What does it mean when a Wikipedia draft is declined?
It means a volunteer reviewer at Articles for Creation (AfC), the review queue for new articles, decided the draft would probably not survive in the main encyclopedia as written. A decline is not a ban and not a deletion. You can fix the draft and resubmit, but each decline is visible in the history, and the same problem repeated carries more weight. Deletion is a separate process: see why Wikipedia pages get deleted.
The six causes below cover the patterns we see most often. Which one applies decides whether you need a better draft or better coverage.
| Reason | Policy | Where the fix lives |
|---|---|---|
| Not notable | WP:N, WP:NCORP | Outside the draft: new independent coverage |
| Promotional tone | WP:NPOV | Inside the draft |
| Weak sources | WP:V, WP:RS | Draft, or coverage if reliable sources do not exist |
| Undisclosed conflict of interest | WP:COI, WP:PAID | Who edits, and how it is disclosed |
| Style violations | WP:MOS | Inside the draft |
| New account | Community scrutiny | Who submits |
1. Why is my draft "not notable" (WP:N, WP:NCORP)?
Because the sources do not show significant coverage of the subject by reliable, independent outlets. Notability here is a technical standard, not a judgement of importance. The general guideline is WP:N; for companies and organisations the stricter test is WP:NCORP. In practice reviewers look for several in-depth pieces from independent publications, written by journalists and not derived from press releases.
Founders are often surprised by what does not count: a large LinkedIn following, a podcast appearance, a column the founder wrote, hundreds of press-release pickups about a funding round, a conference talk. Revenue, user numbers and headcount do not count either. Wikipedia measures coverage, not success. The two correlate, but imperfectly.
The fix is not a rewrite. Either build the independent coverage that does not exist yet, or accept that the subject is not ready. A Wikipedia notability audit tests each prospective source against WP:N and WP:NCORP before any drafting. To check the ground yourself first, use the free media list and the notability index.
2. Why is promotional wording rejected (WP:NPOV)?
Because Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, and marketing language signals that the author is too close to the subject. The policy is WP:NPOV. Reviewers spot the tells in the first sentence: revolutionary, leading, innovative, world-class, pioneering, cutting-edge, game-changing, award-winning, market-leading.
The fix is mechanical. Replace each adjective with an attributed fact:
- Not "leading marketplace for X", but "marketplace for X, which according to [independent source] had Y users as of [date]".
- Not "award-winning team", but the name of the award and who gave it, with a citation.
- Not "innovative approach", but a plain description of what the approach is.
A useful test: read the draft aloud and flag every positive adjective without a citation. If a source says it, attribute it ("described by [outlet] as ..."). If nobody else said it, cut it. Cutting a client draft by half on this pass often makes it read as more credible.
3. Why are my sources "not reliable" (WP:V, WP:RS)?
Because WP:V requires every contested claim to rest on a reliable published source, and "reliable" has a narrow meaning under WP:RS. The community keeps a perennial sources list (WP:RSP) that rates outlets by type of claim.
- Generally accepted: reported articles in established outlets with editorial oversight, reputable trade press, peer-reviewed sources.
- Situational: business and technology magazines, depending on section, author and year. Contributor pieces on Forbes are treated differently from staff reporting.
- Not accepted for substantive claims: press-release wires, social networks, the company's own site, LinkedIn, Crunchbase, founder op-eds.
If reliable sources exist but were not cited, replace the citations. If they do not exist, remove the claims or build the coverage first. A draft held up by the company site and press releases is not a citation-format problem. It is a notability problem in disguise: go back to reason 1.
4. Why does a conflict of interest cause a decline (WP:COI)?
Because editors with a financial or personal tie to the subject must not edit about it without disclosure. The policy is WP:COI. Paid editors must follow the Wikimedia Terms of Use on paid contributions and WP:PAID: the relationship is declared on the user page, the article talk page and in edit summaries.
A draft from an editor with an obvious undisclosed tie can be declined even if everything else is right. It can also be deleted later under speedy-deletion criteria such as G11 (unambiguous promotion) or G5 (created by a blocked user), and the client's name can end up in a public sockpuppet investigation.
The fix is structural. Either a properly disclosed paid editor does the work, proposing changes on the talk page where policy asks for it, or the subject's own staff stay out and hand the work to a disclosed third party. See our conflict-of-interest explainer. On our projects, paid editing is always disclosed in WikiBusines' name.
5. Which style errors get a draft declined (WP:MOS)?
Five recurring ones, all under the Manual of Style:
- Heading levels. H2 for sections, H3 for subsections; the title is not repeated as a heading.
- Bullet overload. Encyclopedia text runs in paragraphs; long lists of features or executives read as corporate copy.
- Decorative images. Only informative images belong: a logo in the infobox, a sourced chart.
- Non-standard citations. Use the
{{cite web}},{{cite news}}or{{cite journal}}templates, not bare URLs. - External links in the body. Links to the company site, products or social pages are removed.
These are the cheapest fixes, usually a few hours. The danger is stacking: a reviewer who meets marketing language in paragraph one, wrong headings and a wall of bullets declines on overall impression. Clean prose gives the rest of the draft a fairer reading.
6. Why do new accounts get extra scrutiny?
Because a fresh account whose only edits are one company draft matches the pattern of undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry, and AfC reviewers watch for it. This is not a notability criterion, but it is a real hurdle: the same draft from an account with a long edit history across topics gets an easier read.
Do not respond to a decline by registering another account and submitting the same text. Repeated accounts are exactly what administrators look for, and the end result can be blocks and a publicly recorded investigation linked to your brand. The compliant path is disclosure from day one, either through a disclosed experienced editor or through your own properly declared account that proposes changes rather than editing directly.
What should I do right after a decline?
Read the reviewer's comment and match its policy shortcut to the table above.
- WP:N, WP:NCORP, WP:RS, WP:V: the problem is upstream of the draft. Ask whether the case is real before spending time on wording. Run the free source tools or a paid notability audit.
- WP:NPOV, WP:MOS: fix the draft itself. Strip adjectives, attribute claims, correct citations and headings.
- WP:COI or account history: stop editing from that account. Disclose, and move the work to a disclosed editor.
- Page already deleted, not just declined: the route differs by deletion type. See Wikipedia page recovery.
As of November 2026, nothing here guarantees acceptance. Reviewers are volunteers, and outcomes depend on the sources.
How WikiBusines helps
We work on the fixable cases and say in writing when a case is not ready. We never guarantee that an article will be published.
- Notability audit, from €490. A written verdict on each source and on the overall case. The fee is credited toward page creation if you proceed within one month.
- Page creation, from €2,400 for English, 4 to 5 weeks. Drafting, disclosed paid editing and submission. We monitor the page for 90 days after publication, with a guarantee window covering the same period; if a published page cannot be defended after 3 attempts within it, you get an 80% refund. See guarantees.
- Editing, €700 to €1,900, for cleaning an existing draft or article. Recovery is quoted per case.
Have a declined draft? Send it with the reviewer's comment and we will tell you which of the six reasons applies and whether it is worth another submission.
Frequently asked questions
Almost always for one of six reasons: lack of notability, promotional tone, weak sources, an undisclosed conflict of interest, style violations or a new-account pattern. The reviewer's notice cites the policy shortcut that applies. Start there.
Yes. Fix the specific problem the reviewer named, then resubmit from the same account. Resubmitting unchanged text, or from a new account, usually makes the outcome worse.
There is no fixed time. Review is done by volunteers, and the AfC queue can take from days to several months depending on backlog. Submitting a clean draft with solid sources is the best way to avoid extra rounds.
A decline is a reviewer's request for changes at AfC, and the draft stays available. Deletion removes the page under a deletion process. Deleted pages follow a separate recovery route.
Notability means significant coverage of a subject in reliable, independent sources. It is not fame, success or importance. See WP:N.
Yes, if the paid relationship is disclosed as the Wikimedia Terms of Use require. Undisclosed paid editing can lead to deletion and blocks.
Staff have a conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly. They can propose changes on the talk page, and must disclose their affiliation. See our conflict-of-interest explainer.
Check whether several independent, reliable outlets have covered it in depth. The free notability index and media list help you self-assess; the notability audit gives a written verdict.
Authors and editorial policy
Bohdan DubylovskyiCo-founder and CBO, WikiBusines→
Roman MelnykCo-founder & Chief Editor, WikiBusines→The article was prepared by the WikiBusines co-founders. We sell paid Wikipedia services, so we disclose this interest: paid editing is always declared on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name, and claims about the rules are backed by links to primary sources.
Editorial policy: payment disclosure, conflicts of interest, sources