• BioneerAssistant (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Han-Oh Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my draft Draft:Han-Oh Park was rejected. Could you please review it and advise what specific issues I need to address to meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards? Thank you! BioneerAssistant (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ranjeetsharmajournalist (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • The Real Khabar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:The Real Khabar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why this article nominated for deletation.

Ranjeetsharmajournalist (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranjeetsharmajournalist As a journalist you do need to follow threads. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real Khabar where the reason is stated with precision 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2400:1A00:4B4C:C88B:31A5:E6EC:48D:9464 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Callbreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subject: Help with Callbreak article: sourcing challenge

Hi, I'm working on a draft article for Callbreak, a popular South Asian trick-taking card game widely played in Nepal, India, and Bangladesh, both offline and digitally. While the game has major cultural significance, it's been difficult to find in-depth secondary sources beyond how-to guides or app listings. I've found brief mentions in books like Gaming Culture(s), but not many detailed academic or news articles. Given that Callbreak is passed down informally and has grown mainly through oral tradition and mobile platforms, how can I best establish notability under these circumstances? Would regional publications or ethnographic sources be acceptable? I believe documenting Callbreak would add value to Wikipedia’s coverage of traditional games.

Thanks in advance for any advice! Shubham. 2400:1A00:4B4C:C88B:31A5:E6EC:48D:9464 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non English language sources are acceptable. We cannot use oral traditions as references. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jodysetiawan23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Airpaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Could you please review this article and provide your valuable feedback? Additionally, any guidance on the process of creating such an article would be greatly appreciated. Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodysetiawan23 Thsi draft has been rejected and will not proceed further. General advice is available in this essay, one of many on article creation. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Articlesmukesh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thikana Bridhyasram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

       We need a person for us who ca create articles of our movies

Thanks Articlesmukesh (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the appropiate place to request the creation of articles, specially if it involves movies with which you have a conflict of interest. NeoGaze (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jjamtshokkarma (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kanni Wignaraja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason for requesting assistance: Hello! I’m seeking guidance on how to proceed with a draft biography for Ms. Kanni Wignaraja, a senior UN official. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and reliable sourcing. However, the current version now includes: • Significant coverage from independent, secondary sources including Project Syndicate, Nikkei Asia, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, and CNBC • References to authored publications and global media interviews • A new section on Ms. Wignaraja’s 2025 briefing to the UN Security Council, cited using UN Press and WebTV • Cleaned and properly formatted citations with reduced reliance on primary sources

I’ve tried to retain factual integrity while aligning with Wikipedia’s policies. I’d deeply appreciate feedback from experienced editors on whether the draft now meets notability and verifiability standards under WP:BIO and WP:GNG — and what final adjustments might help it move forward without changing the core content.

Thank you in advance for your time and support!

Best, Karma Jjamtshokkarma (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the draft myself. NeoGaze (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Joshua Hart Author (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joshua Hart (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for myself as an author, but my draft keeps getting declined. I have attempted to follow the notability and sourcing guidelines as best I can, but I may still be missing something important.

Could someone please advise me on how to improve my draft so that it meets the necessary standards? I would really appreciate any guidance or specific suggestions on what needs to be changed or added.

Thank you again for your help.

— Joshua Hart

Joshua Hart Author (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joshua Hart Author. A few issues here;

1) You created this draft with the help of an AI chatbot, which added a malformed decline notice. Do not use AI chatbots to create draft articles or content on Wikipedia.

2) Your original draft was deleted as unambiguous advertising but you re-created it mostly the same as the draft above. You also have a sandbox version of the draft which is much the same as the other two drafts.

3) You have simply not provided enough evidence you meet our Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria.

4) We also highly discourage you from writing an article about yourself. qcne (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Joshua Hart Author (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Joshua Hart Author/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have resubmitted my draft article about author Joshua Hart at User:Joshua Hart Author/sandbox. I have rewritten the draft to address the previous concerns.

I appreciate any further guidance or feedback on the resubmission. Thank you for your time and support.

Many thanks Joshua Hart Author

Joshua Hart Author (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Hart Author: I posted yesterday a message on your talk page about autobiographies, did you read it? TL;DNR = they are very strongly discouraged.

Also, I must say you're getting dangerously close to a promotion-only account, and may find yourself blocked. Promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still used an AI chatbot to write the draft, and there is still no indication you meet our notability criteria. qcne (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked for, and were given advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please move User:Joshua Hart Author/sandbox to Draft:Joshua Hart. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Shahrihana776 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nepa AB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was not accepted: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=SNAP! - The Power (Official Video)&lang=en&q=Draft:Nepa_AB#cite_note-ResearchLive2016-2

I’d appreciate guidance on what kinds of references are considered acceptable for approval. Additionally, if it's possible to get clarity on which of the currently submitted references are not considered strong or reliable, that would be really helpful for improving the draft. Shahrihana776 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahrihana776: the sources cited in your draft as just routine business reporting such as finances, appointments, new markets, etc. Those are invariably based on press releases or otherwise information supplied by the company in question, and therefore do not contribute towards notability. Per the WP:NCORP guideline, we want to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Shahrihana776. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.

Start by finding several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42: if you can find several, then write a neutral summary of what those sources say - ignore anything which the subject or their associates say. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

My page got rejected and I do not know why. I would like to resubmit but need to know what I need to edit if someone can please let me know?

Thank you. PhoebeDeans (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. You basically wrote a bunch of promotional AI-generated slop, this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Renuka JPR (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kiara Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We need help to Move Kiara Jian's Page to move to Wikipedia main page Renuka JPR (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? I see that you took a picture of her where she posed for you. If you are associated with her, that must be formally disclosed, please see conflict of interest and paid editing("paid editing" includes employment in any capacity). Disclosing paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement.

Please see the messages left on the draft by reviewers, which describe what needs to be done for the draft to be accepted. Note that if accepted, it would not be "her page", but an article about her. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Satishsahu123456 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tilak Raja Sahu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please Told me reason for rejection. Satishsahu123456 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Satishsahu123456, it looks like you generated an incomplete draft with a lot of template fields using an AI chatbot? qcne (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Satishsahu123456.

Trying to write an article without first finding suitable sources (which meet all the criteria in WP:42) is like trying to build a house without first surveying the site to make sure it is fit to build on: it will probably fall down, and your work will be wasted. Please see WP:YFA and WP:N. ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lascuraluca (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Flashnet SA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently submitted an article about Flashnet, a company specializing in smart street lighting and IoT infrastructure. However, the submission was not accepted, with the feedback indicating that the references provided were not considered sufficiently in-depth, reliable, secondary, or independent.

I have carefully reviewed the references used in the draft and believe they comply with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Specifically:

The sources are independent of the company (e.g., press coverage, third-party industry publications).

They are secondary sources, offering analysis or reporting, not primary announcements.

They come from reliable outlets with editorial oversight.

Several articles provide in-depth information about Flashnet’s technology, partnerships, and role in international smart city projects.

I am reaching out to request assistance in better understanding which specific references may not meet the requirements, or whether there are particular aspects of the article that need improvement to align with Wikipedia’s standards. I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to strengthen the submission and ensure it is appropriate for inclusion.

Thank you in advance for your time and support. Lascuraluca (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual reason of the decline is that it appears this company is not notable enough for a wikipedia article. You need to add more context and sources to clearly prove it is indeed notable. Otherwise every company under the sun would have its own article, no matter how rutine their activity would be. If you want more details on organizations and notability, check this page. Hope my reply answers your doubts. NeoGaze (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lascuraluca. None of the sources cited is independent of Flashnet. 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.

You need several sources which meet the criteria in WP:42: without those, you cannot meet the criteria for notability.

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.

Do you have a connection with Flashnet? ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject has multiple press articles from the National newspaper in Nigeria. How to proceed Ayiritoronto (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, and the reason given checks out: "After many declines and quick resubmissions (hiding the declines in one case) on a non-notable subject with concerns regarding AI-generated text, I'm rejecting this draft". I recommend you focus on something else. If you still want to create an article on the subject, wait some more so it gains more coverage, and thus gains more notoriety. NeoGaze (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pdanese (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Suffield Wildlife Management Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm at a loss of how to "rectify" the rejection, so any suggestions are appreciated.

As far as using LLMs, I asked ChatGPT for variations on two idioms (state border => state line and state-controlled hunting => regulated hunting), but that doesn't seem egregious and it's tantamount to consulting a thesaurus (or other people).

The only thing that I can think of as being a legitimate criticism is the "close paraphrasing" issue because I used prose hews closely to some of the original source material. But from my perspective, there are only so many ways to describe this information in a coherent fashion.

Thanks for any suggestions! Pdanese (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pdanese I will make a note on the draft for you so other reviewers know you state did not use an LLM to construct the draft. The other issue is meeting notability as almost all the sources are a government which is considered a primary source so cannot be used to establish notability. See Your first article for some guidance. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

I ran the first paragraph through zeroGPT and it came back 100% certain AI generated. If you say you didn't, okay, the tools aren't perfect. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. And apologies for misusing declined vs. rejected. Pdanese (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the additional question.

I'm not sure if there is anything that I can do with respect to using primary sources--instead of secondary sources.

Aside from my references from the State of Connecticut (admittedly primary references), there really are not many other sources (aside from the few that I used in my draft).

Do you have any suggestions? Or is this just a situation where my proposed article isn't appropriate due to the lack of secondary sources?

Thanks again.

Pdanese (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pdanese. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else. (See WP:42). If there are few or no such sources, then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. Pdanese (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdanese it should at least be covered in the Suffield, Connecticut article in the Geography section, similar to Metacomet Ridge and you can use primary sources there. Also, try Google Books and Google Scholar. S0091 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Pdanese (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Profberger (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David Evans Shaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am attempting to submit a page Draft:David Evans Shaw as a biography. I have made two attempts. The first editors critique I understood and I removed issues related to "puffery". On the second submission, I have received a rejection based on the comment that it needs to be written in a more neutral voice eg "encyclopaedic" there is also a mention of more varied references. I believe I have cited significant verifiable references and I have gone through and further tried to make the tone neutral but am struggling to understand what about the article is problematic. Could someone take a look and give me some assistance to get this over the "neutral" hurdle? https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=SNAP! - The Power (Official Video)&lang=en&q=Draft:David_Evans_Shaw Thanks in advance Profberger (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2603:3026:2C0:100:3836:2729:F051:CAD5 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:D. Lahar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My apologies, I thought it was asking for my name, the title should be Positional Release Therapy, This is a therapy that started in 1955 and is taking on traction around the world. I have never done this before, but was really interested and wanted others to be able to look it up. Can you help me change the title and guide me on what details you'd like for the article. 2603:3026:2C0:100:3836:2729:F051:CAD5 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will rename it shortly(even though the specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant). Writing about medical topics has stricter standards of sourcing, see WP:MEDRS. You need to show that the topic is notable- Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Drlmshillito (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Chris Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Chris Fowler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I appreciated the comments on the first draft by user Gheus, and I went through and added new and better citations as they suggested. However, when I resubmitted the draft today it has now been deleted with the reason 'G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-written vanity page' - this is not true, you can see from my history my identity is public and I am not Chris Fowler! I write Wikipedia articles every now and then on archaeology and notable archaeologists and this article follows the same template (you can see in my page creation history). Prof. Chris Fowler definitely meets the criteria for notability for academics (Full Professor, several books published, editorship of a major academic journal etc). Is there any way to get this draft back? I spent a lot of time on it, and he is actually one of the most high profile British prehistorians in the UK. The reason for deletion is not true, and this is easily checked by looking at my profile and my Wikipedia history. Shouldn't this have been raised on the talk page if there was any query? Drlmshillito 19:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Chris Fowler, that only means that the self-written part is incorrect. Quite frankly I might have thought the same. I agree that the draft met the speedy deletion criteria; that means it can be deleted without delay or discussion if an admin feels the criteria are met. It can be restored but you will need to change your approach and summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable academic. Please read that carefully. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response, much appreciated. I followed the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines and particularly criteria 1 (significant impact in their scholarly discipline), using the suggested evidence 1a "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work", I did link to 2 independent book reviews of the most notable work, and also the google scholar page that shows the citations. This is exactly what is suggested so I would appreciate clarity on why it wasn't acceptable? They also meet criteria 5, which was demonstrated by linking to the university staff page (which is standard on many other academic biographies). [[User:Drlmshillito|Drlmshillito]] (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Binsen2323 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AuditBoard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If possible, I'd like someone to take a look at my draft again before I resubmit. Any feedback would be appreciated! Draft:AuditBoard Binsen2323 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binsen2323 The whole url is not needed when linking to another page or article on Wikipedia, I fixed this. The header also provides a link.

We don't do pre-review reviews here; the best way to get feedback is to resubmit the draft. If you have specific questions, we can help with that. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Binsen2323. I notice that the "Products" section is cited only to Auditboard's own website.

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.

Unless an independent source has discussed a product (not just mentioned or listed it) why would an encyclopaedia take note of it.

More generally, almost all your cited sources should meet the triple criteria in WP:42. (I haven't looked to see whether the others do, or whether there are other problems with the draft). ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AlterixWiki (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2024 AM4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Im just posting about a random asteroid with not much information AlterixWiki (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AlterixWiki. If there is "not much information" about a subject, then the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it wouldn't make sense if its called “wikipedia” but it dosent include some lesser known things AlterixWiki (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second of all how come theres this many things that nobody even knows but they have wiki pages bug other things with the same conditions dont? AlterixWiki (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant but AlterixWiki (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Winterspier (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Edward Wyndham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Edward Wyndham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like my revised submission to be reviewed. I have made changes to reflect the input. advice and requirements from the first review.

I think that it wil now integrate well with existing material in Wikipedia. Can it be reviewed in that perspectiv and not just as a stand-alone article?

Winterspier (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Winterspier. If you think you have addressed the problems, you are welcome to resubmit (though you only seem to have added one citation, so I'm dubious that you have changed the evidence for notability significantly.)

There is no concept of reviewing articles in integration with existing material. Every article must stand on its own. ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am resubmitting the entire content by inserting it into the stub for Edward Wyndham as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I have made links to existing material. I have added a further citation. There are more (for biographical depth) in the Wikitree entry for Edward Wyndham. There are more (for historical and political depth) in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I am trying to avoid writing "original research" in this entry and also overloading an entry on a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I have not cited Wikitree as a source. I am making this assessment on what I can see to be current Wikipedia practice. See Adam Thoroughgood entries and references in Wikipedia and Wikitree as an example. Winterspier (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]