Why was my Wikipedia draft declined?

Start with what the reviewer wrote

When a client sends us a decline notice, the first thing we do is read it. Reviewers state their reason on the draft itself: not enough independent references, reads like an advertisement, the subject does not meet the notability guideline, and so on. Whatever that reason is, we work on that reason first. We go through every point the reviewer made, fix each one, and only then resubmit, so the reviewer has nothing left to decline it for.

The reasons we see most

First, and by a long way, notability. The subject does not yet have enough independent coverage for Wikipedia’s notability test, which varies by subject and comes with its own guidelines for people, academics, authors and companies. Second, conflict of interest: people writing about themselves, or their own company, from an undisclosed account. Third, self-published material used as sources, because it is removed on sight. Fourth, tone. A draft written to promote rather than to inform is declined, and a live article built that way is often flagged as promotional and deleted. Behind many of these sit the same two causes: a draft built poorly in a hurry, or a draft built by a firm that never read the rules.

“But I have twenty links”

Most of them do not count. Anything self-published by the subject is rejected automatically: their website, blog, press releases, books. Anything written by someone close to them is rejected. Anything sponsored or paid for is rejected. LinkedIn profiles, YouTube videos, IMDb pages and directory listings are not sources. An article that mentions the subject in passing, without covering them in depth, does not count either. What a reviewer wants is independent, in-depth coverage from a reputable publication: a journalist or critic who chose to write about the subject at length. Most clients arrive with LinkedIn, YouTube and their own website. Those are the links that get a draft declined.

What “reads like an advertisement” means

It means the draft sells. Words that glorify the subject instead of describing it: leading, renowned, innovative, world-class, visionary. Claims with no source behind them. A tone that is not neutral. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that states facts, not a platform that promotes anyone, and its rule against promotion is applied strictly. The test is simple: if a sentence would look at home on your own website, it does not belong in the article.

Drafts written with AI

Reviewers now check for AI-written text and decline drafts for it, and Wikipedia has a policy on language models with a speedy-deletion rule for pages generated by them. AI text can read well and still be wrong, because it is not written by someone who checked each fact against a source. We avoid it completely and we tell clients to do the same. If you bring us a draft that was generated, we do not edit it. We start again, by hand, from the sources.

A resubmission that works

The difference is whether the reason has been fixed. If the decline was about independent references, we find and add more and we tell the reviewer, in the resubmission note, what was added and why. If it was tone, we revise the tone. If it was AI, the draft is rewritten by a person. Whatever the reviewer asked for, we change it before we move forward, and we move forward only through Articles for Creation, so that a reviewer accepts the draft before it becomes an article. That is the difference between a page a reviewer approved and a page posted directly that disappears a week later. We do not resubmit an unchanged draft, we do not argue with a reviewer’s reason, and we never open a second account to try again.

When the subject is not notable yet

We do not soften it. The reviewer’s reason is on the draft for the client to read, and we read the same words. What we add is a plan: which guideline applies, what coverage is missing, and what would change the answer. If the gap is notability, the only fix is to earn coverage, meaning independent writers deciding to cover you, not paid placements. That can take months. We work through it with the client until the draft is accepted, or until we have told them in writing that nothing more can be done.

How long a review takes

We do not promise dates for our own work. Wikipedia’s timeline is not ours to control. Its own notice says a review can take weeks or months. The queue usually holds well over a thousand pending drafts, reviewers are volunteers, and the wait depends on who is free. While you wait, do not resubmit the same draft, do not open another account, and do not message the reviewer to ask for a decision. Each of those makes a decline more likely.

Someone else’s draft

When a client brings us a draft another firm got declined, or an article that was deleted, we check the history before anything else. Why was it declined, in the reviewer’s words? How many times? Was it submitted from a disclosed paid account, or from an anonymous one? Did the draft follow the guidelines? Were the sources enough, were they accurate, do the links even open? That tells us whether the problem was the firm, the draft, or the subject. If it was the subject, we say so, and we do not take the job.

The one thing to remember

Follow Wikipedia’s rules and a page can go live. Skip any of them and it will not. That is the whole method, and there is no other.

Questions people ask

Why was my Wikipedia draft declined?

The reviewer wrote the reason on the draft itself, in the pink decline box. Most declines come down to one of four things: the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia’s notability test, the sources are not independent or not in depth, the text reads as promotion, or the draft was written with AI. Fix the reason the reviewer gave, and nothing else, before resubmitting.

What is the most common reason a Wikipedia draft is declined?

Notability. The subject does not yet have enough independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications. Conflict of interest, self-published sources and promotional tone follow, and a growing number of declines are for text written by AI.

I have twenty links. Why does the reviewer say there are not enough reliable sources?

Because most of them do not count. Anything the subject published or paid for is out: their website, blog, press releases, sponsored articles. So is anything written by someone close to them. LinkedIn, YouTube, IMDb and directory listings do not count. What counts is a reputable publication writing about the subject, independently and in depth.

What does it mean when a draft reads like an advertisement?

The text praises the subject instead of describing it. Words like leading, renowned, innovative and world-class, claims without a source, and a tone that sells rather than states. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a reviewer will decline a draft that reads like a brochure, however true it is.

Can I use ChatGPT to write my Wikipedia draft?

Do not. Reviewers now check drafts for AI-written text and decline them for it, and Wikipedia has a speedy-deletion rule for pages generated by language models. AI text is also not reliably accurate. Wiki Authority Group writes every draft by hand and will rewrite, not edit, a draft that was generated.

How long does a Wikipedia Articles for Creation review take?

Wikipedia’s own notice says a review can take weeks or months. The queue usually holds well over a thousand drafts and reviewers are volunteers. Nobody can speed this up. Do not resubmit an unchanged draft or open a second account while you wait; both make a decline more likely.

Another firm got my draft declined. Can it be rescued?

Sometimes. Wiki Authority Group first reads every decline reason, checks how many times the draft was declined, whether a disclosed paid account was used, whether the sources exist and open, and whether the draft followed the guidelines. If the real problem is that the subject is not notable yet, it says so and declines the job.

Get my free source review Book a review call