Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

• Lori Chao (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:APKPURE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I’m new to editing on Wikipedia, and I submitted a draft but it was declined.

I have since revised it according to the reviewer’s feedback and resubmitted it. It has now been waiting for re-review for one month.

I’m not sure whether this is a normal wait, or if there’s something I should do to help the process.

Any guidance on whether I should keep waiting or take some other action would be appreciated.

Thank you! Lori Chao (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,702 pending submissions waiting for review.

You're welcome to continue editing it while awaiting review. You should definitely address the sections without sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I’ve read the relevant guidelines and the reviewer’s suggestions, and I’ve made revisions accordingly. However, these changes were based on my own judgement, so I’m not sure whether they now meet Wikipedia’s standards or if some parts might still lack sufficient sourcing. Also, if my revised draft still does not meet the requirements after re-review, would it be deleted, or would I have another chance to improve it? Lori Chao (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be deleted, but it might be rejected depending on whether the reviewer thinks there's a path to notability. If it's simply declined, you can continue to improve it. In either case it will not be deleted unless six months pass without you or someone else editing it. Star Mississippi 03:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ASB1979 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Connie McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i have submitted this page a few times, each being declined with new reasons, not previously mentioned. I have been asked to source a statement starting with date of birth, which i have just removed, but looking to a similar page - this doesn't have this source :

Amy Irons

I cannot see why one of these pages is accepted and another isn't - i appreciate any help or more specific changes. ASB1979 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ASB1979 I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Amy Irons]].

Please see other stuff exists We judge each article or draft on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. If you see unsourced information about a living person, you can and should remove it. We're only as good as the volunteers who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the lead of an article does not need sources, as it just summarizes what appears in the rest of the article. A source for Irons' birth date appears in the infobox. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Gabby121995 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Pow Chavez's Birthday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pow Chavez's Birthday Is February 25, 1983 According To The Official Website Of Philippine Idol Which Is Now A Archive And Idol Fandom Website Gabby121995 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabby121995: This is the help desk for draft articles, and not a discussion of existing articles in Wikipedia. I think you are talking about the article Pow Chavez, which currently does not mention a birthday. If you have a reliable source that mentions his birthday, you can edit the article to add it. But you can't do that unless there really is a source that counts as reliable. If you have questions about that, you can ask them at the Tea house, but please make sure that you explain which article you are talking about and what the source is. And please stop capitalising every word (you were already asked not to do that, because it makes your posts harder to read). --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• SophieBarraclough89 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • UtmostGroup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone deleted this page that I was working on. Why can't this go back into draft and worked on instead of being automatically deleted. A lot of work went into this page with sources from multiple pages. SophieBarraclough89 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SophieBarraclough89 If you are referring to Draft:Utmost Group, it was deleted as blatant promotion that would be impossible to fix enough to turn it into an article. As an admin, I can view it, and I agree with the deletion.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. You're not likely to succeed at this. Most company representatives fail at trying to force the issue of creating an article instead of allowing one to organically develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of a topic and chooses to write about it.

Wikipedia is not a place for a business to tell about itself and its offerings/routine business activities. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do companies like RL 360 and Canada Life get away with it as they have pages that are very similar to what we were trying to achieve SophieBarraclough89 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SophieBarraclough89: Re-read the response you received to the same question here, a couple of weeks ago. If that is unclear, you can return here to get further clarification, but I can't actually see that there is anything we can tell you here that adds to the information you already received. --bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SophieBarraclough89 If you have evidence that RL360 employees edited the article about their company and failed to disclose their status, please see WP:REPORTPAID for how to provide that evidence. Articles are usually written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.

I've marked RL360° as problematic. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Apwcow (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • St Lawrence Dover College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:St Lawrence Dover College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently drafted an article for St Lawrence Dover College. The first three sections (lead, background, and merger) are supported mainly by secondary sources, including School Management Plus and Isle of Thanet News.

The Notable alumni section was compiled from the existing alumni lists on the St Lawrence College and Dover College articles, which contain limited references.

Could you clarify whether the draft was declined primarily due to insufficient or unreliable sourcing in the alumni section, or because the main content (lead, history, and merger) does not yet demonstrate sufficient notability through independent, in-depth sources?

What steps would you recommend to bring the draft to a standard suitable for resubmission? Apwcow (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having notable alumni doesn't make the college notable, as notability is not inherited by association. You need to summarize significant coverage of the college to establish it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary about the school, not merely describing its activities. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologise - I'm still new to this and misread the template, thought the submission was denied due to a lack of references, not lack of significant references. Would including more analysis of articles involving the previous two schools individually help qualify for the notable organization status, or should I wait for more information to be released regarding the merger and future activities of the school? Apwcow (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that discuss what is/was viewed as important/significant/influential about the schools individually, yes, that's what primarily should be summarized. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Zas666 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Robert Kaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Robert Kaye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but Robert Kaye deserve a Wikipedia page, at least for its contribution to open source during the last 25 years. Zas666 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need independent reliable sources stating what that contribution is. Right now you just have his activities and the fact he has passed. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zas666.

Notability, as Wikipedia uses the word, has nothing (directly) to do with what the person is, has, was, or has done. Nor is it about fame, importance, or popularity.

It is almost entirely about whether enough material has been independently and reliably published about the subject to base an article on, remembering that A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• IntegersInSpace (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:TJ Norris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I’m a relatively new editor working on a draft for TJ Norris. I’ve submitted it to AfC, but while I wait, I want to ensure my notability is solid. Specifically, I’m using The Oregonian and Rolling a few links to ISBN information to establish significance. Do these count as 'significant coverage' under Wikipedia's guidelines, or should I be looking for more local/niche independent sources? Any feedback on the draft's tone would also be hugely appreciated! Many thanks. IntegersInSpace (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You state on the draft talk page that you are the subject- if you're writing about yourself, just say so; it appears to be obfuscating when you say you are "submitting a draft for TJ Norris". While not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy.

We don't do pre-review reviews, please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Redv6s (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Australia men's national indoor hockey team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi My page has been rejected for 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources' but I refer to the pages I have modled it on 1. Australia women's national indoor hockey team

this page has been published. I need some advise as to what I can do to have the mens page published

Thanks Redv6s (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, read WP:Golden Rule. Do it now. It's short.

After reading it, you should realize that you don't have any sources that meet all the criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redv6s I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. Beware in using other articles as a model, as those too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that. We judge each article on their own merits for this reason, see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles or Featured Articles. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• TikamoonFR (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tikamoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I am a non-native English speaker and an intern at Tikamoon. I have properly declared my Conflict of Interest (COI) on my user page. I am trying to create a neutral article for the company (Draft:Tikamoon), but it was declined for 'promotional tone' and 'AI-generated' suspicion.

I have provided international sources (Bloomberg, Hamburger Abendblatt, Möbelmarkt), but as I am not a native speaker, I used some assistance to ensure correct grammar, which might have triggered the AI warning.

Could someone please help me understand which specific parts still sound promotional? I want to comply with all policies but I'm struggling with the language nuances. Thank you! TikamoonFR (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you simply aren't allowed to use LLM / AI in drafts, see WP:LLM. If you are not confident about your English, do not worry, that can take someone a few minutes to correct. But to undo the damage caused by AI can take hours, and can be an impossible task. The other option is to get the article into your native language's Wikipedia and persuade someone to translate it properly, however different Wikipedias have different standards and for companies / corporations English Wikipedia has very high standards. Most companies will not be found notable under the policies and guidelines, and thus cannot have an entry. See WP:SIRS and walk through the Acme example below that. As for promotional tone - if you are connected to the company it is almost impossible to avoid it. Writing articles is hard, writing about something with which you are connected is nearly insurmountable, except for skilled copy-editors. Here is one example: "acquired a minority stake to support the brand's international expansion". So "support" is a nice promotional word to suggest success, expansion, we're doing great, ça gère. The minority stake was probably bought to make money for the investors, but that's not so positive. "Pure player" sounds nicer than "horizontal integration", which is perhaps why AI chose that phrase for you. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Mdavids (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:RESTful Provisioning Protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I’m trying to understand what can realistically be improved in terms of sourcing.

RPP is an actively developed IETF protocol, and all relevant, publicly available material that exists today has been added. As a specialized infrastructure protocol in an early deployment phase, broader secondary or academic analysis typically appears later.

What I find difficult to assess is where the practical notability threshold lies. When looking at the existing article on Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Provisioning_Protocol the article itself is relatively concise and largely descriptive, without extensive secondary analysis either.

I fully understand that EPP differs in maturity (RFC status, adoption), but from a reader’s perspective the level of independent sourcing and narrative depth does not appear fundamentally different from what is currently possible for RPP.

Could you clarify what concrete additional sources or characteristics would be required for RPP to meet Wikipedia’s expectations?

That clarification would help me determine whether further improvement is feasible now, or whether the draft should wait until the protocol has progressed further.

Thank you.

Regards,

-- Marco

Mdavids (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdavids Certainly. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Chao Garden (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Marie Salmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Marie Salmon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have 2 questions related to my draft.

1. I mention a letter written by the lawyer Lecauchois (see references to Détail sur la fille Salmon manuscript). This letter is republished in another source, which is written by another person (Hardy). Currently, when citing Lecauchois letter, I'm citing Hardy's source. So, my question: should I create a new citation specifically for Lecauchois' letter & then cite it as I normally would (with attribution to him, etc), or should I keep citing Hardy as-is? If I should cite Lecauchois' letter separately, could you provide some guidance or an example on the best way to do this?

2. In my second footnote about Cagliostro, I note that he is a charlatan who was imprisoned in 1789 (with citation), and then I go on to say "it is unclear whether he was willing or able to follow through with his promise." This line is not cited. I guess technically, it's drawing a conclusion. I have not found the English translations that Cagliostro apparently promised, plus as noted he was a known charlatan. Is this acceptable, per Wikipedia guidelines? If it is not acceptable, would you help me understand how I could note the *absence of* information (i.e., the absence of these English translations)? Or, should I not note this at all?

Thank you so much for your help! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 19:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one more quick question:

In your opinion, as seasoned editors: are the last 2 images in my draft too small?

Thank you! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 19:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cite the source where you found the letter, as you have done.

Your pictures aren't too small, and you shouldn't specify any particular size for a thunbmail, because these sizes should be determined by user preference settings. In fact, some of them are too large. If you put the term "upright|" before the caption, then upright images (such as the portraits) would be sized a bit narrower as appropriate. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I just went ahead and removed all "upright" params from my images. Please let me know if I misunderstood your feedback. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 17:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should have the "upright" parameter in any portrait-oriented image. You don't need it in landscape images, and you shouldn't have any pixel size specified either. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added the parameter to the portrait images for you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisSheehyCUDA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Search everywhere optimization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I’m ChrisSheehyCUDA. My draft Draft:Search everywhere optimization was declined once and has since been substantially revised to address tone, sourcing, and structure.

A separate editor (not the original reviewer) has raised objections based mainly on unfamiliarity with SEO rather than on specific policies. The discussion is here: discussion on User talk:Qwerfjkl.

Could an experienced AfC reviewer with a digital marketing/SEO background please take a fresh, policy‑based look at the current version of the draft and advise on any remaining issues with WP:N, WP:V, or WP:NPOV? Thank you.ChrisSheehyCUDA (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisSheehyCUDA I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Request second review: Draft:Search everywhere optimization".

We cannot guarantee a particular background for a reviewer, nor should that be necessary if the requirements for a draft are being met. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the advice you have been given. Please see WP:EXPERT; writing for Wikipedia is different than other forms of writing. Typically articles are written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. I'm also wondering to what extent you used AI; please see WP:LLM and WP:NEWLLM for guidance in that area. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Have you read my previous responses? ChrisSheehyCUDA (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I now see your AI explanation, thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot - and has it changed your opinion on having this published? ChrisSheehyCUDA (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has not. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisSheehyCUDA You say that you used Gemini to audit [your] draft against Wikipedia's own writing guidelines, which is precisely one of the worst ways you can use AI when trying to create content on Wikipedia; it has a habit of misapplying or completely making up policies and guidelines. It is also perfectly valid to interrogate your writing process, despite your insistence to the contrary, because creating articles using AI is expressly forbidden, so the extent to which the AI has influenced your drafting process is an important thing to establish.

Given your crticism of Qwerfjkl's understanding of the technical information in the draft, I would advise you read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; the goal of a Wikipedia article is not necessarily to be as comprehensive and informative as possible, it is to summarise the information available about a subject in reliable sources; it is entirely valid to say that an article has too much jargon or technical depth for a casual reader; because that casual reader is your target audience. Just as Qwerfjkl said, But articles on Wikipedia should be comprehensible to the layperson, not to subject experts. Granted, we are not the Simple English Wikipedia, the goal is not necessarily to simplify everything down, but still, your article doesn't need to represent the full depth of the sources, since people can always read the sources for further information if they want to. Athanelar (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who has commented. I’m going to step back from this draft for now, as the time investment no longer feels productive. I appreciate the perspectives shared. ChrisSheehyCUDA (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably wise, @ChrisSheehyCUDA.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ravid007 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Air Traffic Controllers Association of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would appreciate an independent review of Draft:Air_Traffic_Controllers_Association_of_Israel for sourcing and neutrality before re-submission (after 3 declines). Sources include coverage from local newspapers, Knesset committee protocols, and IFATCA's official history. A previous reviewer noted the need for sources independent of the subject, and I believe the current draft addresses this. Any feedback would be welcome! thanks. Ravid007 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravid007: You have submitted the draft for review, so you will get the feedback you request when a reviewer decides to review it. --bonadea contributions talk 22:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jaywantjagtap25 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sardar Bajirao Ganpat Rao Jagtap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi the draft is created for one of the Nobal Sardar of Dewas Senior Branch. Public documents are not available however we still so have all the proofs available, need assistance in documenting and publishing. Jaywantjagtap25 (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaywantjagtap25: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. It is completely unreferenced, with no indication that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jaywantjagtap25. It sounds as if what you are trying to do is original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. "Public documents" are usually primary sources, which may be cited in limited ways, but cannot be the basis for an article.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Fruff71 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Patrick Ian Condon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, On Saturday 26th Feb I made major edits to my article on Patrick Ian Condon and thought I submitted it for review. As I haven't heard anything since, I wanted to make sure I did everything correctly and it will be reviewed by someone in due course. Could you please confirm and give me an idea of approx. when I can expect feedback? Many thanks. Much appreciated. Best regards, Fiona Ruff Fruff71 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fruff71: yes, you did edit this draft recently (on the 21st, not 26th), but no, you did not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt reply. I believe I submitted it now. Fruff71 (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Profdrmdray (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mukurdipi ray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Profdrmdray (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Profdrmdray: yes, that is indeed what it says on the rejection notice.

Did you have a question in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to request a review for Draft:Viraj Khanna. The draft has been waiting for review for over a month after revisions following prior feedback. Thank you. Artfervour.viraj (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Artfervour.viraj: you have resubmitted Draft:Viraj Khanna and it is awaiting review. As it says in the template on top of that page, "This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,768 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? Everyone wants their draft reviewed quickly, but we are unable to conduct reviews upon request outside of the process. Do you have a connection to this artist? His name is part of your username. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sort-of PAID disclosure on the draft talk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Artfervour.viraj, you need to comply with the paid editing policy and disclose your paid status on your user page(click your username, currently in red, in your signature to access your user page). 331dot (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Iamtaptwice (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Weaviate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Want to make sure everything is correct here. I see many other vector database company page missing and plan to add them too. Just want to make sure that I get one right. Milvus has its own page but the leader of niche (Pinecone) doesn't have a page, Qdrant doesn't have a page also. I have made one and want to get it right so I can move to next. Iamtaptwice (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Iamtaptwice.

I applaud your energy, but ...

Please understand that most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - that is, there has not been enough independent analytic/critical material published about them to base an article on. Just because another similar company is notable does not mean that the one you are thinking of is necessarily also notable.

So writing an article about a company (I urge you to think of it that way, rather than "making a page for" the company) begins with finding the sources that are necessary if your effort is not to be wasted.

Most of the sources you cite in Draft:Weaviate either originate from the company, or are WP:CORPTRIV - in which case, they are based on press releases, and so also originate from the company.

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.

Only if you have already found at least three sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42 is there any point in proceeding with an article. ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not. I mean most of the sources are actually major software companies writing about the software. I am not writing about a company, I am writing about a software run by a company which is a big part of LLM world now. Microsoft, Oracle - hardly any of the sources are PR posts. They are information about software written on knowledge bases of big tech. I do not understand how a page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milvus_(vector_database) is listed when most the sources in the article are own website of the company as well as github. Giving edge to one company/software with total disregard to sourcing/referencing while leaving other leaders makes no sense. Most of the sources on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milvus_(vector_database) are from milvus's or zilliz's website. Any reason for this biasness? Iamtaptwice (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. See other stuff exists. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was approved by anyone or that it meets current standards. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I want to understand why big tech mentions of software as well as major blogs like GeeksforGeeks aren't considered reliable sources? They aren't sponsored by the named software and aren't directly associated either. Iamtaptwice (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review and tell me if new sources added are reliable? There are independent articles in ZDnet, Infoworld, Techcrunch etc that I have added. These happen to be some of the biggest tech blogs. Iamtaptwice (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs generally do not have editorial review and fact checking processes, they just post whatever they want without checking for accuracy. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• IamSamtoxzy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Samtoxzy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello tell me what should I need to create my artcle please help me I need to create this article please IamSamtoxzy (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IamSamtoxzy Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. I gather that you want a Wikipedia article to aid your music career- that is a promotional purpose and not permitted on Wikipedia. I wish you luck with your career, but you may not promote yourself here. "Up and coming" and "rising" musicians do not yet merit Wikipedia articles- you must have already arrived and be noticed in order to draw the coverage that can be summarized in an article that shows you are a notable musician.

Also know that an article about yourself is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Please don't expect the community to spend more volunteer time on it.

Ask yourself: Why do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Vanity? Publicity? SEO? None of those are valid reasons. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• DaveCarlsonwf (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wildflower Cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was denied for spam but it's a page about a phone case business with nothing but facts. Would like to get this reviewed again, please. Thank you DaveCarlsonwf (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you are related to those that operate the business; please review conflict of interest.

You have just told of the existence of the business, along with its activities and offerings. This does not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. That requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources that chose on their own to write about the subject, and are not interviews or press releases. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Kotikboh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:FashionTV Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Please tell me what I need to improve this article and pass moderation. Kotikboh (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've submitted it for a review, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Bacteriophile (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Indranil Biswas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Indranil Biswas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to cite reliable sources. I have cited all the relevant sources... Bacteriophile (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't meet WP:Golden Rule criteria, and the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. I suggest you move on to another topic. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Light Creative (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brad Ellis (Producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted this twice, both with sources, and it will just not get approved. He is definitely worthy of a wikipedia page, even being cited in other wiki pages. What can I do to get this approved? Red Light Creative (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your username suggests it is that of an agency(his agency?). You will need to change it immediately to represent you as an individual, please see your user talk page for instructions.

You seem to be editing about your boss; please read WP:BOSS. You have just documented his work, you haven't summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiRPedico (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2014 Superfinal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I've made my point on why I think this article should existe here (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:2014 Superfinal). Basically, there are similar articles to this one that already exist, and I believe this should be passed. Regards, WikiRPedico (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists; perhaps it is the other articles that need to be removed, instead of adding more. We judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate amd just not yet addressed by a volunteer. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get it now. Perhaps if I covered the game better with more complete background, match and post-match sections it could pass? WikiRPedico (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined on the basis of the fact that you should edit the article about the season instead of creating a standalone article about the final. I suggest that you do that first, and then see if there is interest in splitting it off into a separate article, instead of using this process which requires you to show the final in and of itself is notable. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ArchiveSignal33 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:La mesa caliente (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with editing the page since it says that one of my sources are WP:Primary. ArchiveSignal33 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review. It's not likely to be accepted, as it just documents the existence of the show, it doesn't summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it. For a show that's usually reviews by professional critics. We don't do co-editing here, but you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Eranrexiv (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Morris Bart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Morris Bart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I see someone blatantly copied my draft then created an article on the same subject. I don't have the best history with getting drafts approved, but I'd love to know why they weren't blocked like I've been in the past, when an article of the same subject was in Drafts for another contributor. Thanks. Eranrexiv (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see evidence that you were copied. Morris Bart was created on 25 November with this edit, and this is what the draft looked like on the same day. There are also substantial differences between the current versions of both pages.

You were previously blocked for plagiarizing copyrighted text; while it is bad taste to copy text on a different article without attribution, every edit on Wikipedia is automatically licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. Plagiarizing text can warrant a block as the copyrighted text conflicts with the site's license. GGOTCC 07:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Karansud1998 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohaimina Haque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had submitted two drafts by mistake but this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohaimina_Haque) was the one that I was waiting to be reviewed since this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mina_Haque_) was already rejected on 23rd Februrary mentioning the same reason that there is duplicate waiting to be reviewed. Now both the drafts are declined for some reason. Karansud1998 (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Already asked on Teahouse. Please do not submit the same question in multiple places at the same time - for the same reason you shouldn't have multiple drafts on the same subject. It's best to keep the discussion in one location. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks Karansud1998 (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• MapNerd777 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to remove my article from the approval process, as I found out that PACE Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces got created in the meantime and I decided to improve that article with relevant parts of mine. Therefore, there is no reason to keep my draft in the approval process. MapNerd777 (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that @MapNerd777, not everyone does! I have given a technical decline on your draft for now. If you have mined / backed up all the relevant material, there will come a point when it would be best to delete that draft altogether, since in theory someone else could edit that draft unwittingly. So you would want Speedy Delete criteria G7 if you request it, or G6 if you would like me to do it, just ping me when you are ready. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Dgbdgb2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Florence Bagust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How many substantial sources do you need for an article? This draft submission has been declined, yet there are two substantial sources: Wait, Jean (Oct 1987). "AN OLD CLAPTONIAN - Florence Bagust, historian of Clapton". The Terrier, The Newsletter of Hackney Archives (8): 3–5 and Women from Hackney's History II. The Hackney Society. 2026. p. 15. ISBN 9781800492103.

Thanks Dgbdgb2 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dgbdgb2 for the work on this draft to date. The issue here is secondary sources, as in the WP:GOLDENRULE. At the moment a lot of the sources are primary and there isn't always enough information with offline sources to find out more. Offline sources are fine, but you need to consider someone who is interested, going to Clapton library and wanting to look at your sources. As a courtesy, I have added a clipping to the Eastbourne Chronicle story, so that's now easier to check. I was hoping the Chronicle would help us here, since that is secondary sourcing, and certainly verifies the circumstances of her death, but doesn't give significant coverage of her life. All put together, this draft is veering quite strongly to Original Research, which is not part of the Wikipedia project. Primary sources can be used to verify uncontroversial points, but secondary sources, and maybe tertiary sources, are the focus of this project. See WP:NOR.

Now I am interested in these sorts of articles, so what I always look for, to begin with, are obituaries in newspapers of the subject, so that would be my start point. I would also be looking for coverage in local history books, anything more than a passing reference. Secondary sources in other words.

The Terrier article seems interesting and useful, but it was at the time of the review it was offline and difficult to check. I've now added a URL to the Terrier article plus Wayback. And there seems to be some sources mentioned there, not in the draft? E.g. Some records of Stamford Hill Volume 14. So have a think about improving the article a bit more, then submit it for another review. Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I am wondering why the review was turned down for the Monoposto game article? It is one of the most popular mobile Formhla games out there, hence why I was making the article for it, what would I need to do to get it published? F1fan00 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Monoposto (video game)

@F1fan00: this draft is completely unreferenced, and therefore fails our core policies on verifiability and notability. You need to read and understand the general notability guideline WP:GNG, find sources that meet that standard, and then summarise what they have said about the subject; see WP:42 for more on that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• RigsTech34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, is this draft good enough for submission, or am I missing something? R2025kt (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The references do not appear to adequately demonstrate notability, and the tone is inappropriate; with terms like trailblazing on-air career being inappropriate WP:PUFFERY. Athanelar (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RigsTech34: What has been done to the draft to fix the problems described here? --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The Smart Star (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Lumière Brothers Filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is one of the most important pages regarding film here right now, and there's plenty of references. Any tips of help available? The Smart Star (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A filmography on Wikipedia should only list those films that have Wikipedia articles; I don't see a single link to a article in the list of films. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was being sloppy. There are some Lumiere films that do have articles, but most don't.

"A filmography on Wikipedia should only list those films that have Wikipedia articles"

I don't know about that. Especially for older films, most filmography's have films which doesn

t yet have a page. The Smart Star (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be a little more specific- they should list films that have Wikipedia articles or at least the prospect of having one, even if it hasn't been created yet. I suggest that you add the filmography to the article about the brothers and then have a discussion about splitting it off into a separate article, instead of using the draft submission process. The brothers' article isn't that long. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea actually! I'll try adding the filmography there! Thank you for the advice, I didn't think about that before. The Smart Star (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The Smart Star (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Draw-Back (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can anyone help with this one? Almost all of John Wayne's films have a wiki page and this one has plenty of references etc and is a surviving silent film. Plenty of non-surviving films already have pages so why not this one? The Smart Star (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That other films may merit Wikipedia articles has little bearing on this one(the other stuff exists argument). You have no sources with significant coverage of the film that show how it is a notable film. John Wayne being in it helps, but you still need sources to summarize beyond documenting its existence. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll look for more sources. Do you think two or three more extensive sources would be enough? The Smart Star (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how good the sources are, but most reviewers look for two or three. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @The Smart Star. It depends a bit on what you mean by "more extensive". The sort of sources you need for this purpose is sources that meet all the requirements in WP:42 - in particular significant coverage. A long article about Wayne that contains just a sentence or two about this film will not help. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you for the tips! I'll look into it. I did find some sources that discuss Johnny Arthurs charachter and persona. The Smart Star (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Gabyscaringe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dan Guido (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted Draft:Dan Guido and it's been declined twice for LLM-generated content. I went back and rewrote the whole thing to be much shorter, less like a resume, and dropped a bunch of the promotional sounding quotes.

Could someone help me before I resubmit again? I don't want to waste another attempt if there's still something off about it. Thanks! Gabyscaringe Gabyscaringe (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews; if you have rewritten the draft, you should resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know that. Thank you! I just resubmitted it. Gabyscaringe Gabyscaringe (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While you're waiting for review, you may want to clean up more. Especially in the lead, phrases like "was cited by <name dropping sources>", basically emphasizing the existence of coverage rather than the actual coverage, is typical AI slop. This is done later in the public commentary section. I wouldn't want to approve an article that contains such obvious remnants of AI generation. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! I am really trying here. This is my first new article. I will follow that advice and work on another rewrite. Gabyscaringe (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done! If anyone has more advice, I am open to hearing about it. Now, all the quotes describe the actual coverage in greater detail. I also put back a few sections to better establish notability. Gabyscaringe (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Foldingbunnyears (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oliver Thorner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have recently added some more relevant citations to this draft (including from a news station part of the ABC network), and I would like to appeal the previous review that rejected it on the grounds that it requires "significant coverage beyond database/results listings and routine event reporting."; in addition to the newly added citations that should help on this front, I must also point out the following aspects that make me think the previous review was setting the bar far above what is applied to the majority of comparable published articles out there for athletes.

Collegiate athletes are almost exclusively featured in college or specific athletic publications, often named along with other individual competitors, such as in the ABC network article I cited. Seldom will they have a dedicated article or media piece in major national, or international publications and media. Therefore, the collegiate athletes who have Wikipedia pages don't have the likes of the NY Times as a citation, and the use of athletic record databases such as WorldAthletics.org for citation is ubiquitous for collegiate athletes' wiki pages. For example: Elise Thorner's page started before her professional debut and was entirely cited with same sources as Oliver Thorner's and the page was up before she was covered by any major news. Other examples include Nathan Green, Da'Marcus Fleming, Parker wolfe, Charles Hicks and many more.

Whatsmore, running a search through Wikipedia, I saw that "Oliver Thorner" is even listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_NCAA_Division_I_Outdoor_Track_and_Field_Championships. It would make sense to also add a wiki link to this page if it can be approved.

Given all the above, it seems unusual to decline the submission; my draft generally goes above and beyond the quality level of sources seen in those other comparable athletes' pages, and the additional citations added recently makes it even more comprehensive.

I would appreciate any guidance you would have about how I can finalize this submission for approval. In the meantime I will keep improving the article as time allows. Thanks! Foldingbunnyears (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have made improvements to the draft, so simply re-submit, I am not well versed on notability for sports related topics so tend to steer clear of them, but your draft looks good to me. Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Foldingbunnyears. For the reasons you give, college athletes often to not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I have no doubt there are dozens of articles which if they were now submitted for review would not be accepted, as there are tens of thousands of articles on other subjects for which that is true. Please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wilson G. Watson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:CMG Institutional Trading LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my page denied? Wilson G. Watson (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you don't understand about the big pink banner at the top of the draft, describing the reasons for declining it? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Wilson G. Watson.

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.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ravindrarkg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Shyam Lal Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Shyam Lal Gupta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reviwed by JesusisGreat7

Regarding Reference 2, it is not a self-published source. It is the official website of the concerned college, which is an institutional and publicly recognized body. Institutional websites are considered reliable primary sources for factual information related to affiliated individuals. You may verify its authenticity through Google and other independent listings confirming it as the official college website.

Concerning Reference 10, while the link provided is a Wikipedia page, it has been used specifically to reference the officially published Rajya Sabha member list mentioning Shyam Lal Gupta. The information cited is based on the Rajya Sabha records. The Wikipedia link was included only because it directly compiles and reflects that official list. We have also attached the relevant supporting material for verification.

We kindly request you to re-check the sources in context and consider the other independent references provided, which collectively establish the subject’s notability. Ravindrarkg (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?

An "official website" is a primary source, by definition self-published, and useless for establishing notability of the subject.

Wikipedia articles must not cite Wikipedia. Why are you even discussing this?

Also I point out that reference 1 cites Times of India, which is considered unreliable here. The article is not helped by citing it.

Again, who is this "we" you refer to? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thank you for your clarification.

I apologize for using “we” — that was my mistake. I was referring only to myself as the editor.

I understand the concerns about primary sources and (reference 1) citing Wikipedia, and I will correct those accordingly. However, I would kindly ask why the other independent and reliable sources provided are not being considered as well. They were added specifically to help establish notability.

I appreciate your guidance and will make the necessary improvements. Ravindrarkg (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:Golden Rule. Do it now. It's quite short. After you have done so, kindly list three sources, each of which meets all the golden-rule criteria. Note that merely appearing in a list doesn't count as significant coverage, even if the source is reliable and independent. We need significant coverage of the man, not of his company. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-13506-38 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Genie (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why this page is in draft?

~2026-13506-38 (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious from reading the decline notice and reviewer comments. There are no adequate sources meeting all the WP:Golden Rule criteria, which is often typical of an upcoming film. Best to wait until it's released to see if better sources become available. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Isaajibola (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kashim Tumsah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft article has been re-submitted for reveiw for over 2 months but no review has been done yet to know whether it meet Wikipedia standards or not. It is unsual that the review took this long and for everyday, the "review waiting" keeps being elongated more. I will appreciate a response to know what might be wrong.

Thanks Isaajibola (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaajibola: the latest resubmission was on 13 Jan, which is approx 6 weeks ago. As it says on top of the draft, reviews "may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,738 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I will be patient then. Isaajibola (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Peanuts4death (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Alex Hellyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Alex Hellyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am wondering how I could improve my draft, for it to become publishable. Do I lack enough sources and citations, or is the language too informal? Any advice is helpful, thank you. Peanuts4death (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you have no sources at all(you do have external links; if you intend these as sources, they need to be formatted as Referencing for Beginners describes.

By chance, are you writing about your teacher? A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable person. I think it would be very, very unlikely for a high school teacher to meet this standard(though not impossible). Most people on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is not recommended to be the first thing a new user does, as diving right into it often leads to frustration, anger, and disappointment as things happen to your work that you don't understand. Please first gain experience and knowledge by using the new user tutorial and editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for what is being looked for in article content and how things work here. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no ways affiliated with this man Peanuts4death (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruqayyah26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MOZN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've edited my draft and would like to know how to resubmit it? Ruqayyah26 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. If you believe you have made substantial changes, contact the reviewer who rejected it first. • Quinn (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft (Draft:MOZN) was rejected, and will not be considered further. On Wikipedia, rejecting a draft means that the editor believes the article/topic will never meet Wikipedia's standards. If you believe your draft was wrongly rejected, you can appeal to the editor who rejected the draft. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wallywallyy2k (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chas de Whalley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand why this has been declined. Chas is documented as having found and signed U2 the biggest rock band in the world and is referenced on the bands own pages.

Additionally the majority of his career successes took place PRE internet so the references found and highlighted are the best achievable.

I believe the page being declined is a harsh decision given that most of human history happened before the advent of the internet and pages already exist for people that is entirely secondary or tertiary information resources. Wallywallyy2k (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallywallyy2k - you should not see this as harshness, it's is merely a statement that right now the draft is not yet ready for mainspace. You can still edit and improve that draft, then submit it again, and I hope that you will do so. I understand that this subject is your father, given the edit summary. That does make it very, very difficult to write an objective, neutral summary of your dad's life, I certainly couldn't manage it. But regardless of that, the key issues to bear in mind is the WP:GOLDENRULE, where we are looking for secondary sources that discuss your father in detail, not just a couple of sentences, and we need 3 examples. They do not have to be online, but if you are quoting offline sources it is extra important to identify the details so that someone can go to a library (etc) and find the source without too much trouble.

One issue is that journalists tend to dislike writing about journalists, while they are still alive. Ditto photographers and museum curators. So it may not be easy, but bear in mind it's not so much what the subject says, writes or does, it matters much more what other people say or write about the subject. A lot of your current sources are passing references or things that are sourced back to your father. Notability is based on the GOLDENRULE in its most simple form, but there is also a provision in the guideline that someone can be definitely notable, but if there is no reliable demonstration of that, insufficient sourcing, then it may be that at that point in time, no article is possible. But tomorrow is another day, so hopefully you can consider it further. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a lack of online sources is no excuse - you are more than welcome to use offline sources if indeed you have them. Athanelar (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-13482-26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mobius MD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I actually get this company post, which I want to be very neutral and purely informative, published?

My goal is for it to be an article just like Apple's & Microsoft's. I've been reading through and through about Wikipedia's guidelines, and it says you can't post a company descriptive article without being affiliated with the company, but if you claim you are affiliated with it, you still can't post it because it has to be done by someone who isn't. Which doesn't make any sense at all. It might not look like it, but I am acting very calm about this, not frustrated at all. I just want to make progress.

Please let me know what exactly I should do, and if it is actually possible. I mean, if Apple & Microsoft could, why couldn't I? ~2026-13482-26 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pantelope26 Your first step is to find articles published in reliable sources written by anyone not connected to the company in anyway and discuss the company in detail. Then based the article off those sources. Afterwards you can then fill in any basic details from sources connected to the the subject. Apple and Microsoft get things published about them daily so there are plenty of sources to prove they are notable. Currently none of your sources meet the criteria to demonstrate why Mobious is notable as per our definition and corporations must meet the higher standard of WP:ORGCRIT which does not allow for standard business transaction stories to help with notability. Also please remember to log in so it's easier to know who we are talking to and ping when we reply. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! thanks for your promptly reply.

I will see if it is possible to edit/improve then resubmit based on these observations. Otherwise, this task will have to be dropped.

Thanks again! Pantelope26 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Skshirsa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David D. Reh School of Business (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Can you provide me with more information about what sections in my article need improving? the comments I received earlier were very generic. Thanks! I appreciate your help. Skshirsa (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is just blatant advertising, you work for the marketing department, you MUST disclose your paid editing status and then use WP:TNT and start again with what independent sources have reported about the school. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Skshirsa.

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.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. This is even more the case if you have a conflict of interest ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ColinFine. This was very helpful advice. Skshirsa (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-13641-68 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ʿuyūn al-akhbār - Ibn Qutaybah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, how can I improve my article so that it isn't flagged for LLM? Or is there any way I can disprove the LLM flags?

Thanks, Bryce Hudson ~2026-13641-68 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says 89% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WinstonAI says 99% AI. Pangram says 100% AI. ZeroGPT 87%, ChrysGalley (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is obvious: Don't use LLM to write it. Don't use LLM to "polish" it. You can use it to check grammar and spelling. You can use it to help you find sources. You can ask it to suggest an overall outline. But the actual draft must be written by you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-13615-90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wildflower Cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission was denied and the original reviewer said they won't take back their decision, so I had to come here. I have only written the facts about the company as well as provided sources for the written content. This is a notable company as it's in the media a lot and has many collaborations with celebrities. If there are any suggestions you could offer so I can have this submission accepted. Thank you! ~2026-13615-90 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I rejected it as spam and it was deleted as such. Now recreated. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and I just declined it as blatant promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not being used for promotion, it's about a business that is connected to a well-known model which makes it a notable company. It only holds facts about the business and cites sources for the material. What am I missing? ~2026-13615-90 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used for publicity. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be having inline external links in the prose, you wouldn't be citing unreliable sources (see WP:FORBESCON for example of one, we don't cite Forbes articles by "contributors"). Asserting "the brand has been covered by" is pure promotional AI slop.

Being "connected" to a well-known model doesn't make it notable, because notability is not inherited. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

@Kj cheetham: it's substantially the same as the G11 deleted version, but without the list of external links of collaborators. Probably should be re-deleted and salted to prevent recreation. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like Wired and Vogue are proven to be credible. It is still a notable brand, even if it is not connected to the model. How it is any different from Casely and Casetify when they are all phone caser/accessory brands? Going back to my original question where I politely asked if there were any suggestions to help get this submission approved, since this is a help desk, why have I not been given any help? ~2026-13615-90 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The help we are giving you is to tell you that it would only waste your time to pursue this further. Please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about to go offline so will leave to someone else to CSD as appropriate, but I'd recommend taking a look at WP:YESPROMO. I'd also potentially suggest taking a look at WP:PAID. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected. That means it will not be considered further. Then it was deleted. Then you recreated the draft in spite of it being rejected, without consulting with the prior reviewer or deleting administrator. You're arguing about notability, we're telling you it's promotional. Two different things. It may be notable but would need a fundamental rewrite, without AI help. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-tagged this new version for g11. Athanelar (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I've deleted it. What a waste of everyone's time, having to look at this rubbish. Deb (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have drafted Draft:Parasound and disclosed a connection on the talk page. Before formally submitting it through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate feedback on whether the current sourcing appears sufficient to establish notability under WP:ORG. Thank you for any guidance. Nodros1988 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: User:Nodros1988/sandbox

It looks to me like you didn't draft it, an AI drafted it. Phrases like "informs the topology" or "have been reviewed in specialist audio publications over multiple decades" or name-dropping sources without summarizing them, is typical AI slop, asserting that there has been coverage without describing what the coverage actually is.

You can use an AI to help you find sources and summarize them, similar to how a Supreme Court judge uses assistants to do legal research and write briefs. But in the end, the judge writes his opinion. And in the end you must write the article.

The draft wastes a lot of space describing (and citing sources describing) WP:CORPROUTINE business activities, which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH requirements for establishing notability.

Try writing a short article using just three excellent sources that describe the company in detail and in depth. That would pass review. AI slop wouldn't. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wburrow (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Gwyneth ten Raa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Gwyneth ten Raa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I found this draft of an article that I was planning to write in the AfC queue. I made some edits and believe it's ready for mainspace. Can I boldly move it there as I would with a draft I wrote myself, or is there a process that needs to be followed? I'm not a New Page reviewer or Autopatrolled, but I've created a few new articles which have all been marked as reviewed without issue. Wburrow (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wburrow, short answer is yes! AFC is entirely voluntary (unless you have a conflict of interest etc.), so as an experienced editor, you're more than welcome to skip the queue and publish directly into mainspace if you believe it's ready and notability has been met. nil ^nz 01:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thehwrproject (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Second Opinion Requested: Draft:Peter Miller (nutritionist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking a second opinion and some technical help for Draft:Peter Miller (nutritionist). I have made many updates to follow the advice from the reviewer (Paul W), but I believe a fresh set of eyes is now needed.

I have addressed the feedback by doing the following:

Clarified Authors: I corrected the authorship details for the South China Morning Post (SCMP) content. I clarified that Andrew Whitelaw authored the feature profile, while Nick Atkin hosted the video interview. This shows that multiple journalists have covered the subject.

Added New Sources: I included a major feature from The Times of India and scientific research from PubMed to show the subject's professional authority.

Fixed Link Issues: The reviewer is seeing "451 Errors" on some links. I am also in the UK and the links work for me, but I have added direct quotes to the citations so they can be verified on-page.

Restored Notes: I accidentally deleted some reviewer notes during a technical glitch. I have manually put them all back and apologized for the error on the draft page.

While the current reviewer feels the coverage is not "significant," I believe the 1,200-word feature profile in SCMP (a major international newspaper) and other global reports meet the requirements for WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Because we have different interpretations of these sources and the reviewer is facing technical link issues, I would appreciate a second opinion from a neutral editor to help move this forward. Thank you! Thehwrproject (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer stated in their decline notice, the South China Morning Post profile is based on an interview with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. References 2 and 3 are written by the subject, and so obviously cannot be used to substantiate the subject's notability. Ref 4 is related to the SCMP article, and refs 5 and 6 are passing mentions of the subject. Athanelar (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I would like to clarify a few points regarding the current version of the draft:

SCMP Source: This is a 1,200-word editorial feature written by a journalist (Andrew Whitelaw). Since it is professional journalistic coverage and not a simple Q&A transcript, it should be considered a secondary source under WP:SECONDARY.

New Independent Sources: My recent updates added a feature from The Times of India and peer-reviewed research in PubMed (JSCR). These were not included in the previous decline and provide independent, non-interview coverage.

Technical Fixes: I have added direct quotes to the citations for the Bangkok Post and other sources to resolve the '451 errors' the previous reviewer had when trying to verify the links.

Please let me know if these specific new additions and the quotes help resolve the concerns around notability and verification. Thank you! Thehwrproject (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The South China Morning Post profile is based on an interview with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability.

The Times of India article is not a 'feature' about the subject. It contains one (1) mention of the subject.

The 'peer-reviewed research' is published by the subject. That is obviously not 'independent coverage.'

I suspect you are using a large language model/AI chatbot of some kind to provide you with these sources and respond to me here based on this laughably incorrect assessment of the nature of the sources. I encourage you to actually double-check the things it is telling you to say before you say them. Athanelar (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhonda St Hill (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hermina Johnny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure why this is saying that it is not accepted. I have tried to re-edit to make it sound less like an advertisement. Could i get help from the community to edit it to your liking? Rhonda St Hill (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhonda St Hill It looks like you used AI/ chatgpt / LLM /GrammerlyGo on that article, and it has a default "promotional language" mindset, so that what comes out looks great to whoever commissioned it. But it's just not following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's an encyclopedia that is a neutral and accurate summation of existing reliable sources. So first suggestion: ditch the robot. Then find 3 examples of the WP:GOLDENRULE. No half measures here, you need to meet the policy in full, 2 sentences is not significant coverage. Independent means exactly that. So second point: do you have that notability established via those three sources? If not you do not have notability, unless a specific notability guideline applies (and I don't think it does). I don't think any of your existing sources work for this test, though I haven't read all of them. If the notability hurdle is not crossed then you better leave the article until the golden rule is met, and perhaps edit other articles to improve them. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruqayyah26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MOZN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know how can I pass approvals on the wikipedia page that I've created? Ruqayyah26 (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you don't, without fundamental changes to the article that address the problems; the draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have made recent changes: I've fixed citations, removed the "words to watch", and fixed what was flagged as LLM writing. I would love to get a second opinion on the Draft:MOZN. Ruqayyah26 (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered for inclusion anymore. Your only recourse at this time is to appeal to the rejecting editor, @Pythoncoder and explain why the changes you made are significant enough to lift the rejection.

Just to note, when people say things like they fixed what was flagged as LLM writing it's usually a sign that they're missing the point. We don't want you to rewrite a few keywords so that your draft sounds less like it was written with AI; we want you to not write your draft with AI, because it's against the rules. If your draft was written with AI from the start, no amount of tweaking afterwards to change the way the text sounds is going to change the underlying problem. You can't build a mansion on a shaky foundation. Athanelar (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler alert: The changes aren’t significant enough. Don’t use LLMs. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• RoboWiZZard (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Veronika von Heise-Rotenburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Helpdesk-Team,

Thanks for the reviewers feedback on Draft:Veronika_von_Heise-Rotenburg. Can you please help me how to proceed? I wrote the article "manually", but as a non-native speaker, I ran it through Perplexity to improve language, make it more condensed and concise and to optimize WIkipedia-Syntax - as stated: I am fairly new to this game :) I also declared this in a submission comment.

I do know about the policy to not have AI write articles (which is fully understandable) - but I used the AI to optimize the source editor syntax and to improve language.

How can I proceed? Should I rephrase the text - which would IMHO decrease the quality of the articel - or what do you suggest?

The facts are checked, only rely on external sources, secondary resources - mostly from newspapers, journals and magazine talking ABOUT the person and not having the person talk about content (I learnt that from reading the howtos and other submission comments.

Thanks for your great work in general and your support on this matter particularly, wiZZard RoboWiZZard (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoboWiZZard Here is just one example (there are others): Von Heise-Rotenburg has spoken at finance-industry events including the Handelsblatt CFO Summit. She has been profiled and quoted as a source in Handelsblatt, Business Insider / Gründerszene, Börsen-Zeitung, and FINANCE Magazin. So this is precisely what LLM does - it name-checks, but it struggles to summarise, particularly over multiple publications simultaneously. There is zero analysis of the sources. Here is the utterly fundamental point: a Wikipedia article is a neutral summary of information held in reliable sources. It's not a potential list of reliable sources. It's difficult to see a human writing the above if they understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, whereas LLM does it all day long, and in my view this approach is frankly dangerous to the project. Now you can hopefully see the second problem: to unravel and rectify that quoted statement now is going to be a lot of work. To correct the English of a non-native speaker takes seconds. Why impose this on yourself and other editors? Your quote about decreasing the quality of the article is missing the point: we are not looking for perfect syntax, perfect English, but we are very interested in your best editing of the subject matter. Done by a human being. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChrysGalley,

Thank you for pointing that out - I (partially) get your point, because indeed I would write such a sentence; I wanted to make it clear, that the relevance criteria were met. BUT I think I know what you want changed/adjusted and I am getting an understanding, at what you are aiming.

I will do my best to refine the article and re-submit.

Thanks for the explanation and kind regards,

wiZZard RoboWiZZard (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Tanjinlian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Vilashini Somiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a first-time editor drafting an Article for Submission under Vilashini Somiah, a prominent Malaysian anthropologist, and I will be deeply grateful if someone could give me feedback on which sources I've cited as being not notable enough, thank you! Tanjinlian (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly some text-source mismatch. Citation 4, for example, is used to source a lot of facts that it never mentions. It wasn't mentioned in the decline, but there's a lot of LLM-esque language and structure as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Leojojodelijo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Fredrik Oliver Bakk-Røstad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please speed i need this my mom is kinda homeless, i live with my dad, pleas speed. Leojojodelijo (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been rejected, and will not be considered further for inclusion on English Wikipedia. While there are some notable 13-year-olds in the world, there's not even the slightest claim to notability here on this particular 13-year-old (presumably you?). This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Leojojodelijo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fredrik Oliver Bakk-Røstad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please speed i need this Leojojodelijo (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Leojojodelijo: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for made-up "information" about yourself or your friends. --bonadea contributions talk 13:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Julibldo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Julian Buladaco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As part of my academic research, I identified that this topic lacks a comprehensive summary on Wikipedia. My goal is to apply my research skills to create a well-cited article that serves as a reliable educational resource for other students and the general public." Julibldo (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your username suggests that you are writing about yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Julibldo.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

You appear to have not a single source which is independent of the subject. Without several sources each meeting all the requirements of WP:42, no Wikipedia article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• RigsTech34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jack Hubley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, is this draft good enough to submit? It's probably enough with more WP: SIGCOV of the subject added. R2025kt (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews; if you feel you have addressed the concerns, you should resubmit. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. R2025kt (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Before resubmitting Draft:Sandor W. Shapery, I’m seeking clarification on the notability issue that has been raised in prior reviews.

The current draft includes a January 2026 San Diego Business Journal profile focused entirely on the subject, as well as earlier coverage in The New York Times. Despite this, the draft has been declined for insufficient significant coverage.

Could an experienced editor clarify whether the SDBJ article is likely to be considered sufficient under WP:ENTREPRENEUR, or whether additional independent secondary sources would be required? I would like to ensure I address the concern properly before resubmitting.

Thank you for any guidance.

~~~~

Melissaad (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Melissaad. The SDBJ article is based on an interview with Shapery, and so is not an independent source, and contributes nothing towards establishing notability.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTREPRENEUR is not a link to a notability guideline about entrepreneurs; it's a humorous essay. Please do not use AI to communicate here or to give you advice regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as this tends to be the inevitable result.

The draft was also not declined for insufficient significant coverage. That is one aspect of why it was declined. Please properly read the decline notice, including clicking on all of the blue links in it and thoroughly reading those, in order to properly understand why your article was declined. Athanelar (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Pibecky1963 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Becky Altringer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why can't I get her references to show up instead of looking like this? Cite error: A list-defined reference named "PRWeb" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "CNNBehar" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "NYT2006" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "MTV2006" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "PopMatters" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "PeopleQuaid" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "NYDaily" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Radar" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "LaVerne" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "VanityFair" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "IMDB" is not used in the content (see the help page). Pibecky1963 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write this draft yourself or copy it from somewhere else? Athanelar (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it myself, but did try and get fixed by Gemini Pibecky1963 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that'll be why; I'm assuming you tried to get Gemini to format the references.

I've rejected your draft; it cannot be resubmitted for review. Given the numerous prior declines explaining the need for inline citations in biographies which you've apparently not heeded, I don't see any improvement taking place.

Thoroughly and properly read through Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners, WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY (because I assume from your username that you're writing about yourself.) Once you've done that and rewritten the draft from scratch to comply with all of those things, you can contact me on my talk page to appeal my rejection. Do not use an AI to help you or 'fix' issues; it will only create more problems if you don't know what you're doing, which you don't. If you have any questions during the process, you can ask them at the teahouse, which is a forum for beginners to ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia, or also at my talk page. Athanelar (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Cheryl and I’m using her login to write. I’ve been trying for a long time and I just can’t figure it out. I will have to get someone else to write it. Pibecky1963 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts may not be shared. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pibecky1963.

In that case you must stop using her account and create one for yourself. You also should declare your conflict of interest in writing about her.

As Athanelar says, you will need to start again from scratch, and you will need to understand 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.

This makes it particularly hard to write an article when you have a conflict of interest, because (once you have found the absolutely and non-negotiably essential independent, secondary, reliable sources), you will then need to effectively forget absolutely everything you know about Altringer, and write a summary of what those sources say. If they leave things out: tough. If they are nasty about her: tough. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Mnfishernz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Initio insurance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've removed the link to the initio website at the beginning. I've used the Tower listing as a base for what is acceptable on wikipedia (Tower Insurance) Could you please tell me what else do I need to do to get this page accepted? Mnfishernz (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BOSS and show it to your client/employer. You are very unlikely to succeed at writing about them.

Beware in using other articles as a model, as those too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.

A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as important about itself. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• HMirzai (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Toronto High School (Canada) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I hope this message finds you well. I have edited the school description and removed the parts that looked like an advertisement. Kindly check it out. Many thanks. HMirzai (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NORG, as your article currently does not seem to meet it. Athanelar (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NORG,

The first reference is from the Government of Ontario, and the second is from the Ontario Ministry of Education.

Could you please clarify whether you are suggesting that these two official sources are not reliable?

https://opengovca.com/corporation?q=Toronto+High+School

https://www.ontario.ca/page/private-schools HMirzai (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NORG is a policy, not a person. Click the link and read through it, it tells you the requirements you need to meet to prove that the school should have an article. Athanelar (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Stekker (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Midas Touch (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would it be possible to make this article public, even if not all wikipedia requirements are met? I have seen other articles with a big note saying that it lacks certain elements and needs improvement. The purpose would be to not waste the effort I already put into it, and, more importantly, to invite other people, who perhaps have more information on the topic, to improve the article. In any case I'd like to add info to Wikipedia that there is a 2020 version of a movie that has also versions of 2013, 1997, 1988 and 1940. Stekker (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between 'needs improvement' and 'is not fit to be an article.' The reason that you see articles which are tagged as needing improvement is because the articles which aren't fit to be articles... don't exist. It's simple survivorship bias.

Your draft currently does not in any way demonstrate that the film meets the notability requirements to have an article on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Patricia B Glazer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • William E. Skilling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Did you receive my draft pape

Patricia B Glazer (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Draft:William Skilling? Athanelar (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Mindinfor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Need help understanding why my sources for Draft:Jackery were declined (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm a bit confused about my declined draft: Draft:Jackery. The reviewer said the sources aren't good enough. I originally used links from big websites like CNET, TIME, and TechRadar, but I'm guessing now that because these are just product reviews and awards, they don't count for the company itself. Is that correct?

I really want to fix this and improve the article, but I have two questions before I start searching again: I have one article from Forbes here (Link) that talks about the founder and how the company started. Is this the right kind of article? Or does it not count because it's written by a Forbes "Contributor"? What exactly should I be looking for? Do I need to find business articles from places like Bloomberg or TechCrunch that talk about the company's history and business, instead of what they sell?

Any simple advice for me would be really helpful. Thank you so much! Mindinfor (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi! i was able to take a quick look at the convo on this page: WP:Articles for deletion/Jackery

in order to create a new wiki article, the topic has to meet the WP:Notability guideline, which means it received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. i know that's really vague, so to clarify, since your draft is about a company, there are specific notability guidelines listed in WP:ORGCRIT along with examples of sources. also, you are totally right about the articles being product reviews. this is covered a bit in WP:ORGCRIT, but basically, we don't know if forbes or the other sites were paid to sponsor the product/company, which means we don't know for sure if those sources are independent and reliable.

i hope this is helpful. if you have more questions, feel free to post again! and thank you for contributing to the wiki :) SmolPetra (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, SmolPetra! This makes a lot of sense. I didn't realize product reviews were seen as potentially sponsored, but I get it now. I'll drop those links and look for independent financial/business news (like IPO coverage or market share reports) instead. Does that sound like the right approach? Really appreciate the help! Mindinfor (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to read WP:NCORP which outlines things that do and do not contribute to notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or does it not count because it's written by a Forbes "Contributor"? Exactly, see WP:FORBESCON, Forbes contributor pieces are paid advertisements.

and look for independent financial/business news (like IPO coverage or market share reports) instead Don't do that. These things do not establish notability as per WP:CORPTRIV (because there is endless such churnalism about practically every company in the world) Athanelar (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i echo others' feedback to your question! i would like to add (since i know all the links/acronyms can be overwhelming for new editors) that all our replies linked to different subsections of the same article WP:NCORP, so i suggest focusing on that page first

also, to clarify Athanelar's link to WP:FORBESCON, that page is a list of sources the community views as CURRENTLY reliable/unreliable, meaning consensus can change over time. it's meant to provide general guidance (not absolute rules) for sourcing, but it can be esp helpful to bookmark/reference while learning how to evaluate each source based on context SmolPetra (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you all for the clear explanations! I wasn't aware of the rule against routine financial news (WP:CORPTRIV), but it makes complete sense now. I'll review WP:NCORP again and see if I can find in-depth, independent feature profiles about the company itself. I really appreciate the help! Mindinfor (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Itslaaadoorman (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Yuhihai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I was editing a draft for Yuhihai and it was declined today, I was wondering what kind of references/sources will I need for you guys to approve it? Thank you very much! Itslaaadoorman (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Yuhihai

The sources need to be reliable and ideally independent. There is sourcing for notability, the simple version is WP:GOLDENRULE, we will need 3 of them to show the subject meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Then there is sourcing to verify the accuracy of the statements, and these need to be reliable: WP:RS. To some extent, the fact that you are asking the question is WP:BACKWARDS - the sources define the artice, since it is a summation of those sources. Not vice versa. You also need to be careful about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOR. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hymnthegreat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roland (Waffensystem) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do i get this page from the german wikipedia to the english wikipedia Hymnthegreat (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hymnthegreat - I think I did put in an explanation about sources, no sources = no article. The other problem you have is Roland (missile), an existing article, though I can see some divergences between the 3 articles.

The German website has 11 sources, and some other links (German Wikipedia has slightly different approaches to notability and sourcing rules to English Wikipedia), so these would need to come over. And it is not a cut and paste operation since their citation system is different too, it will be a piece of work to carry them over. But because the approach to notability and sourcing is different it's not a clear cut issue, you have to start from English Wikipedia's rules, not the German site. Pragmatically? Maybe best to start with a much shorter entry, based on meeting the WP:GOLDENRULE and sources for that shorter version, get that accepted, and then work on the remaining text, gradually sourcing as you go. Yes, this is hard work. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Yoyo writes (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Harshita Gupta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having trouble framing everything according to wikipedia style and adding references Yoyo writes (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Yoyo writes. If you are having trouble adding references, that's a strong indication that you have written your draft backwards.

Quick guide to writing a draft:

1. Find several sources that are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. (See WP:42). Ignore anything written published or created by the subject or their associates, anything based on an interview or press release from the subject or their associates, any social media or user-generated sources (including iMDB and wikis - that includes Wikipedia), almost any official documents (they are nearly always primary sources) and anything which has less than a paragraph about the subject.
2. If you can't find several such sources, stop, and don't waste any more time on this draft
3. If you can find several such sources, then put aside everything that you personally know or believe about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say, citing them as you go.

Congratulations, you have now created a draft which has a chance of being accepted.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Preston Fletcher (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:WooPlus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello everyone at the Help Desk,

I am seeking some help and a neutral opinion regarding my recently rejected draft: [Draft:WooPlus]. I am a new user hoping to become an active Wikipedia editor and contribute to the community. I chose this topic as my first article because the online dating industry is an area I am very familiar with, and I wanted to start with a subject I know well.

First, I want to clarify that I genuinely want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines to create a neutral, fact-based entry. My first submission was declined by Bonadea for having an essay-like tone. I completely understood this feedback. As a non-native English speaker, my writing can sometimes sound unnatural or overly formal. To fix this, I completely rewrote the draft, deleted any transition words or summaries, and strictly stuck to the bare facts reported by reliable independent sources like BBC News, Forbes, and The New York Times.

However, my resubmission was outright rejected (not declined) by reviewer Pythoncoder with the comment: Still LLM slop. You're not fooling us. (swipes left)".

Wow... I am feeling quite disheartened :(. I swear that I did not use any LLM to generate the facts or the article from scratch. I think I am just struggling to master the strict English encyclopedic tone, which is especially challenging for a non-native speaker.

Since the draft is now permanently rejected, I don't know what to do next. Could another experienced editor kindly take a look at the draft and the sources provided? Or could anyone advise me on what my next steps should be?

Thank you so much for your time and patience. Preston Fletcher (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Preston Fletcher: Your next step with regard to this draft is to simply forget about it, I'm afraid. Rejection means the end of the line for a draft. Your next step with regard to becoming a productive Wikipedia editor is to focus on improving existing articles – creating a new article is almost the hardest thing to do, because it requires you to be aware of a number of policies and guidelines. And the best way to learn them is to work on the existing encyclopedia. It's fine to be a non-native English speaker (I'm not a native speaker myself), but don't use an AI to "fix" your language for you. It only creates more work, not less. --bonadea contributions talk 16:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases such as "media outlets including Page Six, The Indian Express, and Daily Mail reported...." is typical AI slop. The moment I see something in a draft that asserts coverage using name-dropping of sources, especially if that assertion is merely about the existence of coverage than the actual coverage, that's a pretty confident sign it's been AI generated. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• JasonAugustine (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AXS Lab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added a new news source (https://ablenews.com/jason-dasilva-art-access-and-adversity/) to the article to substantiate the facts more, is this enough for it to be published now? If not, what else can be done? JasonAugustine (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's your connection to this organization? You are claiming to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the organization logo(the logo is just simple text so it probably can't be copyrighted anyway, but that's beside the point).

Everything about the specific projects should be removed, these don't contribute to the notability of the organization itself. Most of the awards were for projects, not the organization itself. The giving of a grant confers no notability unless there is critical analysis and commentary as to why that means the organization is significant/important/influential.

The link you mention here might merit Mr. DaSilva personally an article, but not the organization. I think it's the end of the road for this draft at this time- but you can see if the rejecting reviewer would reconsider. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JasonAugustine.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

You should start by finding several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, because if you cannot find several such sources you'll know that there is no chance of creating an acceptable article. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, is the issue here with the source I used, or is it that we need more sources? If that's the case, how many sources do we need in order to create an acceptable article? Thank you for your time. JasonAugustine (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, many of your sources do not meet WP:42. That does not automatically make them useless, but it means that they cannot contribute to establishing notability, and can only be used to verify certain limited information: see WP:SPS.

It's not the number of sources, but their quality. A large number of poor sources makes an article significantly less likely to be accepted, because reviewers have to wade through a lot of dross to find the nuggets of gold.

I suggest removing every source that does not satisfy all the requirements of WP:42, and see what you've got. (For example, the review in New Mobility does not even mention AXS Lab, and so is completely useless for an article about the organisation - though it would be useful for an article about da Silva). You might decide that some of the other non-compliant sources will be of some use later, and save them somewhere - for example, the draft's talk page.

If you end up with several - say, a minimum of three - such sources, then you quite probably have a viable draft. Makes sure it contains absolutely nothing which is not in one of those independent sources.

If that adds up to a plausible encyclopaedia article, you will then need to approach the rejecting reviewer, Pythoncoder, and ask them to reconsider, based on your having found a reasonable number of good sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, you told us more than we would have gotten elsewhere. I will look into this. JasonAugustine (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. I submitted Draft:Todoist after disclosing a COI and presenting 4 articles/books in the comment at the top I felt met Wikipedia's criteria for in-depth profiles in national publications with a "broad audience". Two of the citations are entire books on the topic. The submission was rejected using a standard template saying the topic does not qualify for a page. I'm having a hard time understanding how the citations provided don't meet the notability criteria and was hoping someone here might be willing to give a little more explanation. Here are the citations I pointed out in my note:

• Scott, S.J. Master Todoist. Oldtown Publishing. ISBN 978-1-946159-04-5.
• Jones, Jeremy P. (January 15, 2022). Experts' Guide to Todoist. Jeremy P. Jones. Retrieved October 10, 2025.
• Chung-Lee, Jade (February 24, 2025). "Todoist Review". PCMAG. Retrieved October 10, 2025.
• Budds, Diana (September 16, 2015). "Khoi Vinh Oversees A Rebrand Of Todoist That Makes The Organizational App Even Better". Fast Company. Retrieved October 11, 2025.

Thanks in advance for any feedback you provide. I certainly understand Wikipedia is run by volunteers and appreciate any time you spend educating me. Best regards. Naomiliddell (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The submission wasn't rejected, it was declined, which means you can resubmit it. You'd have to ask the reviewer for details. I suggest merging what you can from the other draft that has been pointed out, and resubmit. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Kamikwcha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hamalu Jamatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused as it's getting rejected kindly help me out Kamikwcha (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kamikwcha.

Your draft cites no sources whatever.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Start by finding sources which each individually meet all the conditions in WP:42.

Then (if you have found some), forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]