• Maroonandcrimson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Felix Mouzabakani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do you have to usually find all reliable sources? The guy I'm writing about has very miniscule sources, so I'm just asking. Maroonandcrimson (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maroonandcrimson: It is pretty likely that sources exist to support an article about Félix Mouzabakani. Keep in mind that sources do not have to be in English, and do not have to exist online, though you must of course have access to any sources you cite. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• EnviroBooksFan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Janina Rossiter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft article Draft:Janina Rossiter has been revised to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia’s core content policies:

Neutral Point of View: All sections have been rewritten into a strictly factual, descriptive tone without superlatives or marketing language. Verifiability: Every statement is supported by citations from independent, reliable, third‑party sources (event websites, reputable news outlets, official reports). Self‑published materials and creator‑produced references are not present. No Original Research: Content reflects only information found in published sources, with appropriate wikilinks, image formatting, and reference syntax. Despite these revisions, the draft was still described as “reading like an advertisement” without indication of precisely which passages or sources remain problematic. In addition, Janina Rossiter’s work represents a significant contribution within the niche of women’s environmental art (“eco‑art”), with high‑profile achievements documented at major international forums. It feels this specialized recognition may have been overlooked or dismissed too quickly.

To address any remaining concerns, specific clarification is requested:

Which exact wording or citation is still considered non‑neutral or promotional? What additional evidence or coverage would most effectively demonstrate the subject’s notability? Are there any further formatting or sourcing adjustments needed to satisfy verifiability and NPOV requirements? Any detailed guidance on these points would be greatly appreciated. — EnviroBooksFan (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @EnviroBooksFan. Please don't use LLMs anywhere on Wikipedia. We want to communicate with you, not with a robot.

Autobiography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because it is almost never successful. Having found the sources, you would need to forget absolutely everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what people said about you (even if you disagree with them), and most people cannot do 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.

It is very obvious looking through the list of citations that most of them are either not reliable sources or not independent of you. Check every one of your sourcces againt the triple criteria in WP:42. Anything that is not a reliable source should not be cited, and anything that is not independent or does not contain significant coverage of you will not contribute to establishing that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (most of us don't).

If you have at least three compliant sources, the article should be a neutral summary of what those sources say, and little else. If you haven't, you are probably not notable by Wikipedia's standards. ColinFine (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Colin, I have been reworking the draft giving all the feedback over the last months. some people have been very helpful. so yes I have been communication trying to understand how it works. Your feedback is appreciate. EnviroBooksFan (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Butler.butler123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alina Matyukhina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Help Desk,

I was surprised to see the draft declined, as it was intended as a direct translation of the existing German-language article on the subject: https://de.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=John McAfee&lang=en&q=Alina_Matyukhina. I preserved all original references and links to maintain consistency and accuracy.

Given that the German version is currently live and includes the same sources, I am unclear on why the English version does not meet the notability and reference standards. If there are additional requirements for translated articles or if something specific was missing in the formatting or referencing, I would greatly appreciate your guidance so I can make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Best regards, Butler Butler.butler123 (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% confident that message is AI-generated. Anyways, different language versions of Wikipedias are slightly different in policies, and in some cases, what is considered notable in a version would not be considered as such here. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 09:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand that notability policies can vary across different language versions of Wikipedia. If possible, could you kindly point out specific examples in my article where you believe this might be an issue? That would help me better understand and improve the content accordingly. Butler.butler123 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the awards you describe do not contribute to notability, as they lack articles about themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).

You describe her qualifications and work but do not summarize what independent reliable sources say makes her a notable person for her work. Going to the World Economic Forum is a symptom of her notability, not the cause. Why is she important enough to have been invited there?

Do you have any form of connection with this person? 331dot (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BlackpillEnthusiast77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shooting of Jamal Wali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know what I need to fix. BlackpillEnthusiast77 (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that WP:NOTNEWS was applied. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Killing of George Floyd is an example of events having enduring notability, by the way. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 09:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be my guess also. I note that all the sources are from around the same time, last week of May. Unless this proves to have wider and/or more long-lasting impact (which may be too early to say yet), it's probably not notable enough. And per WP:BLP1E, the actors are otherwise low-profile individuals, further reducing the inherent notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me the article seems fine and is the subject of multiple articles. If you would like to try another method of creating the article, you don't *have to* submit it for review, you can simply publish it. Although in this case it may be proposed for deletion, this will be through a voting process though. Gumlau (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmed47 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ounass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi, the article is in neutral tone. is there a specific part that you believe is promotional? Hmed47 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, pretty much the entire draft reads like an advertisement for the platform, which goes against the required neutral point of view every article must have. If you have any type of conflict of interest with this platform, you should disclose either in the talk page of the draft or in your userpage. NeoGaze (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

How can be able to publish this draft Kanishk Dubey (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanishk Dubey: you cannot, it has been rejected. There is nothing to suggest that you are notable. You also shouldn't really be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pankaj890 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Pithoragarh Depot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Pithoragarh Depot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking help to ensure that the article on Pithoragarh Depot (Uttarakhand Transport Corporation) meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, reliable sourcing, grammar, and formatting. Since the original draft was declined due to grammar issues, potential conflict of interest, and lack of citations, I’ve revised the article for a more encyclopedic tone and now request assistance in reviewing the markup and references before resubmission. Pankaj890 (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pankaj890: I already answered your question on your talk page. Are you looking for a different answer?

Besides, now that you've moved the rejected draft into the main article space, this is arguably no longer an AfC matter, and in any case you asking what to do "before resubmission" seems rather redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gamboler (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Requesting specific advice about adding sources to a proposed article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article [submission] was declined due to needing more sources.

My current single source is a [website] that contains digital copies and tables of content for each of the 50 issues.

Instead, I will use an inline citation to reference each issue number to a webpage that contains a digital copy of the issue. Is this a good approach, and what should I do if I don't know the publishing date for the web page? Thank you.

Gamboler (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamboler: whether you cite a source, which merely confirms the existence of these journal issues, once or multiple times, makes no difference in terms of notability, although it will at least tell the reader where the information is coming from, because at the moment that is unclear.

That's without at all commenting on whether we should have an article listing journal issues in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for clarifying sourcing for mere existence vs. notability.

This list presently resides in Camera Work, so the issue of notability has been wound up with the notability of sources for Camera Work, which was the first American publisher of images and articles about modern artists such Picasso, Rodin, Matisse, and Cezanne, and was was part of Alfred Stieglitz' overall promotion of modern art in America at the turn of the 20th Century.

I'm doing an edit of Camera Work in part to improve the sourcing. I want to move the list to a separate article because it's large relative to the size of the rest of Camera Work.

I also wondered, does the list work on its own? Then, as I began reformatting it and adding links to the names, the list became a dashboard to Wikipedia articles about the major artists and thinkers who Stieglitz brought together. Gamboler (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sydney Solomon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • UnchainedTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:UnchainedTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I feel like each redraft I have clearly referenced both directly and in directly the streaming service through a variety of sources. Can you please help point me in the right direction? Thank you. Sydney Solomon (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sydney Solomon: your draft cites a press release, an interview, a passing mention, and an article from The Mail which is a deprecated source and must not be cited. None of these contributes anything towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dylan Smethurst (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Curry Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you give me a reason? Dylan Smethurst (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Dylan Smethurst (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a reply? Dylan Smethurst (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan Smethurst the reasons are provided in the declines and reject. In a nutshell, no sources means no article. See Your first article. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 38.97.237.198 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rigden Capital Strategies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What edits need to be made? Thank you 38.97.237.198 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. It is basically just a corporate presentation and provides no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Doc.Heintz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Filip Leu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have eliminated all defects so far. Would you please move the article to the article namespace and delete the redirects. Thank you for your support.Doc.Heintz (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc.Heintz: if you feel you have addressed the earlier decline reasons from three months ago, you are welcome to resubmit this for another review by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnny Prey (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Work Immersion in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Work Immersion in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like some help to have my page title be successfully accepted and be published. Johnny Prey (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny Prey: there is no evidence that the subject is notable, as it only cites primary sources. We need to see significant coverage of this subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 71.38.45.37 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Johnny Angel Wendell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I really dont understand. When I submitted this many years ago it was fine and was approved. Then last year after all these years it was taken down. Doesn't it show that it had been live for many years? Thank you. 71.38.45.37 (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article at Johnny Angel Wendell, but it was deleted in 2022 following this discussion: Articles for deletion/Johnny Angel Wendell. There is nothing unusual about that, published articles get deleted all the time.

In 2024, the deleted article was undeleted, and moved into the draft space, which is what you're now looking at at Draft:Johnny Angel Wendell. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Evpuch (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yoga Now (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this not able to be published? Evpuch (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Evpuch: because there is no evidence that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. We would need to see significant coverage of this subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. After multiple previous declines, this draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources, they are large Chicago sources and the studio has a had a large impact on the community! Evpuch (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Evpuch: those are still all primary sources. And having "a large impact on the community" is not a notability criterion, and is in any case highly subjective. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Evpuch, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a connection besides that I live in the area and I have seen the large impact the studio has had on the area! I believe that the sources are not directly associated with the studio, I want to share the impact! Evpuch (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Evpuch. I'm afraid that "I want to share the impact!" is another way of saying "I want to promote this subject". Promotion (i.e. telling the world about something) is forbidden in Wikipedia. We are only interested in summarising how other independent sources have already told the world. ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Arvore da Vida (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Paul Pangaro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to address the rejection points for this draft page. In the past I had only edit pages and these improvements were straightforward. Creating a new page has been a bit of a challenge despite the amount of documentation.

For context, this is a personal side project where I'm looking at prominent cyberneticians based on awards received or recognition by relevant institutions or organisations and who don't have a wiki page. I don't have a personal agenda not I reach them about this. It's pure from the admiration and gratefulness to wikipedia.

I hope this edit covers the requirements to accept the page. Kindly let me know if there are other aspects that I should include. Thank you ToL (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arvore da Vida: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel you have sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reasons, you may resubmit this draft and it will be reviewed again at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Zargha7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kandahar Rebellion (1709) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear @Rahmatula786,

I have now added two more academic sources (Barfield 2010 and Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 7, 1991) with correct page numbers, as suggested. May I kindly ask if everything looks okay now for approval?

Thank you again for your time and helpful feedback!

Best regards. Zargha7 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zargha7: you have resubmitted the draft and will get an assessment when a reviewer gets around to evaluating it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]