User:Hurricane Wind and Fire/Why did I decline your draft?
Writing a new article on Wikipedia is a demanding and difficult task, and I want to help you through the process. This guide should help explain why I declined your draft. However, if you do not find an answer, ask me a question on my talk page!
Declination vs. rejection
[edit]- If I decline your draft, you are able to resubmit it. I will leave a reason and will likely leave feedback so you can improve.
- If I reject your draft, you cannot resubmit it. It is either because it defeats the purpose of Wikipedia or is not notable for Wikipedia at the time. If you believe I rejected your draft in error, please tell me.
What to do if you draft is declined
[edit]I understand if you are frustrated if your draft is declined. Here a few things to keep in mind, however.
- Do not resubmit without improvement. Your draft may be rejected (you cannot resubmit it) and it is considered disruptive. If you are confused, ask at the reviewer's talk page or the Articles for Creation help desk.
- Remain civil towards reviewers. Reviewers are volunteers and sometimes make mistakes. However, most are willing to help you improve your draft to the point where it can be accepted.
| AfC submissions
Random submission |
| 2+ months |
- Remain patient if you resubmit. Again, reviewers are volunteers and drafts are reviewed in no specific order. See the bar on the right for the current number of pending submissions.
- Your draft will be deleted if it is not edited for six months. If you would like to recover a draft deleted under the G13 speedy deletion criteria, request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Abandoned pages.
Why I declined your draft
[edit]The draft's references do not show the subject qualifies for an article
[edit]This is by far the most common decline reason. In short, to establish notability, a draft needs citations to at least three references that meet all three of the following criteria:
- They must be reliable sources. Especially for biographies of living people, all citations need to be reliable sources, such as reputable newspapers/websites, textbooks with editorial oversight, not websites anybody can contribute to or self-published sources.
- Provide significant coverage, preferably several paragraphs. Passing mentions or directory listings do not count towards establish notability.
- They should be secondary and independent of the subject, meaning they are not connected to the subject in any way. The subject's own website or employer are considered primary sources and do not contribute to establishing notability, and interviews are connected to the subject. These sources can be cited to verify more basic claims, but non-affiliated sources should be used for more substantial claims.
Certain subjects have individual notability guidelines, but this applies to nearly all subjects.
The draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources
[edit]On Wikipedia, verifiability is a core principle. If you are researching something online, would you like a way to ensure your information is true? Most likely yes, it is the same for many readers of Wikipedia. Statements that are likely to be questioned need to be cited to reliable sources. In biographies of living people, all statements need to be cited to a reliable source.
The most common way to cite sources is with inline citations. However, they are only necessary for:
- Direct quotations
- Any statement that already has been questioned
- Any statement you believe will be questioned
- Contentious claims about living people, regardless of neutrality
The draft appears to be generated by a large language model (AI chatbot)
[edit]While you can use large language models for copyediting as long as the chatbot does not introduce new content, a Wikipedia guideline states you should not use artificial intelligence to generate new articles. Artificial intelligence is a problem because it can:
- Violate copyright through adding direct snippets from copyrighted websites
- Be prone to hallucinations: false or confused information presented as fact or making things up, which is original research, which is drawing statements that are not supported by reliable sources
- Generate unverifiable content and nonsensical references, by presenting information without a source and citing unreliable
The draft reads like an advertisement/is not written in a neutral point of view
[edit]Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we describe topics and cover from every point of view, both favorable and unfavorable towards the subject, and we do not advertise the subject. Be wary of promotional language and peacock terms and words to watch. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information.
The page is not written in English
[edit]This is the English Wikipedia, where most readers only read and speak English. Please translate the page without translation machines like Google Translate or look at the Wikipedia home page and you may find your language.