Wikipedia draft declined? Okay. That notice means a volunteer reviewer at Articles for Creation looked at your draft and found a problem they think you can fix. Look in two places. The reason box says what went wrong, and the reviewer's own comment underneath (if they left one) usually points at the exact spot that bugged them.
It stings. "What do they actually want?" is the question we hear most after a decline. Wikipedia's reviewing instructions even admit that many draft authors are brand new and the draft may be their first contribution to the project. Your first instinct will be to rewrite sentences. Hold off. The reason you got decides the next move, and a lot of the time the sentences were fine.
What does "draft declined" mean on Wikipedia?
An AfC review ends one of three ways: accept, decline, reject. You landed in the middle. The AfC page puts it in one line: "Your draft is not ready to become an article yet, but the problems may be fixable."
Ready by whose standard? The reviewing instructions borrow it from the deletion process: "Articles that will probably survive a discussion at Articles for deletion should be accepted." So your reviewer looked at the draft as it stands today and guessed it wouldn't survive that. That's a verdict on the page. Not on you, and not forever on the subject.
The decline notice sits at the top of the draft, and your user talk page gets a message too. Reviewers can tick up to two standard reasons and type a short comment of their own. Read the comment first. It's the only part written about your draft.
Is a declined draft the same as a rejected one?
No, and the difference matters more than people expect.
With a decline you edit the draft and press Resubmit when you're ready. A rejection is a heavier call. The reviewing instructions save it for drafts that are "fundamentally unsuitable for Wikipedia and there is no reasonable prospect that further work would make it acceptable."
Got rejected? Then pressing Resubmit straight away is the wrong move. The AfC page says: "If you have found significant new evidence or believe the decision was mistaken, ask the reviewer for reconsideration before attempting to resubmit." It isn't a life sentence, though: "Rejection does not prevent an article being created in the future if new sources later appear."
The way we explain it to clients: a decline is a problem with the page, and you fix it at your keyboard. A rejection usually means the subject needs more press out in the world first.
What do the standard decline reasons mean in plain words?
Something most people don't realize is that reviewers mostly pick from a menu of stock reasons, which is why yours can read like a form letter. Plenty of other drafts got the exact same wording. Here's what each common one is really asking for, the way we'd explain it on a call.
- Notability (general). Your sources don't show independent outlets writing about the subject in any depth. The notice lists three tests every source must pass: significant coverage, reliable, independent. And it ends bluntly: "Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia."
- Biography. Same three tests, aimed at a person. A passing mention doesn't count. Neither does a Q&A interview with no independent analysis wrapped around it. If the draft reads like a CV, expect a resume reason stacked on top.
- Company or organization. Founders underestimate this one constantly. It's stricter. Routine coverage gets tossed, and the notice spells out what that means: "routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles". The companies guideline adds: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable."
- Academic. There are basically two doors in. You either hit one of the specific academic criteria, a major award or a named chair or something along those lines, and prove it with reliable sources, or you go the ordinary route of in-depth independent coverage like everybody else.
- Creative professional. Authors, artists, filmmakers. There's a hint buried in this notice that we always point authors to: "It is often easier to prove the notability of a creative work than of a person." Got a novel with several proper reviews in real publications? The book might be the article, and you might not be.
- Reliable sources. You cited things. Wikipedia just doesn't trust them. The notice names the usual suspects: "Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute."
- Inline citations. The facts may be backed up somewhere, but a reader can't tell which source supports which sentence. Footnotes go right after quotes, after anything someone might challenge, and after any claim about a living person.
- Neutral point of view. Tone. Usually by a mile. In the notice's words: "Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way." Words like "visionary" and "industry-leading" have to go, and so do your opinions and any chatty asides.
- Advertisement. Basically the tone problem with the volume turned all the way up. The notice opens with "This draft reads like an advertisement." and warns a purely promotional draft can be deleted without notice.
- Large language model. A bigger deal since Wikipedia's March 2026 decision on AI text. The rule is short and pretty firm: "You cannot use LLMs to generate, draft, or rewrite article content." There's a bit of room left, you're still allowed to run one over the text for basic copyediting, and to translate between two languages you genuinely speak fluently. Wrote it all yourself and still got flagged? The notice concedes "Reviewers can make mistakes." and suggests the AfC Help Desk.
Two rarer ones turn up every so often. "Already exists" is Wikipedia telling you somebody beat you to it, there's an article on this subject already and your energy belongs over there improving it. "Essay" is what you get when the draft is making an argument, which feels natural if you're used to writing op-eds, but an encyclopedia entry is only meant to summarize what sources said.
What are reviewers told not to decline for?
People are usually surprised by this next bit, and a little relieved. Wikipedia's own reviewing instructions list a whole bunch of things a reviewer isn't supposed to decline you for on their own: messy citation formatting, bare URLs, sources that are offline or paywalled or not in English, a missing infobox or images or categories, a draft that's short, or one that simply needs a copyedit.
Reviewers are told to keep declines for the real blockers, using a reason "only where the problem is substantial enough to prevent acceptance; minor problems should normally be fixed or tagged instead."
Which means none of that small stuff sank you. Spending a weekend polishing citation templates after a notability decline is tempting. It won't move the needle. Go after whatever the reason box names.
One more line from that page worth remembering: "Previous reviews are not binding." Whoever picks your draft up next is looking at what it says today and at what you changed, so last month's verdict isn't a life sentence.
When should you stop editing and fix the sources first?
Was your reason notability, or biography, company, academic, creative or reliable sources? Then I'm sorry to say the problem is sitting in your reference list, and lovely new sentences on top of the same old sources won't move a reviewer an inch, so step away from the prose for a bit.
When somebody forwards us a declined draft, this is roughly what we do, in this order:
- Go through every source. Cut anything the subject wrote, anything the subject paid for, anything that's a rewritten press release. Our guide on press releases and sponsored content explains why these fail.
- Run what's left through the three questions from the notice. Does it discuss the subject in detail? Is there an actual editor at that outlet checking things, and does it have zero connection to the subject (no ad deal, no friendship, no shared investor)?
- Then count what's left standing. One or two? The subject may just be early. For a second opinion, our reliable sources guide and the free notability checker will help you judge.
- Only now, rewrite. Build each paragraph out of your strongest sources so every claim has a citation sitting behind it.
Not much left after step 3? Then, and this isn't fun to hear, the answer is to wait for more independent coverage. We've watched people resubmit with the same sources hoping for a kinder reviewer, and it tends to go exactly as before, which the banner pretty much warns you about anyway: "If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted."
How do you resubmit and reply to the reviewer?
- Leave the old notices alone. The banner is direct: "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted." Whoever reviews next uses them to work out what's different.
- Jot a quick note on the draft's talk page, or in your edit summaries if that's easier, along the lines of "added these three sources, rewrote the career section", so the next person doesn't have to guess.
- Something in the decline confusing? Ask before you resubmit. The talk page message points you to the Articles for Creation help desk or the reviewer's talk page. The Teahouse is there too, built for new editors.
- Hit Resubmit. Your draft rejoins the queue with a "Review waiting, please be patient." notice, and you can keep improving it while it waits. There's no fixed timeline. Some get looked at fast, others wait considerably longer, and the queue isn't necessarily worked in order. Our guide to what to expect at Articles for Creation covers the wait.
Keep that note boring and polite. Reviewers are volunteers, and a calm list of changes does more for you than a long defense of the subject.
Do you need to disclose a paid or connected role?
If you have one, yes. No wiggle room here. Wikipedia's paid-contribution policy says: "If you were paid or expected to be paid in any way for contributing to Wikipedia, you must disclose it." That covers employees writing about their own company. It covers agencies like us writing for clients. You name the employer, the client and the affiliation, and the disclosure goes on your user page, the draft's talk page or in edit summaries.
Writing about yourself? The autobiography guideline would really rather you didn't: "Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself (or paying someone else to do so), other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact." The conflict of interest guideline, meanwhile, asks connected editors to send new articles through AfC. Which is where you already are.
Disclosing won't sink the draft. The reviewing instructions say "a conflict of interest is not itself a reason to decline." What reviewers do check is that the disclosure exists. Our post on paid editing disclosure and COI walks through the wording.
And watch out for scammers. Right after a decline is exactly when strangers start messaging you, offering to get the page approved for a fee. Wikipedia's own decline message warns about this: "If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam." We keep a list of warning signs in our post on Wikipedia page scams.
When does it make sense to get help with a declined draft?
You don't need to pay anyone for any of the above. Help is worth it when step 3, the source review, is the part you're stuck on, or when the draft keeps coming back for tone no matter what you change.
The Wikipedia Studio works as a disclosed paid editor under the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Our Wikipedia content writing service starts with research: we grade every source, map each claim to its citation, and flag which claims no reliable source supports. If the coverage isn't there to support an article, we stop and tell you. We don't promise acceptance. Reviewers decide.
Frequently asked questions
Can I resubmit a declined draft right away?
You can, anytime. But if the issues in the notice are still there, you'll most likely get declined again. Fix first.
Is there a limit on how many times a draft can be declined?
Not one we've found in the pages we checked. Reviewers are told a history of past declines isn't, by itself, a reason to reject. Resending it unchanged wastes a turn.
Will my declined draft be deleted?
Not for the decline itself. But leave a draft untouched for six months and it can be deleted under G13, the rule for abandoned drafts. If that happens, you can ask for it back at Requests for undeletion, and it may be restored.
Does a decline mean my subject is not notable?
Only if notability is the reason given. Even then, it's a judgment on the sources in the draft, which don't show notability yet. Better sources can flip it. Our notability requirements guide explains the tests.
What if I think the reviewer got it wrong?
It happens. Ask about it politely at the AfC help desk or on the reviewer's own talk page and lay out your reasoning, and since earlier reviews aren't binding, a different reviewer is free to see it your way.
Sources
- Wikipedia: Articles for creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation
- Wikipedia: Articles for creation reviewing instructions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions
- Template: AfC submission comments (decline reason text). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AfC_submission/comments
- Template: AfC submission declined (draft banner). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AfC_submission/declined
- Template: AfC decline (talk page message). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AfC_decline
- Wikipedia: Notability (organizations and companies). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
- Wikipedia: Notability (academics). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)
- Wikipedia: Writing articles with large language models. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models
- Wikipedia: Paid-contribution disclosure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure
- Wikipedia: Conflict of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
- Wikipedia: Autobiographies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiographies
- Wikipedia: Drafts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts
- Wikipedia: Criteria for speedy deletion (G13). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
- Wikipedia: Requests for undeletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion
