Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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


March 12

02:49, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Flaun

I am unable to see the full review for this article submission. I can only see, "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." How can I find the full review or otherwise understand the rationale or violations in the article? Flaun (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no full review, because it has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. You may ask the reviewer Nighfidelity for a more detailed explanation.
To me, it looks completely AI generated, created in violation of WP:NEWLLM. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

05:19, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Mallarapuyaswanth.wiki

i need the adivce to modify the contents Mallarapuyaswanth.wiki (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mallarapuyaswanth.wiki - the reviewer did you a big favour, to save you wasting your time. To get an article you need to be notable. Almost everyone on this planet is not notable. it's not like LinkedIn which is a better place for this, there is a set of criteria that Wikipedia uses as a definition. It's not whether you or your mum thinks you are notable, it's based on what other people say about you (other than your mum) and against published definitions. Let's say you were a distinguished professor at a top university - at some point they may end up with an article, but the bulk of university professors, even at place like Oxford or Harvard, will not be sufficiently notable. And having an article on yourself means you do not control it, unlike LinkedIn. I can well recall the actress who did everything she could to get an article, employing people to write her promotional story, until other editors started to add in her correct age (which unfortunately is career death for women in acting so she knocked off 5 years). Then all of a sudden she wanted out. I'm really surprised people volunteer for that sort of future risk. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

06:56, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Miyathembani73

my article was rejected for publishing how can i overcome that Miyathembani73 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Miyathembani73 - Wikipedia articles are the neutral summary of reliable sources, and those sources also need to establish notability. Your article had zero sources and wasn't heading for notability, it was more of a social media comment. For notability we often refer people to the WP:GOLDENRULE, and you really should have 3 good examples that totally fit that description. If you don't then you need to think again. Doing new articles is hard, it's usually better to start editing existing articles that need improvement (which is probably 95% plus of them). But if you have your sources, and you have notability, and you can summarise them, then go through these screens: WP:YFA. Don't take the Sandbox option, which is presented in these screens, and is a bit confusing, take the blue Continue option. Then this link will help you to reference correctly: WP:REFB. While you are here, just also have a look at some of the other questions above, you will see some frequent pitfalls mentioned over and over again, so you can perhaps learn a few tips. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

09:05, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Tarine Manikanth

Submission rejected, submitter blocked as WP:UPE.

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

Why am I not able to create an article. Tarine Manikanth (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see the comment left by the reviewer. Your draft is two lines with no sources and no indication you meet our definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Could you also please read and respond to the paid-editing-query on your talk page related to the SPile+ software. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11:37, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Dramprabhu

i almost edit the draft:kapilan_karunanidhi. kindly assist the above topic. please help me to complete the move this draft to article. thanks in advance. Dramprabhu (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dramprabhu: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore neither be considered further nor moved into the main article space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
kindly tell me correction, i will be correct it. the draft would be move main article. kindly assist me. thanks Dramprabhu (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that this person is in any way notable, and the draft is effectively unreferenced (even if one takes into consideration all those inline external links) which is wholly unacceptable in an article on a living person. This remains the situation after multiple declines, so eventually the draft was rejected outright because we can't keep reviewing a draft indefinitely if it isn't progressing towards acceptability. I suggest you drop this matter and find something else to edit about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
As you have been told already, the draft has been rejected. Please don't waste valuable reviewer time on this with further questions. It will not be considered further. Full stop. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

14:51, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Mdseyamkhan

I am requesting assistance to ensure that the article about Ahmed Seyam is written in a neutral tone and follows Wikipedia’s notability, sourcing, and formatting guidelines. Mdseyamkhan (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mdseyamkhan: Please do not use an LLM to communicate on Wikipedia. Draft:Ahmed_Seyam has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted, because the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing CVs or personal profiles. --bonadea contributions talk 15:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

15:12, 12 March 2026 review of submission by LauraG13DXR

If an account has been blocked, how can it review articles for publishing? LauraG13DXR (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@LauraG13DXR: that user was blocked a few hours after they reviewed this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@LauraG13DXR: The block happened after the review. Since the block was for sockpuppetry I'd regard the review as improper at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of draft article

Hello. I recently submitted a draft article about the Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry and would appreciate feedback or a review when possible.

Draft:Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Thank you for your time. Dr. Pakistani (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dr. Pakistani: you created Draft:Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry yesterday, but haven't submitted it. I'll add the submission template, so you can submit it whenever you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

17:50, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Nestadog

I am very confused by the responses. Can someone explain why I can't add military service for Ambassador Loeb. I supplied a reference for this information which was from the State dept. I have seen other wiki sites that include military service. I would really appreciate some feedback on this subject. Thank you, Ann Nestadog (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nestadog You've asked questions about this draft in several places but haven't heeded the advice of them. Please don't do this. The reason this edit was reverted was because you did not provide a source. You also need to cite the source, not just have it. See WP:REFB for instructions on how you can do this. HurricaneZetaC 18:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

18:14, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Uzairhassan7

Hello, I recently submitted my draft "Draft:Imran Sharief" for review through Articles for Creation. I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions from experienced editors to help improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Thank you. Uzairhassan7 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it's unnecessary to post here asking for a review once you have submitted it. The reviewer will leave you feedback if the draft is not accepted. Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I have updated the draft and resubmitted it through AfC. I appreciate the feedback. Uzairhassan7 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

18:50, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Silverstein-m

Hi there, Why does this article went back to draft? It was already approved for a couple of weeks. Someone also reached out to me and asked for money to get it approved. Silverstein-m (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Do not give anyone money. That is a scam. See the scam warning. It is possible that the scammer is the one that moved it into mainspace inappropriately. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The account that moved it to mainspace was indeed blocked as a sock. Athanelar (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. I didn't pay him - he said he can get it back to the mainspace under payment and I think he's the one who also removed it from the mainspace as it was already approved.
How can I get it approved? I followed the AfC Silverstein-m (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
You have just summarized funding rounds; that is a routine business activity that does not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. That requires a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about the company; "significant coverage" being critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by others as important/significant/influential about the company. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the criteria to merit an article, and I don't think this one does, either, unless you have sources that haven't been used yet.
If you are associated with this company, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
You asked "How can I get it approved?" You can't. The draft has been rejected, which means it won't be considered further unless the last reviewer can be convinced to allow resubmission. Otherwise, please don't waste further time on this, neither yours nor ours. Reviewer time is too precious to be spent on drafts that exist only for publicity purposes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Try to get a refund. Unless you used a credit card and can reverse the charge, you'll find that the scammer has disappeared and will not communicate with you. You got scammed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

21:58, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Mrkclancy

My first draft was rejected and I resubmitted a draft March 2nd. Is the second draft now under review? I have not seen any changes or adjustments and I do see the early February rejection so I am curious if it is in queue Mrkclancy (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The draft was submitted and is pending review. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I declined it. Still AI generated. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
why do you claim that? Mrkclancy (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
My review comment should have been clear enough. Simply removing the evidence of AI generation doesn't really fix the problem. Much would need a complete rewrite, especially places where mere mentions in sources are given undue prominence in the prose that cites them. Also, the draft makes some assertions that are completely unsourced. A biography of a living person cannot possibly be accepted in a state that violates the WP:BLP policy. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, you need to declare the nature of your association with Hiromi Asai. This isn't negotiable, and you haven't done so. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

23:00, 12 March 2026 review of submission by Uzairhassan7

Hello Athanelar, thank you for reviewing the Draft:Imran Sharief article. I understand your concerns. Could you please guide me on what type of sources would be sufficient to establish notability for this subject? He has been quoted in Fox News (3 articles, 2020-2021), Daily Mail, and New York Post during the COVID-19 pandemic, and has a peer-reviewed publication in SLEEP journal (Oxford Academic, 2008). Are these not considered independent reliable sources? I want to improve the article properly rather than resubmit blindly. Thank you. Uzairhassan7 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Before you rewrote the article, I advised you in my previous decline summary to rewrite from scratch without AI. The draft you subsequently resubmitted was still evidently AI generated, or at least heavily influenced by AI. This contravenes WP:NEWLLM, a Wikipedia guideline. This blatant disregard for my feedback was the main reason for my rejection.
As for the notability, being "quoted" somewhere is not significant coverage, which is required to establish notability. I should also think it is self evident that a study which the subject themself was involved in is not considered [an] independent reliable source. The type of coverage necessary to establish notability is summarised at WP:Golden rule. Athanelar (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

March 13

07:22, 13 March 2026 review of submission by Kitmajo

why I don't understand why I didn't meet the standard to publish my page Kitmajo (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Kitmajo, if you are asking about Draft:Spamtoipia, it is complete nonsense and utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

09:53, 13 March 2026 review of submission by KPeters89

Beings fully rejected by reason "still reads like" feels very opinionated. KPeters89 (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You have just told of the routine business activities and offerings of the company. 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 is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company.
If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Did you or did you not use AI as part of your workflow in creating this draft? Whether @Pythoncoder rejection is 'opinionated' or not doesn't matter if they're correct, because it is in fact not allowed to create drafts/articles using AI. Athanelar (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

10:24, 13 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-75122-3

Hi, the reviewer feedback suggests I have incorrectly formatted citations; however, I'm not quite sure what they mean by this/how a correctly formatted citation should look. Would you be able to explain in more detail, and/or provide an example of what a correctly formatted citation would look like? Thanks. ~2026-75122-3 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Also be aware of promotional tone. Sentences like the bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move away from a one-size-fits-all oncology model. are not encyclopedically acceptable even when tacked onto a weasel statement like Supporters argue that.... Such fawning praise would need to be quoted to someone specific. I would also advise you create an account here; because you're a paid editor, it would make it much easier for us to track your contributions. Athanelar (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

13:31, 13 March 2026 review of submission by TammarieSheamus

I'm new to this. My draft was returned asking me to "needs references/ has bare refs". I want to fix it. There are words highlighted in blue (I thought that was a just a hotline to a direct reference ie.in Wikipedia) and others in purple. Is it the purple ones I need to work on before resubmission or both blue and purple? Another editor said not to resubmit it until everything is fixed. What does the blue highlight mean? What does the purple highlight mean? TammarieSheamus (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Purple links are ones you've clicked before. When they say you need to fix your bare references, they mean that your references need to be formatted with citation templates rather than just being bare URLs like your 6th reference. Your references also need to be structured as footnotes to the reference list (like you've done in the lead) not as external links in square brackets (like you've done in the "Governance structure" section)
Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for a guide to properly referencing. Athanelar (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @TammarieSheamus. As is often the case when inexperienced editors try to write a Wikipedia article, you have not understood what a Wikipedia article should be. 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.
Almost nothing written, published, or based on the words of, anybody associated with the College is relevant to this article. Nearly all of your sources cited should be wholly independent of the College, and contain significant coverage of the college specifically (not just people or projects associated with it). See golden rule for the criteria most of the sources should meet.
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) 22:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

23:58, 13 March 2026 review of submission by Leswinters

They are placed on Sirius XM on rotation. You can look them up on the Sirius website. This qualifies as notable per your number 11 in the listing of what makes someone notable enough for an article. Therefore, I have satisfied the reason of denial so, why isn’t the Eddie 9V article published? Leswinters (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This qualifies as notable per your number 11 in the listing of what makes someone notable enough for an article. Which 'listing' are you referring to? Athanelar (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
The listing for what makes a notable musician Leswinters (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (music) Leswinters (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
And which of the references in your draft prove that they are on Sirius XM's rotation? Athanelar (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
They release their playlists but they do not release articles about what they play for anyone. I can send you screenshots or links to the playlist pages but this would not be a source cited for an article as NO national radio station does that. So, how am I supposed to do that? The notability for a musician page does not say this needs to be cited, it just needs to be to be considered notable. I assume that means the people reviewing need to actually do due diligence and look these things up instead of denying for a reason that doesn’t exist. https://xmplaylist.com/station/thespectrum/track/NVRD-PBTP#google_vignette
https://xmplaylist.com/station/thespectrum/track/CFSV-AI78
https://xmplaylist.com/station/bbkingsbluesville/track/ZTQ5-9YMS Leswinters (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
It quite plainly says at the top of WP:Notability (music) that To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. If your claim is that the band is notable because they meet criterion 11, you have to demonstrate within the article that they meet criterion 11; i.e., that they are in Sirius XM's rotation. The links to xmplaylist seem to merely show that those songs have been recently played, and not necessarily that they're in a regular rotation. I could be wrong, of course, but if that's what you're hinging the claim to notability on then you might want to find something clearer.
It should also be noted that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Or included, in this case. Even if notability can be presumed based on NMUSIC 11, your article doesn't contain much else of substance about the band. There's no critical analysis of their work or their style, just some brief discussion about their history and then a bare discography list (which appears to be AI generated; in no small part because the AI seems to have thought that Eddie 9V is a person, referring to them as "he" and saying that the discography "reflects [their] evolution as an artist") with no source for that analysis or any further elaboration. If this band is notable, then somebody must have written something about them other than "They exist and here's how they met." It's your responsibility as the article creator to find those sources and include the information they contain to actually create a substantial article.
If you're now thinking "well, shit, that sounds like a lot of work.", you'd be correct. Writing an article is one of the most complex tasks on Wikipedia, and you've chosen to undertake it as a brand new editor with no other experience under your belt; which inevitably leads to you running into these kinds of issues because you don't have a robust understanding of our requirements. Athanelar (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I included an article from Rolling Stone! They don’t write articles about people that aren’t notable. That is in the citations.
Are you kidding me? Do you know what I’ve accomplished in my life. This does not seem like a lot of work now. I don’t appreciate you speaking to me this way and will report you for abuse. Leswinters (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the Rolling Stones article in your references. However, first of all it's a review of one of their songs and not significant coverage of the band themselves, and secondly the only information you've actually cited to this source in your draft are the words "Brothers Lane and Brooks Kelly". Athanelar (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I was told previously to add in references even though I didn’t cite them. I argued against that as I was never able to publish doing that and they said to do it to establish notoriety. Leswinters (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Saying "don't you know who I am?" is not something that generally produces the results you think it will on Wikipedia. We don't care about what you've accomplished in your life, all that matters is what you are doing on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
My attorney said he can get involved if they are only posting articles by people that work more for them. That’s discrimination. Leswinters (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
You should know that legal threats are grounds for your account to be immediately blocked; you should rescind this immediately. Athanelar (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
You cussed at me and wrote a very aggressively harassing response. I am pretty sure you cat do that either. Leswinters (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • cant Leswinters (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Leswinters, Athanelar did not "cuss" at you, and their response was perfectly civil. They did use the word 'shit', most likely to indicate surprise in the response they're imagining from the reader; they were not using it to denigrate either you or your writing.
Can you please clarify what you mean by if they are only posting articles by people that work more for them? Meadowlark (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Please retract your legal threat, there is already a AN/I discussion against you. shane (talk to me if you want!) 04:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
There was absolutely no AI used for this. I am old school, I don’t use AI for anything. Leswinters (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

March 14

03:19, 14 March 2026 review of submission by ReflectionInTheKoiPond

I am writing to request a review of this draft for Reflection in the Koi Pond. I want to be fully transparent that I am the artist described in the article, and I am aware of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest (COI) policies.

I have made every effort to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone and have avoided promotional language. My goal is to demonstrate notability under the WP:NMUSIC guidelines. Specifically, I have included citations from independent, reliable secondary sources.

I would appreciate feedback on whether the current sourcing is sufficient to establish notability or if the tone needs further adjustment to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for your time and guidance. ReflectionInTheKoiPond (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, I have included citations from independent, reliable secondary sources. No, you haven't. Athanelar (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi @ReflectionInTheKoiPond, and thank you for declaring your conflict of interest here. Please make sure to do so on your userpage - instructions are at WP:COIE.
You have submitted the draft for review, so it's in the review pool now and will be reviewed in due time. We don't do pre-review reviews, as that defeats the purpose of reviews! As the big yellow box at the top of your draft now says, Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,895 pending submissions waiting for review. You can continue to improve the draft while you wait. I suggest looking for sources and assessing them against WP:42. You will need three or more sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. You will also need to use Referencing for beginners to cite those sources. Every statement made in the draft must be supported by a source cited right after that statement.
If you have used AI/LLMs to generate the draft, or to talk to us here, please know that it is not permitted to use AI/LLMs to write drafts and that using AI/LLMs to talk to other editors is heavily discouraged. You'll get much better responses if you use your own words, even if your English isn't perfect. Machines don't understand what we're telling them to do, and will make promises they can't keep. We want to talk to the humans. I wish you good luck in finding some excellent sources, and happy editing. Meadowlark (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello Meadowlark and Athanelar, thank you both for your detailed feedback and guidance. I understand that my draft currently lacks the required independent, reliable sources and significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability under Wikipedia’s music guidelines.
I will focus on identifying and adding sources that meet the WP:42 criteria, and ensure every statement in the draft is properly cited. I will also review the guidance on COI declaration and referencing to make sure everything is correctly formatted.
For clarity, I am not using AI or language models to write the draft or communicate here; all content is my own words.
I appreciate your time and patience while I work on improving the draft. ReflectionInTheKoiPond (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Exactly which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO do you believe you meet? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I work with a Korean recording organization called "6v6 recordings (https://en.namu.wiki/w/6v6%20Recordings)", most of the members in it are on Wikipedia except me, I believe it'd be nice to put all of us on Wikipedia. ReflectionInTheKoiPond (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question. Which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO do you believe you meet?
Also, en.namu.wiki has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
The only member I see who has an article is Brokenteeth, who apparently meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #5. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I understand the question... At this time, I believe I do not meet the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria then. I am part of 6v6 Recordings, but my personal career has not yet received coverage or achievements that satisfy Wikipedia’s standards for independent notability. I will continue working on my music and hope to meet these criteria in the future, I apologize for wasting your time. ReflectionInTheKoiPond (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mind the conversation. I hope it helped you learn what Wikipedia requires for a music artist. I wish you good fortune in your career.
In the meantime, feel free to improve other articles (except you should avoid editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest, like Brokenteeth for example, but instead use WP:Edit Request Wizard to propose changes). Being a new editor trying to write an article right away is really hard and almost always fails. It's best to try creating a new article when you have more experience. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much! ReflectionInTheKoiPond (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, why do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? Publicity? Search engine optimization? None of those are valid reasons. If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write an article about you. Whether that happens next month, 10 years from now, or after your life has ended, shouldn't matter to you in the least. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

05:49, 14 March 2026 review of submission by Dramprabhu

Hi, can you assist improve this draft. please Dramprabhu (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

No. The draft has been rejected, which means stop, don't waste more time on it, do not expect reviewers to waste more time on it, because it will not be considered for further review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dramprabhu: Creating Kabilan Karunanidhi right after being told to stop was a completely unacceptable action. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
If you try to bypass the review process again, your account will be blocked. At this time it is apparent that you are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, instead you just want to use it for publicity purposes, which is prohibited. If you cannot become a productive editor for other topics where you don't have a conflict of interest, then Wikipedia isn't a good place for you to spend your time. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

16:02, 14 March 2026 review of submission by Thiagovscoelho

This draft seems to be unfairly held up by reviewers. They allege two grounds:

  1. Lack of sources for notability.
  2. Being made with AI.

Regarding the first: I'm not sure what kinds of sources can be expected for something like this (a syntax highlighting color scheme). The Solarized and Dracula articles seem to stand on more or less the same kinds of sources. I think Wikipedia should follow consistent rules, so either those articles should be removed, this one should be admitted, or a difference between them should be clarified.

Regarding the second: I have no idea how the article draft was first made (all I did was add some extra sources). It is in entirely encyclopedic tone and does not violate copyrights. The editor who rejected the current draft highlighted a sentence which is not in any way flawed: it is not unencyclopedic or plagiarized.

Something is wrong here, either with the rejection of this draft or the acceptance of earlier, similar pages. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Every article stands on its own (see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are many thousands of articles which aren't necessarily up to the standards of Wikipedia, but nobody has addressed them yet. There are more than seven million articles on English Wikipedia; if we determined notability simply by finding other articles that exist that haven't yet been deleted, it would be a death spiral to the bottom. Your most convincing argument would be only focusing on the sources in question and how they support the content in this article. And there's definitely some AI slop in the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't necessarily want that draft to be published, I mean, I would also be interested in getting those other articles deleted if that were the correct decision. Mostly I wanted clarity and enlightenment and stuff, with respect to the rules. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. In the very early days of Wikipedia, there was a rush to create articles and many of those were of poor quality and never examined by anyone. Standards have changed over time, usually getting stricter. The draft process is relatively new and is not required of all users.
You are welcome to identify articles you see that do not meet standards, so action can be taken. We are only as good as those who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
You need sources, ideally at least three, that satisfy all the criteria in WP:42. The Solarized article has such sources, such as a piece in Wired with in-depth discussion of the color scheme. I don't see any sources in your draft that meet the criteria. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Eh, alright. I added more sources and resent the other guy's draft mostly to clarify this. I mean, so that's why Monokai isn't on Wikipedia, I guess; I hadn't thought that much about "significant coverage" before (since I usually only create articles that are obviously notable). Thiagovscoelho (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@Thiagovscoelho that's right, indeed subjects can be obviously notable, but will not get an article simply because at this stage the notability can't be proven via significant coverage of the subject under WP:GNG. We often refer people to WP:42 but the GNG text isn't that long and makes it crystal clear this draft isn't (yet) viable. This draft may be better placed as a section within one of the four subjects named in the lead section. AI, once it is in an article, has an infective quality which is very time-consuming to remove. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

16:06, 14 March 2026 review of submission by Youssuhhh

This draft appears to be blank. If you have not written your text yet, please add your content before resubmitting. If you did write the text, it may be hidden by a formatting error. Please check the "Edit" tab to ensure your text is not inside a comment tag.

How i can fix this easily? Youssuhhh (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Youssuhhh: please don't start multiple drafts.
You can "fix easily" the blankness by adding some content before submitting it. Just out of curiosity, why are you submitting blank drafts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

18:27, 14 March 2026 review of submission by Rotar6

Why are you doing that? The draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Don't waste your time, and don't waste valuable reviewer time either. If you want to resubmit it, you must appeal to the reviewer who rejected it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

20:11, 14 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-15909-89

To the reviewers who checked this draft months ago. I understand that topic is not notable and is already included at the page for Dmitri M. Johnson, but I’ve managed to complete most of the history of the company from it’s former side of dj2 Entertainment to the recent company Story Kitchen. I’ve been cleaning up, formatting the paragraphs, and got almost every project scrapped or in production. With that in mind, I would like for the admins to make another proposal to make the page notable if possible. I’ll understand your decision until further notice, but I’ll keep making sure that Story Kitchen’s history is up to date on recent events so far. ~2026-15909-89 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer on their user talk page, click the word talk next to their username on the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I did from 11WB but I'll try again for the recent reviewer so far. ~2026-15909-89 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I am not the rejecting reviewer, that would be @CNMall41. 11WB (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I also replied on my talk page. OP agrees the topic is not notable which means no amount of editing will make it such. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Thing is, @CNMall41 wants me to disclose my WP:COI per WP:PAID on the draft. ~2026-15909-89 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I’m not in it for the money, I just wanna have the page all sorted out for Story Kitchen. I do not work for the company, but only to get the history of how the studio worked on various films from their website including shows like Tomb Raider. So in the safe term, I think I’m more of a WP:COI than being part of WP:PAID. I’m doing all I can to gather enough sources and games being adapted into films and television. ~2026-15909-89 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
That’s why I also need to make another proposal for it because I’m not sure if it’s gonna work on being on the Wikipedia or not. Still, I’m trying to be up-to-date on everything on the history of dj2 Entertainment/Story Kitchen. ~2026-15909-89 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I have answered on my talk page and won't do it in multiple places. The edit history of the pages and your editing pattern indicate a clear COI. I provide instructions on my talk page on how to request edits and make the disclosure. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Should be noted I am no longer an active AfC reviewer or new page patroller. @~2026-15909-89, based on the feedback you have received here, it would be best to disclose any conflicts of interest you do have. You've now brought this issue to my talk page, @CNMall41's talk page, and also here. You run the risk of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by doing this. If the company is notable at any point in the future, an editor without a COI may very well choose to create an article for them. Presently, the draft has been rejected. The reality is that the company doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 11WB (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
WB11 We usually ask those seeking to submit a rejected draft after changes to first appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask that they reconsider the rejection. If you don't wish to be contacted about drafts you rejected, you might want to put that on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I didn't reject the draft. I declined it prior, please check the draft for confirmation. 11WB (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oops, wires crossed, apologies. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Not to worry! I have no problem being contacted about declines or reviews I've done. 11WB (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

March 15

04:48, 15 March 2026 review of submission by LongTeng82

Hello, I am seeking guidance regarding my draft article Draft:Rising Dragon School, which was recently declined with the comment that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

The draft currently cites coverage from China Daily, China Central Television (CCTV), Sohu News, and Europe Times, which all independently discuss the school. I asked for clarification on the draft talk page but have not yet received a response.

Could someone please advise whether the issue relates to the type of sources, the number of sources, or how the sources are used within the article? I would like to improve the draft appropriately before resubmitting.

Thank you for any guidance. LongTeng82 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer was blocked as a sockpuppet account, so I have un-reviewed it. It is now waiting for review again.
Regarding your question about sources, see WP:Golden Rule to understand the kind of sources required. Ideally a reviewer likes to see at least three sources that each meet all the golden-rule criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@LongTeng82 - apologies for the slight hiccup in the review process. I don't know the details of that, but I've given a more detailed set of responses than I would normally give in order to assist you. Basically ditch AI, it's definitely not your friend, and look for rock solid significant coverage of the school as institution, rather than Scott giving interviews. I have to say I think it's unlikely that can be met, typically this sort of school won't get over the notability hurdle, some universities struggle! ChrysGalley (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello ChrysGalley,
Thanks for such a detailed response, I appreciate the guidance.
You are correct that I used an AI tool to help polish the wording and grammar of the draft. My intention was simply to improve the clarity of the writing rather than generate content, but I understand the concern and I will rewrite the article myself to ensure it reflects Wikipedia’s expected tone and style.
Regarding the sources, I understand your point about the distinction between coverage of the school as an institution and interviews focused on Scott Bird. Looking again at the sources, it does appear that much of the media coverage discusses Scott Bird personally and his work in China rather than the school alone.
In that case, would it potentially be better to create a biography article about Scott Bird instead? Several of the sources focus on his background and journey training and teaching martial arts in China. There is also earlier independent coverage from the Solihull Times in the UK from the 1990s relating to his martial arts career.
If that would be a more suitable approach under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, I would be grateful for your advice on whether pursuing a biography article first would make more sense.
Thank you again for your time and assistance. LongTeng82 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@LongTeng82 It's just a simple question: does that subject, any subject, have 3 rock solid secondary, truly independent, sources, with significant coverage per WP:42? If so, summarise those 3 sources, don't do WP:BACKWARDS. So if SB meets that then you can certainly consider it. Forget LLM, we can edit out dodgy grammar and spelling mistakes in seconds, but LLM takes hours to unravel. However writing about yourself is (a) hard to impossible, I don't have the skill-set to do it (b) strongly discouraged under WP:FAQAS. Fixing, improving, repairing, sourcing existing Wikipedia articles will not get you many thank yous, but is a much more creditable thing to do. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

05:41, 15 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-16311-81

Why not any wikipedia page about Jitendra Singh Nimod even he is a well known Web Developer. Many writers wrote about him. ~2026-16311-81 (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

There were zero sources cited in that draft. If "many writers wrote about him" then those writers should be cited.
We also don't accept LLM-generated drafts.
The draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Full stop. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

07:38, 15 March 2026 review of submission by Youssuhhh

The subject is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you can fix this please Youssuhhh (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Youssuhhh: I asked you already yesterday, why do you keep submitting a blank page? We have actual drafts to review, you know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
The content appears to be misplaced here User:Youssuhhh. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Which has since been deleted under G11. Athanelar (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

09:06, 15 March 2026 review of submission by Devolver789

I significantly updated the draft page and even became aware if both the sources and the formatting of the draft have met Wikipedia's standards and policies. MrDevolver (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered for inclusion anymore. The only way to reverse this would be to appeal to the rejecting reviewer, @Zxcvbnm, directly. Athanelar (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Alright then MrDevolver (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

March 16

02:09, 16 March 2026 review of submission by GRGURJAR

I have created the Wikipedia page of Mridul Tiwari on the basis of all the news pages and it is based on all the facts, there is nothing wrong in it. GRGURJAR (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Mridul Tiwari has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion unless the rejecting reviewer, @Theroadislong, can be convinced to overturn their rejection. Athanelar (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft review request – Kissa Court Kachehari Ka

Hello,

I would appreciate some guidance from WikiProject Film editors regarding Draft:Kissa Court Kachehari Ka.

The film was released on 13 March 2026 and the draft now includes coverage and critical reviews from several publications such as The Times of India, India TV, News18, Lokmat, Jansatta and Film Information by Komal Nahta.

The draft has already been submitted for AfC review. Since the film has now been released and reviews have been published, I was wondering if any editor from the project could kindly take a look and suggest improvements or help with review.

Thank you.

Sadda 022 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted it for a review; we don't do reviews on demand(because then everyone would demand a speedy review) so asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process. If you want to communicate with the Film Project, please communicate with it directly.
Also, if you have no conflict of interest with the film, you are free to place it into the encyclopedia yourself with the 'Move' function(though its inadvisable unless you have had drafts accepted in the past). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

10:56, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Charles 091

I’m requesting assistance because I need to find reliable sources. Charles 091 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not likely to find anyone willing to help co-edit here at the AFC helpdesk. In addition, with small games like this, if you can't find significant secondary coverage at a cursory search, it's not likely to present itself. The vast majority of video games, just like the vast majority of things in the world in general, are not notable by Wikipedia standards and do not need a standalone article here. Athanelar (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

10:57, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Elektra Techno Labs Pvt Ltd

what are the reason of rejection Elektra Techno Labs Pvt Ltd (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reason for declining it was left by the reviewer. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

12:00, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Jarxdanthony

Hello, could someone please move my sandbox at User:Jarxdanthony/sandbox to Draft:Jarxd Anthony (page title: Jarxd Anthony) so I can submit it for review? Thank you! Jarxdanthony (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jarxdanthony: no, but I have declined and deleted it. Please do not write about yourself, and whatever you do, do not promote yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
ok, sorry I didn't know, So who can write about me🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽 Jarxdanthony (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
The news, professional critics, something like that. Once others who are not associated with you write about you, there would then be things to summarize in an article about you. If you want to tell about yourself, that's exactly what social media is for.
Please see WP:PROUD; there are good reasons to not want an article. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
PS: Please don't start multiple threads at once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
ok thank you Jarxdanthony (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

13:30, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Writersdesk2022

what can I do so my work was not for nothing and this Draft is being accepted? Writersdesk2022 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Rejection means it's the end of the line for the draft, at least for the time being. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

13:59, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Kainoa Cortez

How do I make my article meet the Wikipedia criteria? Kainoa Cortez (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not notable in Wikipedia terms, your draft has zero independent reliable sources, it has been rejected there is nothing you can do except wait until reliable sources have covered you in significant detail and then wait until somebody entirely unconnected to you decides to write an article based on those sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

14:18, 16 March 2026 review of submission by FilmViewer05

Why was my submission declined? Can you please help? FilmViewer05 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer linked to WP:TOOSOON; it is too soon for an article about this unreleased film. Please see the notability guidelines for unreleased films; in short, there must be something particularly notable about the production of the film itself for it to merit an article before its release. You just have routine information about the film. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

22:04, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Brianbram

Hi. I'm not an experienced submitter, and I really need your help in understanding why this entry got rejected a second time and how I can modify it for approval. The subject seems to meet the criteria for inclusion, and the references in this revised entry are correct, I think. What am I doing wrong? I would like the entry to be successful. The subject has been publishing his indy autobiographical comic series for more than a decade, and is an Eisner Award nominee. Any advice you could provide is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the advice. brianbram (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason it was declined is precisely because in the reviewer's opinion it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Relevant information is in the decline notice, and you can always ask @MCE89 (the declining reviewer) if you need further clarification. Athanelar (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

23:56, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Wikiman2230

Requesting for my draft to be lifted from a rejection to a decline. I was originally going to edit on this further and improve the draft more. Wikiman (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

If you can present three independent, reliable sources, per WP:42 which give significant coverage of this conflict (as opposed to statues, islands in the sun, assorted dead dictators and what-not) then I may be receptive. I wouldn't want you to get your hopes too high though. ChrysGalley (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure this "conflict" is discussed on the micronation's article as well as that of its leader. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

March 17

01:09, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Rickypriv

Keeps getting denied due to music repertoire. Rickypriv (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The decline notice on that page mentions nothing whatsoever about music repertoire. The article has been declined because the draft is currently completely lacking references. See WP:Verifiability and Help:Referencing for beginners. Athanelar (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

05:51, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Noushad shereef

does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion Noushad shereef (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

05:55, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Dhanyalal26

I made an article about Shibu Prabhakar. I know him very well. because he is my husband. And the team rejected the article? Can you help me to publish the article? Dhanyalal26 (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Dhanyalal26 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended; the full title is needed. However, it was generated by an AI and has been deleted. We want you to write in your own words without using an AI. It's best if you don't attempt to write about your husband and allow an article to develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of the topic and chooses to write about it, summarizing what that coverage says. Know that an article is not necessarily something to desire; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

06:06, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Dr. Mamatamayee Choudhury

how can it be published?

Dr. Mamatamayee Choudhury (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dr. Mamatamayee Choudhury: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't host curricula vitae and you cite zero sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

08:47, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Infinityeditor

I have made this article reliable and honest as possible. What change does i need to do in this. Infinityeditor (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

He seems to be more than "a friend of a friend", as you took a picture of him where he posed for you.
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not shown that he is a notable actor. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I dont have any personal connection with him.He is a friend of my friend and i just know him as his friend, so im not connected with him. Infinityeditor (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
You're connected enough to meet with him to get him to pose for a picture for you. Was he aware it was for Wikipedia? Did he direct any of your editing? 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I get why you might think that, but it’s not really the case. I just happened to take a photo of him it doesn’t mean I have any close personal or professional connection with him.
He didn’t know the photo might be used for Wikipedia, and he hasn’t been involved in writing or editing the article at all. Everything I wrote was based only on publicly available information, and I tried to keep it neutral.
He hasn’t guided or influenced any part of the content. Infinityeditor (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
That's not what you told Thilsebatti. You told him Ajikumar "personally asked me" to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
All I'm looking for is honesty. Where I live, "friend of a friend" would not include something like this, taking a picture and editing at their request. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

12:15, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Renfluence PC

Our page got rejected. What must change for it to be approved? Renfluence PC (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It was blatant promotion and has been deleted.
You disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft; if you are an employee, you must mame the stricter paid editing disclosure instead, ideally on your user page.
Please read WP:YESPROMO and WP:BOSS; Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

14:42, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Revelly

I want to understand what areas can be improved for this article to get published Revelly (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Revelly: Wikipedia does not publish original research, nor is it a place for you to tell the world about your ideas. When the only source you're citing is a paper you've authored, and in particular when you're describing the subject as a "proposed" system, it is blatantly obvious that the subject is not notable, at least not yet. Once it has been discussed by multiple independent and reliable sources, you can then summarise what they have said, cite them as references, and you might be in with a chance, not before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

16:05, 17 March 2026 review of submission by AltaiAdygea122

i want the page AltaiAdygea122 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what Wikipedia wants is something very different from what you appear to want, @AltaiAdygea122. Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

16:19, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Newmyths

Hi there. I am trying to improve and expand the currently inadequate WKP entry on the London-based, American journalist Stryker McGuire (a living person). I recently submitted my expanded and improved draft of this article for approval, but it was declined with two lines of feedback from an account which is a confirmed SockPuppet who, it seems, didn’t even realize that there is already an existing WKP article on this subject.

Regardless, I have tried to address the reviewer's concerns and improve the article by adding more sources commenting on the subject’s writings, in addition to referencing articles written by the subject. Most often, I am linking to articles written by the subject for the sake of the biographical information the sources (all reputable news organizations) provide. The subject is a political & cultural commentator, and so it’s difficult to summarize the significance of his writings without linking to his own articles.

I would truly appreciate any feedback, the more specific the better, concerning the problems relating to my draft since I still hope to re-submit it for approval.

Here’s the existing entry: Stryker McGuire

…& here’s my proposed rewrite: Draft:Stryker McGuire Newmyths (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Newmyths The whole url is not needed when linking, just [[Stryker McGuire]].
Rewrites are not done via this process. As the article is not protected, you are free to place your text in the article yourself; but you would likely be quickly reverted. You only have one source. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. You are incorrect; a Wikipedia article should not reference someone's own work, it should summarize what is said about the work. If you have no independent sources, there can be no article. It is true that journalists don't often write about each other unless one is Tom Brokaw or Walter Cronkite, but they don't get a pass on the independent and verifiability requirements.
I suggest that you propose small, incremental changes, not a wholesale rewrite. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Newmyths This rewrite is, to be blunt, a complete mess. It's promotional in tone, full of overlinking and refbombing, the lead is overlong, contains citations, and even contains information which is not actually present in the body of the article (the lead should summarise the content in the article; there's a mention of a story about 'Cool Britannia' which has three sources of its own (again, see the fact that the lead should not contain citations) but is never actually mentioned in the body of the article.)
Rather than outright reverting it to the pre-rewritten version it I'm going to take a scythe to it and cut out the most problematic parts. Athanelar (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
In fact, I am going to revert it to the pre-rewritten version, because there are also blatant source to text discrepancies. The claim that For more than three decades between 1978 and 2009, he was a writer and editor at Newsweek is sourced to an article that makes no mention of either of those dates, nor of his position at Newsweek; its only mention of his career is that McGuire has worked for Newsweek for more than 20 years. Athanelar (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Athanelar, I apologize for not better understanding WKP editing conventions and for my misguided attempt to improve the currently inadequate article. At the time of your reversion, I was attempting to remove primary sources on account of the article's "excessive reliance" on them (e.g https://www.thedailybeast.com/author/stryker-mcguire/ , which does confirm the fact in question - that McGuire worked for Newsweek for 30 years); hence the source to text discrepancy. To clarify, I am not actually connected to the subject but admire his work and had hoped to make a valuable contribution to an online institution I value. Obviously, I failed but thank you for clarifying why. Newmyths (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
You haven't 'failed,' I encourage you to work on the rewrite some more at Draft:Stryker McGuire being aware of the feedback I've given. It is certainly true that the article as it stands is in need of a rewrite. Athanelar (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

17:44, 17 March 2026 review of submission by 21stcenturycoelacanth

Hi all. I'm looking for advice as to how best to cite this particular site. It's Melon's official site for music chart rankings in Korea. See this link: https://www.melon.com/chart/search/index.htm For example, Aoi Sangoshou peaked at number 3 on the J-Pop chart the week of July 15th. I can view this information by selecting 'Weekly Chart' in the table in the link, '2024', 'July', '07.15-07.21', and 'J-Pop'. It's quite easy to use if you translate the page using Google Translate or similar.

The trouble is finding a permanent link to this information, because if you copy the link to this page, it just shows the chart index page, not the information you've inputted. If I was to cite a chart ranking using this site, how would I go about it? Just link to the search index? I wouldn't be sure how to go about saving an archive/snapshot of the site with that information visible either. I'd be grateful for any advice. 21stcenturycoelacanth (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Before you get to the final page you're looking for, can you right click on the link and select "open page in new tab"? That might open a page with the correct link on it.
Right now the page you linked is not operational for me, as if the site is down. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

19:17, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Noushad shereef

If you can, please edit and set Noushad shereef (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

We don't do co-editing here at this help desk; your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

19:28, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Gpsinggh

Why my draft declined? Gpsinggh (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Gpsinggh Your draft is actually in your sandbox, I fixed your header. There is already an article at Sukhvinder Singh (cricketer) and you have edited it. Why are you attempting to submit a draft about the same person? 331dot (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I see now. You edited the article and replaced it with your draft. Please review the Biographies of Living Persons policy; every fact about a person that potentially could be challenged needs a reliable sources; you only had one source. You don't need to submit a draft, you can just edit the article- but you need sources, we need to know where you are getting your information. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Sukhvinder Singh is related to me, and I am creating this article on his behalf. Another article about him was previously created by a different editor. However, the editor has been repeatedly removing the content I added. Therefore, I created a new draft to include the correct information. My intention is to ensure that the article contains accurate and complete details. Gpsinggh (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Gpsinggh You should disclose a conflict of interest on your user page.
Instead of using the draft process, you should use the edit request process to propose edits on the article talk page(the edit request wizard can facilitate this). You should propose incremental changes, one or two small changes at a time, to increase the chances a volunteer will review your request; large changes or wholesale rewrites take more time to review and reduce the chances a volunteer will look at them. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I would also suggest that you read why an article is not necessarily desirable for someone(and show it to your relative); there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@331dotThanks, I appreciate. Gpsinggh (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Gpsinggh Your changes to the article Sukhvinder Singh (cricketer) were reverted because they are not properly referenced to reliable sources. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and is all the more important for biographies of living persons. All of the information you add must be referenced to a reliable source. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance. Athanelar (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Draft:Anu Shah — biography of Indian-American entrepreneur

Hello. I recently submitted Draft:Anu Shah for review.

The draft is a biography of Anu Shah, an Indian-American

entrepreneur and technology executive who has held roles

at Amazon and Meta Platforms.

The draft has 18 citations from independent sources

including Bloomberg, University of Leeds, CNBC Africa,

TEDx University of Leeds, e27, DealStreetAsia, and others.

I would appreciate any feedback on:

1. Whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish notability

2. Any areas that could be strengthened before review

3. Estimated likelihood of acceptance

The draft can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anu_Shah

Thank you for your time.

~~~~ BusinessProfileEditor (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted it; we don't do pre-review reviews. Please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@BusinessProfileEditor: Let's test that hypothesis.
You have a single usable source. This is fatal for the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, @BusinessProfileEditor your username implies you may be editing in return for payment. If so, you need to follow the disclosure instructions at WP:PAID. Please respond to this question before you edit any further, or your account may be blocked on suspicion of undisclosed paid editing. Athanelar (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
They did curiously disclose that they don't have a COI and are not paid, which leads me to think the opposite. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

March 18

Request for second review — Draft:Presolv360

My draft Draft:Presolv360 has been declined three times by the same reviewer with identical template feedback. I have rewritten the draft significantly each time per WP:NPOV, WP:YFA, and WP:RS guidance. I am a disclosed paid editor per WP:PAID on User:Legalwiki123. I would appreciate a second reviewer looking at the current draft and pointing to specific sentences that remain promotional, as the same generic feedback has been given three times without specific examples. Legalwiki123 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

There have been two reviewers, not the same one all three times. Did you actually read the links in the feedback you have been given?
It is evident that this wasn't written by you, but by an AI, given the name dropping of sources and formatting features. That isn't permitted; see WP:NEWLLM. The draft also cites Times of India multiple times, which isn't considered a trusted source on Wikipedia; see WP:TIMESOFINDIA.
The publicity purpose is evident from going into unnecessary detail about WP:CORPROUTINE business activities, and unduly emphasizing services and founders.
Finally, as a paid editor, you are being paid to learn the rules here without help from unpaid volunteers, whose donated time is far more valuable than yours. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

05:07, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Anchlrbh

Hey, Can you tell me why you rejected this? This person is working in theatres from last 8, 9 years and have done many advertisements for Fair & Gold cream,Road safety with Amitabh Bachchan,Many ads for mobile phones with Farhan Akhtar,in 2024 he was in Apne Ram documentry by Priydarshan. Now Worked in Bhoot Bangla in Upcoming bollywood big film. I have references in 50+ newspapers. So now where is the mistake? Anchlrbh (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The draft failed to demonstrate notability as defined in WP:NACTOR. If you can make a strong case for notability, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft to re-open it for improvement and resubmission. Right now you cite only two sources, and in a biography of a living person, every assertion you make about the person needs to be verifiable by a reliable source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok So, please revive this draft. I will add more references Anchlrbh (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Please pay attention to what I wrote. I am not the reviewer who rejected it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Then why you are texting for this? I think You rejected this. Anchlrbh (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
You asked a question on a help page. I and many other people monitor this page and answer questions. That's why. If you want to ask the reviewer a question, then use the reviewer's talk page.
Can you not read the reviewer's name in the rejection notice? Theroadislong rejected it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I have removed my rejection, please add more sources, read WP:REFB and re-submit when you think they pass the criteria ay WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Ahnchlrbh This help desk is monitored by many people, not just the reviewer of your draft. If you intended to communicate with just them, you should do that on their personal user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

05:20, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Mouadh.jaber

Could you advise me what how to publish biography Mouadh.jaber (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a resume, not a biographical encyclopedic article. May I suggest you publish it on LinkedIn instead. nil nz 05:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
You can't publish it. It was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. And, it has been deleted because its existence was purely for publicity purposes, which is prohibited on Wikipedia.
Please answer: Exactly why do you want an article about yourself? Vanity? Publicity? Search engine optimization? Job search? None of those are valid reasons.
If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write an article about you. Whether that happens next week, 5 years from now, or after you are dead, shouldn't matter to you in the least. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI