. GGOTCC 08:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

11:14, 20 December 2025 review of submission by Sead Spuzic

• Sead Spuzic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kinematics of sliding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Kinematics of sliding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Ldm1954, please note that we have changed the format and content in the draft "Kinematics of Sliding" so it does not appear as an essay, but provides well-established and cited information. I hope that you could decide to remove the rejection note and suggest further necessary improvements. Sead Spuzic (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sead Spuzic.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

In particular, an article should contain no argumentation or conclusions execept where it is summarising argumentation and/or conclusions in one (at a time) of its reliable independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Colin,

Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this draft and for your help in improving it.

When you have a moment, could you kindly point out any statements, paragraphs, or equations that appear to be unpublished or lack proper citation? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Sead Spuzic (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

15:10, 20 December 2025 review of submission by MICROPARS

• MICROPARS (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Siamak Mardaneh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Siamak Mardaneh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

If possible, please help me and share your opinion with me. I wanted to create a page for Siamak Mardaneh, and I tried to carefully study the relevant guidelines before doing so. I genuinely use artificial intelligence only to translate my own text, not to write it, because I believe it translates words more accurately than Google.

This draft has been declined multiple times due to concerns about ai generated writing. Since then, I have shortened the text, removed analytical and editorial language, corrected citation errors, and reduced reliance on IMDb.

I am not requesting approval, but rather guidance from an experienced AfC reviewer on whether the current version still raises policy concerns, and if so, which specific sections are problematic. I do not intend to question the review decision, rather, as an active Wikipedia editor, I want to improve my work and correct my approach.

Thank you for your time. MICROPARS (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@MICROPARS I have correct the link to the draft. The instruction for filling that field about is very hard to get wrong.

I haver assessed this and it is strongly probable to be AI generated. What you must do is rewrite it in your own words. We do not accept AI slip. I'm not about to do a pre-review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Fiddle for taking the time to review the draft and your comments.

I wrote all the changes first with pen and paper. The first day I decided to create this WikiPedia page, it was about 3.5 pages of A4 paper. Now it's half an A4 page.

I have reedited everything, not even using AI translation anymore.

I will continue to refine the text to ensure it fully meets AFC expectations before requesting any further review.

Thank you again for your time and guidance. MICROPARS (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

17:56, 20 December 2025 review of submission by HARISPEER

• HARISPEER (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peer Ahad Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Peer Ahad Sahib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

plese accept my article HARISPEER (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@HARISPEER There currently isn't indication this person meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• HARISPEER (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peer Ahad Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Peer Ahad Sahib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i want create a wikipedia page plese help me HARISPEER (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. We do not recommend doing so as the very first thing someone does on Wikipedia. Please first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial. This draft may not be resubmitted at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• HARISPEER (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peer Ahad Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Peer Ahad Sahib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

plese help HARISPEER (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, @HARISPEER. There is no indication this person meets our criteria for inclusion. I have rejected the draft and it won't be considered further. qcne (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

19:43, 20 December 2025 review of submission by MuslimCopt123

• MuslimCopt123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Muslim Copts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Muslim Copts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to understand exactly which sentences or sections require more reliable sources. I am confused because most of the sources I included are original historical books with direct links to the exact pages cited. In addition, most of the sources are direct references to word usage by the authors themselves, so there is little room for bias. It would be very helpful if you could point out the specific parts that need additional sources so I can address them properly. MuslimCopt123 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

_{Courtesy ping: Hurricane Wind and Fire} qcne (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I am still confused because I cited more than 22 reliable, published sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. These sources are not forums, personal blogs, social media, or fan websites. They include both accessible hard-copy publications with fully formatted citations and verifiable websites, all of which I provided. My sources directly and in detail discuss the topic, including historical and modern dictionaries, biographies, and similar works. All sources are independent. The article concerns Muslim Copts (Muslim ethnic Egyptians), and the authors are either Arabs who are not identified as Copts or modern Western scholars. Readers can easily verify the claims in the article by consulting the cited sources. I provided both links to accessible, translatable online versions and full, properly formatted citations for the printed editions.

MuslimCopt123 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@MuslimCopt123 I declined your draft because there are uncited statements. For example, in the "Etymology" section, there are no references. If the information was stated in other sources you had already used, you could use named references to add the citations in multiple times.

I get the decline reason was a little confusing, I should've been more specific in my comment. The main problem was verification of the uncited statements, not necessarily the reliability of current ones. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 20:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you! that was helpful :sparkling_heart: MuslimCopt123 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

20:00, 20 December 2025 review of submission by Info nebraska

• Info nebraska (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Midwest Cultivators Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Midwest Cultivators Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the original author of this article and wrote the first draft myself. I did not use any large language models to generate any of the facts or sources, just help with clarifying language. I did not realize using AI was prohibited

I now returned the article to my original human-written language and reviewed my submission and am now confident that it meets Wikipedia's content and sourcing guidelines. I am sorry for the problems this may have made.

Using these criteria, I feel that there are sufficient independent, reliable sources that have published articles associated with this cannabis regulation and the resulting cannabis industry in Nebraska. This includes regulation creation, development of the industry, and cannabis businesses that have been licensed. This article relies on these third-party sources in order to establish its importance under Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know about any additional sources or changes needed for full compliance.

Robert Info nebraska (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Info nebraska. Which of the sources meet the criteria at WP:GOLDENRULE? Because I am personally not seeing any of your sources that meet that criteria? qcne (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance and feedback on this draft. I have now expanded this article to provide more independent coverage, from national and industry sources as well as relevant sources from the State of Nebraska government website. This includes a copy of Midwest Cultivators Application hosted on the State of Nebraska Website. It is my hope these additions improved verifiability and showed verifiable, important, independent coverage of the subject. Please let me know about any further adjustments you would recommend. Info nebraska (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not have any ownership in Midwest Cultivators Group if that is what you are asking. I have had conversations with the owners and almost every other cannabis related person, activist and/or group in Nebraska. I am affiliated with the Nebraska Cannabis Trade Commission, (http://cannabisne.org), my goal is to simply bring awareness and transparency to a brand new industry coming online in Nebraska. Info nebraska (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you; I would note that "simply bring awareness and transparency to a brand new industry coming online in Nebraska" is exactly the wrong reason to write a Wikipedia article, see WP:YESPROMO. Anything that is "brand new", "rising", "up and coming" is not yet ready for an article. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Info nebraska "my goal is to simply bring awareness and transparency to a brand new industry coming online in Nebraska." That's a great pity. That is not congruent with W(kipedia's objective, which is to record topics meeting WP:GNG by summarising in one's wn words what is said in references passing WP:42

Wikiedia has no interest in promoting anything at all I fear you may misunderstand what Wikipedia is, which is a tertiary source. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Info nebraska If you can change your objectives of promoting the entity, you still face the obstacle that this draft is rejected and will not proceed further without a successful appeal to the rejecting reviewer.

I think you have probably written what you wish to say about the subject, and then sought references after writing in order to cite what you say. This is WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, please read this essay, one of several which outline a process which will succeed assuming the subject to be notable. If it isn't notable then no amount of editing can help. We use the references in the process described in the essay to determine and verify notability. No suitable references means the subject is not notable, and it is time to stop.

However, I feel you would be better rewriting it as a brand new draft; I recommend Draft:Midwest Cultivators Group (redrafted), and writing it from first principles, which are quite the reverse of WP:BACKWARDS. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Which isn't to say that the cannabis industry as a whole doesn't merit an article, as there is likely coverage of its enabling legislation and that sort of thing. But this organization specifically is a different matter. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

20:11, 20 December 2025 review of submission by Hawchik1986by

• Hawchik1986by (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Audiobooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Audiobooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

help Hawchik1986by (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hawchik1986by Wikipedia does not host "The Best Of" lists. qcne (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! May you elaborate on what you would like help with? GGOTCC 20:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

20:31, 20 December 2025 review of submission by GGPYOW

• GGPYOW (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ruby Heap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ruby Heap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you tell me what exactly is wrong with this submission? Thank you.

GGPYOW (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @GGPYOW. You need to prove that this person meets our criteria for inclusion, either the one for academics or the more general one for people. The former criteria might be easiest to prove.

Also, the Legacy and impact section is written in a tone that's contrary to our policy on neutrality: please remove it. qcne (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks ... very helpful ~2025-41856-05 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

21:27, 20 December 2025 review of submission by Rick Norwood

• Rick Norwood (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peter J. Skandalakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Peter J. Skandalakis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article about Peter J. Skandalakis, the man who pardoned Trump, was quickly rejected. The reason given was "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". All of my sources are reliable, and are entirely about the subject, so I assume the problem is that my source for the subject's youth and education are written by a source close to the subject. I will find sources not close to the subject and resubmit the article. Any advice you have to offer would be greatly appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Rick Norwood. That sounds like the right approach.

I recommend comparing every source against all the criteria in golden rule, and discarding those that do not meet all the criteria. (You might keep a small number of non-independent or primary sources, if they are to be used to verify uncontroversial factual information as explained at WP:PRIMARY, but they do not contribute to establishing notability). ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

December 21

00:38, 21 December 2025 review of submission by DJoel0937

• DJoel0937 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lobo, morir matando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Lobo, morir matando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help editing the draft of this article DJoel0937 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Unreleased films rarely merit articles, see WP:NFF. There needs to be significant coverage of the production itself, beyond casting announcements or other routine announcements. For example, Rust (2024 film) merited an article before its release due to a fatal accident on set. That's an extreme example, but the point is that something non-routine needs to happen. We don't do co-editing here at this help desk, you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

04:17, 21 December 2025 review of submission by Joss-dar.lhernandez12

• Joss-dar.lhernandez12 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Joss-dar.lhernandez12/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apoyo en el aprendizaje para ser ser global Joss-dar.lhernandez12 (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, please communicate in English.

Google translation:

Support in learning to be global

That's not a question, and it isn't clear how I could help you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

05:35, 21 December 2025 review of submission by MahastiAZ

• MahastiAZ (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Reza Afshar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Reza Afshar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added more references, in Persian and English, all of them reputable publications. I've also deleted some of the copy for brevity. I wonder if too many sources in Persian is problematic, but that is the function of the late 19-early 20th c span of the subject. Please advise. MahastiAZ (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The language of references are never an issue, and the older references are ok as they pass WP:42. The issue is that many sentences and paragraphs lack citations althougher. Where does the information come from? GGOTCC 05:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

06:12, 21 December 2025 review of submission by Jdavies13

• Jdavies13 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Terria (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Terria (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've been working on the Terria (company) draft page and so far have been unable to get it accepted by a reviewer. Can you please provide some more specific advice on where the submission is failing so that I can amend? Thanks in advance, Jdavies13 (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jdavies13: your draft provides insufficient evidence that this company is notable enough to justify an article, according to the WP:NCORP guideline. We need to see significant coverage directly of it in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent, and your draft cites at best one such source, arguably none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

06:32, 21 December 2025 review of submission by Priyanka choudhary1001

• Priyanka choudhary1001 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Radhika Muthukumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I have added sources and the actress has played lead roles in multiple notable works. So can the draft be re-reviewed? Priyanka choudhary1001 (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Priyanka choudhary1001: my advice would be to drop this subject and find something else to write about. If you feel that you absolutely must pursue this, then you can appeal the rejection to the reviewer who rejected this, although don't get your hopes up too much. I also note the open SPI investigation, the outcome of which may impact this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay I will drop this article. I don't want to work anymore on it. Priyanka choudhary1001 (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

08:08, 21 December 2025 review of submission by Inuser12

• Inuser12 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bangladesh Rifles Welfare Council, Gopalganj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Bangladesh Rifles Welfare Council, Gopalganj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Respected editors and community members,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted a draft titled Draft:Bangladesh Rifles Welfare Council, Gopalganj. However, the submission was declined under the suspicion of being generated by an LLM (AI).

I sincerely apologize if my writing style or the structure of the article gave that impression. My intention was to provide a well-organized and informative piece. I have spent significant time researching this topic and have cited reports from reputable national media outlets such as Prothom Alo, Somoy News, and Daily Inqilab.

I would be immensely grateful if you could kindly re-evaluate the draft and provide specific advice on:

Which specific areas require manual rewriting to align with Wikipedia’s encyclopedic tone and remove any perceived AI-like phrasing?

Whether the primary sources I have provided are sufficient to establish the organization's notability?

I am eager to learn from your expertise and am fully committed to revising the content according to your suggestions. Thank you very much for your time and for the invaluable work you do for this platform. Inuser12 (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Inuser12: please stop using LLM. Your draft was declined for that reason, and you come here to ask about this, still using LLM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry. My English is not very good, so I used a tool to help me write the previous message. I did not mean to break any rules. I really want to learn and improve the article myself. Please guide me simply. Inuser12 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Inuser12 I have two pieces of simple guidance for you:

1. Please do not use the English Laguage Wikipedia to seek to improve your English. Native or near native skill is required.
2. Do not, ever, use LLM here.

You are welcome here, please do not interpret this as being unwelcome. We simply need your language skills to be good. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Also know that, as I said to a previous message, you probably shouldn't be editing about this topic at all as it falls within a formally designated contentious topic. Please see your user talk page.

If your English skill is such that you need to use AI tools to write, you should consider editing the Wikipedia of your primary language(Bangla?) instead. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not better than others. The Bangla Wikipedia likely needs the help more than we do. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Help me! (Draft:Bwanika Bale Felix)

Moved from User talk:Marea Winy

Please help me with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bwanika_Bale_Felix Nabuwufu (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)