Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Aug 2026

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

August 21

00:51, 21 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43443-98

• ~2026-43443-98 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stop Chat GPT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do you mean "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."? ~2026-43443-98 (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Internet memes and bits of lore rarely if ever meet the notability standards of them required by Wikipedia. I'm not sure why @Overthrows rejected on the mertis that it's contrary to the purpose of wikipedia, however, I can assure you that this bit of internet lore has zero chance at this time of passing any of our notability standards and thus, there's really no point in continuing to review it. If internet culture or memes is something you're interested in, please let me know and I can get you pointed in the right direction where your help would be appreciated. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with Sulfurboy here in that the notability guideline is where you should look at to see why your article was rejected. /over.throws/^✎ 01:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

01:14, 21 August 2026 review of submission by Stig the Insulation Revolutionist

• Stig the Insulation Revolutionist (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Y-Warm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I disclose my COI? I can't find the access Stig the Insulation Revolutionist (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

A notice about it was posted to your talk page here: User_talk:Stig_the_Insulation_Revolutionist#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest Sulfurboy (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

01:24, 21 August 2026 review of submission by Uendilla

• Uendilla (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • David Solet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why does this page keep getting denied, i disclosed my conflict of interest and followed guidelines Uendilla (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The subject isn't notable. Local politicians like this rarely are. I can almost assure you there's nothing that can be done to establish notability at this time. See WP:BOSS Sulfurboy (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

03:16, 21 August 2026 review of submission by Daisydotwo

• Daisydotwo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Workers' Educational Association - South Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused about the review status. Do I need to re-submit? I have rewritten the article as instructed by helpfulracoon but there was another message which I now cannot see. Daisydotwo (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You should see a blue resubmit button on the draft pge. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

03:18, 21 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44648-03

• ~2026-44648-03 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Puliyamangalam railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i did improve 5 times this article but rejected ~2026-44648-03 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:NTRAINSTATION Sulfurboy (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

03:44, 21 August 2026 review of submission by KhmericanUSA

• KhmericanUSA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Keo Sambath Pich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What area of the page that I need to fix? KhmericanUSA (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

We can't use LLM generated drafts. Please see the decline reasons and notice on your talk page explaining our policies involving the use of LLMs. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

07:46, 21 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45688-26

• ~2026-45688-26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zain Ul Abideen Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please Provide me criteria. ~2026-45688-26 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see the definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about you, with critical analysis and commentary. You may post your resume to LinkedIn or other website intended for that purpose. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion before resubmitting Draft:Giorgos Pol. Ioannidis

Hello. I would be grateful for a second opinion before resubmitting Draft:Giorgos Pol. Ioannidis.

The draft was previously declined because the sources were considered insufficient to establish notability through significant independent coverage. Following advice I received here at the AfC Help Desk, I have now added a section to the draft talk page describing the offline Greek-language sources in detail, including the relevant page numbers and summaries of what each source says about Ioannidis.

In particular, two published sources contain substantive discussion of his work: a 2010 article in Trito Mati discussing Ioannidis and his painting in the context of childhood, fear and violence, and a 2014 two-page article in Koinoniki Epitheorisi devoted specifically to his painting, discussing his work, recurring themes and painting technique. I have also added an official Municipality of Thessaloniki publication documenting his 2000 solo exhibition at Alatza Imaret.

The draft also cites other published and institutional sources concerning his exhibitions, critical reception and works in public collections.

Before I resubmit the draft, could an experienced editor please advise whether the sources now presented appear sufficient to address the previous concern about significant independent coverage under WP:GNG, or whether further changes would be advisable?

Thank you very much for your time and guidance. CuratorArchive (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-review reviews, because this duplicates what the reviewer will do. For feedback on your changes, please resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification regarding LLM-related rejection of Draft:Oren Shmuel

Hello,

I am asking for clarification regarding the recent rejection of my Articles for Creation submission, Draft:Oren Shmuel, on 20 August 2026.

The submission was declined by Sulfurboy with the statement that the draft appeared to contain text generated by a large language model.

I would like to clarify the chronology, because I believe there may be a misunderstanding concerning earlier pages in my user space.

In July 2026, I created two separate pages in my personal user space, called "draft-version8.0" and "draft-version8.1". Despite the word "draft" in their names, these were not Articles for Creation submissions. I used them only as temporary personal working pages for raw, incomplete material that I intended to develop, verify, source, rewrite and edit before considering any submission.

At that stage, the material was incomplete and not fully sourced. I had no intention of submitting those pages to Articles for Creation. They were simply working material, and I understood my user-space pages to be a place where I could prepare material before turning it into a finished draft.

Those two pages were subsequently deleted on 31 July 2026, well before the current AFC submission.

The AFC draft that was submitted on 20 August was substantially developed and revised during the following weeks. It was not simply a submission of the July working material. The submitted version went through extensive work on its structure, wording, sourcing, references, factual verification and encyclopedic presentation.

The current draft is also extensively sourced. The factual claims in the article are supported by citations to published sources, and the sources can be checked against the claims for which they are cited. There are no fabricated references or invented sources in the submitted draft.

I am therefore trying to understand exactly what led to the LLM-related rejection.

In particular, could someone please clarify:

1. Was the 20 August rejection based on the content of the submitted AFC draft itself, or was material from the deleted July user-space pages also taken into consideration?

2. If the current AFC draft contains passages that are considered LLM-generated or LLM-rewritten, could you please identify those passages or explain what specifically triggered the concern?

3. Was the decision based on a human review of the submitted draft, an automated detection system, or both?

I am not trying to circumvent Wikipedia's current policy regarding LLM use. I want to understand how the policy applies to my particular situation and what I need to do to bring the draft into compliance.

If there are specific problems with the wording, sourcing, or content of the current draft, I am willing to address them. I would simply like to know what the specific problems are so that I can correct them rather than making further changes without knowing what is actually considered problematic.

I am the subject of the article and have disclosed my conflict of interest. My intention is to have the article reviewed independently through Articles for Creation.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify this. Oren238 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable independent sources? None of the "documents" can be used, none of the "Advertisements" or "profiles" are of any use or assorted search results. This needs WP:TNT and a fresh start. Theroadislong (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, and extremely unlikely to succeed. In 14 years I have never personally seen someone succeed at it. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You say you disclosed a conflict of interest, but I don't see where you did this, though I may have missed it. Checking a box in the article wizard is not a public disclosure. It's enough for you to write on your user page that you are writing about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, and thank you to everyone who took the time to comment.

I have carefully read the comments and would like to clarify the main issues so that I can understand exactly what needs to be addressed.

1. Conflict of interest

I understand Wikipedia's concern regarding conflict-of-interest editing. I am the subject of the proposed article and therefore have a conflict of interest regarding editing about myself.

I have now made this explicitly and publicly disclosed on my user page, User:Oren238. I am submitting the draft through Articles for Creation specifically so that it can be reviewed independently rather than attempting to publish it directly.

2. The LLM-related concern

I understand and respect Wikipedia's policy concerning the use of large language models, and I am not asking for an exception to that policy.

I would, however, appreciate clarification regarding the August 20 rejection.

The two pages previously created in my userspace in July (draft-version8.0 and draft-version8.1) were temporary, incomplete working pages and were not Articles for Creation submissions. They were deleted on July 31, before the August submission.

The AFC draft submitted on August 20 was subsequently developed and revised, including its structure, wording, sourcing, references, factual verification and encyclopedic presentation.

If specific passages in the submitted August draft were considered LLM-generated or substantially LLM-rewritten, I would appreciate it if those passages could be identified, or if the specific concern could be explained. This would allow me to correct the relevant material rather than making another major revision without knowing what is considered problematic.

3. Sources and notability

I understand that notability must be established through significant coverage in reliable, independent, published sources, and that material supplied by the subject cannot simply be treated as independent evidence.

I therefore am not asking that every source I collected be automatically accepted.

What I would appreciate is a specific assessment of the principal published sources below. In particular, which sources are considered:

• unreliable;
• not independent;
• primary rather than secondary;
• insufficiently significant in coverage; or
• otherwise unsuitable for establishing notability,

and why?

Principal published sources:

1. Rokdim Nirkoda, Issue 121 (2026) — “Yeled HaSadeh – Oren Shmuel: A Story About a Boy Who Has Dreams”

This is a substantial feature specifically about Oren Shmuel, written by Cheli Livneh and published in Rokdim Nirkoda, Issue 121. The official Rokdim publication identifies Livneh as the writer and presents the article as a feature about Oren Shmuel.

Official Rokdim article:

https://magazines.rokdim.co.il/en/article/3-121-002-2026-eng/

2. Rokdim Nirkoda, Issue 121 (2026) — “Amen La’Milim – Amen to the Words”

This is the magazine's “Dance of the Month” feature concerning my choreography “Amen La’Milim”. The official magazine listing identifies the item as published “On behalf of the Editors General”.

I recognize that portions of this feature contain information supplied by me about the dance and my career, so I do not rely on every statement in it as independent evidence. I am providing it so that the reviewers can assess the publication and its editorial status themselves.

Official Rokdim article:

https://magazines.rokdim.co.il/en/article/3-121-005-2026-eng/

3. Rokdim Nirkoda, Issue 111 (2023) — “Dances in Competition at the Karmiel Festival”

This contemporary specialist-dance publication documents dances participating in competitions at the Karmiel Festival and identifies Oren Shmuel and his choreography in the historical competition material.

Official Rokdim source:

https://magazines.rokdim.co.il/en/article/3-111-004-2023-eng/

4. Rokdim, Issue 61 (April 2003) — “Hineh Shana Overet”

This is a contemporary Rokdim magazine feature concerning my dance “Hineh Shana Overet” and my work as a choreographer.

I would like to clarify that Felix Luna is associated with the musical composition of “Hineh Shana Overet”; he is not the author of the Rokdim feature itself. The feature was part of Rokdim's editorial “Dance of the Month” material, with Yaron Meishar as editor.

I recognize that I supplied information and material about my own dance when requested by the editor. I therefore do not present the article as completely independent of my involvement. However, it is a published Rokdim magazine feature, not an article published by me on my own website.

Scanned copy for verification:

https://orendance.co.il/publications/Hine_Shana_Overet_Rokdim_Magazin_Issue_61_April_2003.pdf

5. The Jewish Chronicle (1997)

The draft also cites the independent contemporary newspaper The Jewish Chronicle concerning the international Bedford seminar and Israeli folk-dance activity.

The article is dated 5 September 1997, page 15. It does not mention me by name, so I am not presenting it as direct coverage of Oren Shmuel. I am providing it as an independent contemporary source concerning the international context of Israeli folk dance and would appreciate the reviewers' assessment of whether it has any evidentiary value.

6. Contemporary newspaper coverage from 1996

The draft cites contemporary 1996 newspaper coverage concerning my participation in the Karmiel Festival competition. This is a historical newspaper publication from the period concerned, rather than material subsequently created by me.

Scanned article for verification:

https://orendance.co.il/images/1996_Shishishabat_Karmiel_Improvisation_Award_Oren_Shmuel.pdf

7. Contemporary newspaper coverage from 1993

The draft also cites a 1993 newspaper article concerning my early professional activity in Israeli folk dance.

This is a contemporary printed newspaper article from the beginning of my professional career. The original publication is no longer readily available online, so a scan has been made available for verification.

Scanned article for verification:

https://orendance.co.il/images/1993_kol_Hatzafon_Nora93_Oren_Shmuel.pdf

8. Additional editorial statement in Rokdim Issue 121

The official July 2026 issue of Rokdim Nirkoda contains an editorial statement on page 2 concerning “Amen La’Milim”. The editors' introduction states that it is a dance by Oren Shmuel and that the dance continues to be danced with affection at dance events in Israel and around the world.

This is an editorial statement appearing in the published magazine itself. I am providing the complete official issue so that the reviewers can verify the wording, context, publication details and page themselves.

Official Rokdim Issue 121, July 2026 (see page 2):

https://magazines.rokdim.co.il/en/magazine/3-121-2026-eng/

The 1993, 1996 and 2003 publications are Hebrew-language originals. I have provided scans for verification rather than presenting unofficial English translations as the sources themselves.

What I am asking from the Help Desk

I am not asking the reviewers to accept my interpretation of these sources simply because I am the subject of the draft.

Rather, I would appreciate a concrete assessment of the sources above:

• Which of these published sources, if any, do you consider suitable and sufficiently reliable to support the article's claims and/or contribute to establishing notability?
• Which sources are considered unsuitable for establishing notability, and for what specific reason?
• If a Rokdim article is considered insufficiently independent because information was supplied by me, could that be stated explicitly?
• If a newspaper article is considered too brief to constitute significant coverage, could that be identified?
• If Rokdim itself is considered unsuitable for establishing notability, could that also be explained?

Knowing which sources may be useful, as well as which are considered unsuitable, would help me understand how the available evidence should be assessed and what, if anything, needs to be removed or replaced.

I am fully willing to remove sources that do not meet Wikipedia's requirements. What I am trying to avoid is another substantial rewrite without knowing which specific sources or passages are considered problematic.

I am also not asking the reviewers to treat my own website, certificates, personal documents, promotional material or other primary material as evidence of notability. Those materials are separate from the principal published sources listed above.

My aim is simply to understand whether the published coverage is sufficient for notability, and if not, which specific part of the evidence is insufficient and why.

Thank you for taking the time to review this and for any specific guidance you can provide.

Oren238 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

One small follow-up to my previous message: I omitted the verification link for the 1997 Jewish Chronicle source.

The article is dated 5 September 1997, page 15. I am providing the archive link so that the reviewers can verify the source directly.

Archive:

https://thejc.com/archive/NjI4ZTE2NjgtMDFjYy00 Oren238 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Oren238 I have collapsed your AI generated slop text above. Write it again, briefly, using your own voice. We don't want to talk to a shitty robot. qcne (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

First off, let's be clear that LLM use, but for two very narrow exceptions, is not welcome anywhere on English Wikipedia, including in discussions anywhere, including here.

While I can't speak for Sulfurboy, you asked generally (since you asked here rather than directly asking Sulfurboy), the tone and vocabulary of an LLM is pervasive throughout the entire article. It's not a matter of just shining up words to make it less so. You can no more extract LLM use when it's this extensive any more than you can remove poison you spilled in a bowl of soup. The whole approach of the article is a mess; the sources have many unpublished ones, some others from unreliable sources, and way too much of it is derived from claims you've made about yourself. A Wikipedia article about you is uninterested in what you described or what you said, but what independent, reliable sources said about you in the course of significant, published coverage about you.

I'm very sorry, but this draft is in WP:TNT territory. If you believe you have a case for notability, it needs to be blown up and approached less aggressively. Start with only sources that have no connection with you, and write based on only those sources. At that point, it ought to be far more clear if there is even an argument for notability. But this draft really cannot be published in it's current state; if it went live, I'd nominated it at AFD myself, I think. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Oren238 A submitted draft is reviewed on its own merits. The reviewer(s) do not go looking around in your userspace for other material. I hope this answers one of the questions you are asking. David10244 (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

08:53, 21 August 2026 review of submission by .cqrcin0

• .cqrcin0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Talkshow Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I'd like to write up an article on Adrian Trajstman (better known as Talkshow Boy) as I know quite a bit about his past and his contributions to Australian underground EDM scene. I'm wondering if anybody had any pointers on where to find *reputable* primary sources on him? I've found plenty of information but given the nature of being an underground artist, lots of them are from small blog interviews from over a decade ago. If anybody has anything I'd greatly appreciate the help! I noticed there was a previously rejected submission on a page for Trajstman, for what I can gather is for a similar reason to my predicament. .cqrcin0 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@.cqrcin0 - if you know about the subject it can make your job harder, particularly if you think "Well this was his story, I know he started here, did a bit of this and then that, and I know he residences at X". Since that's the downhill and downHell path to WP:BACKWARDS. If you knew nothing about him, and thus had to drive the draft from reliable sources, then you just summarise those sources. Critical factor: what do other people say about AT/TB? And did that get recorded on to a reliable source? This may help, this source list wasn't intended for your direct purpose but it's in the music notability area and perhaps useful: WP:A/S. As someone who has looked at NZ, UK and Irish EDM, I am actually somewhat jealous of the Australian sourcing options, they tend to stick around for longer. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ♥ .cqrcin0 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

10:22, 21 August 2026 review of submission by Floyd1677

• Floyd1677 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nick Watson (priest) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a draft biography of the current Archdeacon of Salop which was declined for insufficient independent secondary coverage. Since then I have added several further sources, including independent newspaper coverage, Premier Christian News, an older English Churchman reference, and separate coverage of community work in Wednesfield.

Before resubmitting, I’d be grateful for advice on whether the revised source set now appears to satisfy the general notability guideline, or whether the draft still needs additional significant independent coverage.

The draft is: Draft:Nick Watson (priest) Floyd1677 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-review reviews, as this just duplicates what the reviewer will do. For feedback, please resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I will suggest that you read WP:PAIDADVICE. While what you are doing is permitted, its chances of success are low. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

11:38, 21 August 2026 review of submission by Progress P

• Progress P (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Voice (American TV Series) season 30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do y'all know what I should do with my current draft of "The Voice Season 30"? It got rejected, and I already saw that an official article for said article was published. Progress P (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to do anything; it will be deleted after six months of no activity. You may request that it be deleted sooner by tagging it with {{db-user}}. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

12:26, 21 August 2026 review of submission by NotDavidLewis

• NotDavidLewis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cian Dorr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I meet the notability requirement for Dorr, in the sense that you want. Dorr is a highly cited philosopher at the top institution for Analytic philosophy. He has an h-index of 25, which is high for a philosopher and has published in many of the top journals in philosophy: Philosophical Review (x2), Mind, Nous, Analysis. For reference, Shamik Dasgupta has a wiki page with an h-index of 18 and has published in several of the same journals, though he is not as well established as Dorr. I have no problem mentioning these facts in the Wiki, since these comments may not mean much to the average non-philosopher. My only reason for not bringing this up has to do with the fact that such comments are not mentioned in other wiki articles for similar philosophers (again, I bring up Shamik Dasgupta). I could also cite this comment by Gideon Rosen: “Cian has established himself as a true philosophical generalist in the tradition of his great teacher David Lewis,” Department of Philosophy Chair Gideon Rosen said. “He’s a leading figure in metaphysics, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of language and epistemology.” Rosen added “His work over these many subjects is marked by extraordinary rigor and intensity, but it is also filled with surprises and flights of imagination that show the kind of creativity and depth of insight that was apparent to all of us when he was a student here but that has been borne out abundantly by his subsequent distinguished career.”

Should I add things similar to what I noted to the page? NotDavidLewis (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

NotDavidLewis Note that we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet dealt with by a volunteer.

Which of the academics criteria are you asserting this person meets? 331dot (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The first. Dorr's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He has published in many of the top (peer reviewed) journals: Philosphical Review, Nous, Mind, and Analysis. He has an h-index of 25, which is quite high for a philosopher of his age. He has given prestigious named lectures, has been selected for Philosophers Annual, invited to the Aristotelian society twice, has taught at three of the best philosophy departments in the english speaking world and is full professor at best philosophy department in the english speaking world.

NotDavidLewis (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

13:37, 21 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44884-56

• ~2026-44884-56 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Puliyamangalam railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know why it gets rejected ~2026-44884-56 (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

As noted by the reviewer, you have not shown this is a a notable train station. It needs to be architecturally significant or otherwise received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-44884-56.

Your draft keeps getting declined because it has not one single source which meets all the requirements in WP:42.

The first source is to the top-level of a fan-club website. It is neither a reliable source, nor contains anything at all about the station. (It is possible that somewhere with within it there is a page that contains information about the station, but it will still not be a reliable source).

The second mentions the station twice but says nothing about it. It does not therefore have significant coverage of the station.

The third does not even mention the station.

From the purposes of a Wikipedia article these three are all completely worthless.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Writing a Wikipedia article starts with finding several sources which each meet all the criteria in WP:42. That way, if you are unable to find any, you'll know not to spend any more time on this project.

If you can find several sources, you need to forget everything you know about the subject (usually difficult for somebody with a COI) and write a summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

13:49, 21 August 2026 review of submission by MilkyWhiteGirl

• MilkyWhiteGirl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Ripley Valley State Secondary College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ripley Valley State Secondary College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I’m looking for advice on this AfC draft before I resubmit it again:

Draft:Ripley Valley State Secondary College

I’m feeling a bit stuck because the draft has now been declined for three different reasons, and I’m trying to understand the right path forward rather than just resubmitting blindly.

On the first pass, I went too broad and included things like school programs, houses and general school-profile information. That was declined as promotional / brochure-like, which I understand.

I then scaled the article back and rewrote it more neutrally, but it was declined again because it was said to appear AI-generated.

After that, I stripped the article right back to the bare minimum. It has now been declined under WP:NSCHOOL because the reviewer said it needs significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, not just local newspaper coverage.

Since that decline, I have added sources from Queensland Times / News Corp, Teacher Magazine / ACER, Local Ipswich News, Ipswich News Today / Tribune, and NewsCop. I’m trying to keep the article narrow and source-led, rather than turning it back into a brochure.

I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for inclusion, and I’m not trying to argue that other pages being weaker automatically means this draft should be accepted. But I am struggling to understand the standard being applied.

For example, Fortitude Valley State Secondary College is another Queensland state secondary college that opened in 2020 and has a standalone article. That article appears to use a mix of government sources, school material, architecture/facility coverage and media coverage of a controversy. I may be misunderstanding the standard, but the revised Ripley Valley draft now seems to have a comparable or stronger spread of independent secondary sources.

There also appear to be nearby school articles such as Redbank Plains State High School, Bundamba State Secondary College, Forest Lake State High School, Westside Christian College and St Peter Claver College that seem to have less content, weaker sourcing, or maintenance tags, while still existing as standalone pages. I’m not raising that to say those pages are perfect; I’m trying to understand whether the current AfC standard for a new school article is now much higher than the standard applied to existing local school articles.

Could someone please advise what specifically is still missing from the current Ripley Valley draft? Is the issue that the school is not yet notable at all, that the sources are still considered too local, or that the article is not making enough use of the independent sources already present?

I’d really appreciate specific guidance before resubmitting and risking another decline. MilkyWhiteGirl (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

MilkyWhiteGirl I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed when linking to another article or page on Wikipedia.

There are many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia that simply haven't been dealt with yet. Though understandable, you shouldn't use any random article in the same topic area as a model or example for this reason(that's the gist of OTHERSTUFF). If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles or even featured articles.

Are you associated with this school in some way? 331dot (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot :), and thank you for the short reply, though it's a bit of a kick in the guts putting in all that work to get rejected when you then look around and see almost every existing school page around Greater Brisbane got grandfathered in under much leaner rules (I seethe seeing Springfield Anglican College with basically 0 references).

Rounding back to answer your question, no connection, just a mum whose son plays for the local football club next door and we live nearby in the catchment, so I’ve just been following its development as part of our local community, was bored one day and thought I'd give wikipedia a shot with this article. I would preferebly like to see this through, but I'm not having the most fun of experiences (;;;*_*) MilkyWhiteGirl (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

In the early days of Wikipedia, existence was sufficient to merit a school an article, but that is no longer the case since 2017; schools are now treated like any other organization. (That's part of the reason there are many inappropriate articles about schools) You must show that the school is a notable organization, by summarizing critical analysis and commentary about the school. Merely telling of the routine activities and offerings of the school does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I gotta ask, if secondary schools lost their presumed notability back in 2017, how come there hasn't been a mass AfD crusade to clean up all the local school stubs across QLD that don't meet that bar? It makes it pretty confusing for newcomers when almost every existing school page in Greater Brisbane seems to sit on Wikipedia fine (I personally looked to schools created in 2020 with a wiki article for guidance) without any of those independent secondary sources! MilkyWhiteGirl (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Because mass AfD crusades are disruptive and there's no guarantee that they would hit all of the articles at once. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Coming from outside Wikipedia, it is surprising that enforcing current policy across existing pages is viewed as disruptive rather than standard site maintenance. Most organisations prioritise consistency across the board.

From my point of view, it's like an AfC gatekeeper culture, where new submissions face strict scrutiny while legacy stubs stay protected by mainspace inertia. I don't agree with it, but I accept that's how the system currently operates. Since pre-2017 school pages are effectively redundant as benchmarks, is there a reliable way or category filter to locate post-2017 built Australian school articles that *have* successfully passed AfC? It would be much more helpful to compare my draft against modern precedents. MilkyWhiteGirl (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Consistency is challenging on a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, based on what interests them.

A mass deletion effort would not be easily accomplished, and would draw in hundreds of editors all advocating for their specific school. If you want to pursue deletion of articles about nonnotable schools one at a time, you certainly could. If you don't want to, that's fine, too.

Not all articles that exist have gone through this process, as it is not required of all users. I'm not sure if there's a way to find accepted articles(other than the good or featured article cateogies I mentioned above) 331dot (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for taking the time to break that down. I'll focus my efforts on finding a similar school as a baseline and getting this draft properly sourced. :) MilkyWhiteGirl (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no gatekeeper culture. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, hundreds of thousands of which should not have been published at all, and only about 400 active administrators and a few thousand active editors who aren't newbies, who have other priorities than cleaning up old messes. Just because some school articles exist that shouldn't, isn't a reason to compound the problem by adding more to the pile. Rather, it's a reason to clean up the mess.

That may seem like "gatekeeping" to you, but it's really just trying to keep up with the avalanche. Find such old articles and propose them for deletion at WP:AFD, citing the more recent inclusion criteria for schools. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand the editor bandwidth argument, but skimming through AfD discussions reveals a clear reluctance to delete school articles. That community resistance keeps legacy stubs protected in mainspace while AfC enforces a strict barrier, which naturally feels like gatekeeping from the outside.

Australian schools simply don't generate the constant, high-volume news coverage seen in places like the US. Enforcing that standard is going to create a noticeable gap where post-2017 Australian public schools rarely qualify for an article unless something major or traumatic happens to trigger non routine coverage.

Either way, I understand the goal is to prevent a larger cleanup backlog. Thanks for taking the time to explain the editor dynamics and for expressing your opinion. MilkyWhiteGirl (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a well-known problem. You might find the article Wikipedia:Systemic bias of interest, particularly the section titled "Availability of sources may cause bias". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

All of this is correct, but the solution to this is that we need to get better at deleting articles that aren't up to scratch, not lower our standards and let more subpar articles in. Athanelar (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

15:34, 21 August 2026 review of submission by Jahn12

• Jahn12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Organizational categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I need to make sure I'm doing the right thing. My draft was declined just now with the following reasons but I don't understand as my sources are all reliable peer-review articles. Could you help me how I can handle comments?

Draft declined Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time. Feedback The reviewer, Insillaciv, left the following feedback: This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers. Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute. Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

Jahn12 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You should probably ask the reviewer Insillaciv.

How much help did you get from an AI? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

16:10, 21 August 2026 review of submission by CraftyHistorian

• CraftyHistorian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Raymon Elozua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Raymon Elozua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm requesting a review of my most recent edit to my Raymon Elozua page submission. I re-wrote the article after a conversation with some very generous moderators who helped me understand reasoning behind prior submission declines. That archived conversation with moderators is linked below.

This new edit primarily uses third-party resources: exhibition reviews found in newspapers and prominent art magazines, but also academic journals and monograph on the history of American ceramics. I also omitted information and statements that stemmed from publications that might appear too-closely associated with the artist (and their for potentially biased): self-published publications, gallery catalogs, and career retrospective monographs published by museums.

Would someone be willing to review this most recent page edit? I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions for further edits should the page remain unacceptable to Wikipedia criteria and standards.

Archived conversation from 16 July 2026: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2026_July_17#c-Anachronist-20260717225300-CraftyHistorian-20260717200300 CraftyHistorian (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't take requests to preview drafts up for review. It's currently in our queue, this queue can take up to two months. Please be patient. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

17:39, 21 August 2026 review of submission by ScottS1998

• ScottS1998 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cleartone Strings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am affiliated with the subject of this draft and have disclosed my conflict of interest. I was advised to stop directly editing the draft, which I have done. The draft previously received feedback regarding citation formatting, and I have asked on the draft talk page for an uninvolved editor to help address those issues but have not received a response. Would an uninvolved editor be willing to review the draft and advise on the appropriate next steps, particularly how I should proceed with the citation improvements without directly editing the draft myself? Thank you. ScottS1998 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Who advised you to stop directly working on the draft? You can work on drafts, it's just advised you don't directly edit articles in mainspace. That being said, I think you're going to have a very hard time establishing notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you — I misunderstood the earlier COI guidance and thought I was being asked to stop editing the draft itself. I just checked and I am able to edit the draft, so I appreciate the clarification.

Regarding notability, this is the part I'm trying to better understand. There are existing articles for comparable guitar-string manufacturers such as Rotosound and DR Strings, and I reviewed the types of sources used in those articles when working on this draft. I understand that the existence of those articles does not itself establish Cleartone's notability.

For Cleartone specifically, I have found independent coverage from the Los Angeles Times/Burbank Leader discussing the company's history and string manufacturing, Premier Guitar covering its string technology and quoting Jason Everly on string construction, and independent coverage from Guitar Player, Guitar World, and Guitar Interactive. There is also third-party coverage concerning Martin and Gibson's use of Cleartone technology/strings.

Is the concern that much of this is considered coverage of Cleartone's products rather than significant coverage of Cleartone itself? If so, that distinction would be very helpful so I know what additional sourcing I should be looking for. ScottS1998 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

ScottS1998 "Affiliation" is very vague. What is the general nature of your affiliation?

Right now, for these purposes, forget that other articles exist. Wikipedia has many articles that should not exist, for various reasons, but just have not yet been dealt with. New users have no way to know if an existing article meets current standards, because they don't know what the current standards are.

Yes, you are talking more about the company's products rather than the company itself. An article about the company needs to summarize critical analysis and commentary about the company itself, not its products. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

My affiliation is through my work with Cleartone's marketing and content dept. I understand that this creates a conflict of interest.

I understand your point regarding the other existing articles, so I'll set those comparisons aside.

On the notability issue, I think there may be an important distinction in how I've framed the draft. My intention is not to create an article about Cleartone, Inc. as a company. The proposed subject is Cleartone Strings as a guitar-string brand and its string technology, which originated from string-development work by Phil Everly of the Everly Brothers and his son Jason Everly.

The independent sources I've found cover the development and history of the strings, the treatment technology, string construction, their use by major manufacturers including Martin and Gibson, and independent testing and reviews of Cleartone strings by publications including Guitar Player, Guitar World, Premier Guitar, and Guitar Interactive.

If the subject is Cleartone Strings as the brand/product and technology rather than Cleartone, Inc. as a corporate entity, would this independent product and technology coverage be considered when evaluating notability? I'm trying to better understand what additional type of independent coverage would be needed. ScottS1998 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

ScottS1998 If you are employed by the company, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. This is the case even if you are not specifically paid to edit Wikipedia(though editing Wikipedia would clearly fall with the duties of marketing); your general salary is sufficient to trigger this requirement.

I guess I was a little confused about what you're trying to do. Your draft is certainly closer to being about the products/the brand rather than the company itself. I agree with Sulfurboy that establishing notability is going to be hard. You have some reviews, but they are very slim and basically say "they're priced well and work well" which is a normal expectation of a product. "The review noted differences in tone between the sets and described the treated strings as smooth and natural-feeling compared with some other coated strings."; what is the significance of this according to the review? Does it make for better guitar playing, do famous guitar players select this product for that reason? Stuff like that. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated my user page to clarify the nature of my relationship with Cleartone and to include the paid-contribution disclosure.

Your point about the significance of the product coverage is helpful. There is independent coverage that may address the example you gave regarding notable guitarists selecting the strings for specific reasons. For example, MusicRadar covered Dave Mustaine's Cleartone signature strings and discussed his reasons for using them, including their longevity and sound. Reverb also documented Cleartone strings as part of Mustaine's touring setup.

I can revise the draft to focus more on independently reported significance like this rather than simply summarizing whether reviewers liked the products. Would that be a more appropriate direction? ScottS1998 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

If there's a path forward, that's the one, yes. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and guidance. I appreciate it. ScottS1998 (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

19:19, 21 August 2026 review of submission by KhmericanUSA

• KhmericanUSA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Keo Sambath Pich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand with this LLM thing. Non of the text in there were part of any A.I. They are from my own thoughts. KhmericanUSA (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You absolutely used AI in the creation of your draft. There's too many signs in the draft to rule out any possibility of it being solely human error. If/when you're ready to be honest about your LLM usage, we can go from there. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I am honest. I spent hours typing it all up and then you scan A.I. sorry you are incorrect. I don't blame you. thanks for you help. KhmericanUSA (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sulfurboy, sorry to bother you. Can you remove all image I've upload and page I add text to too. Can my account be delete. I don't think I need it since the process wasn't satisfy. Thank you for your help. KhmericanUSA (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted; if you no longer wish to participate here, just log out and never return. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to participate, but it difficult to tag something but don't show where is the problem. It wasn't helpful. It like leading a blind mice or taking some exam. Thank you. KhmericanUSA (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is not recommended that new users dive right in to it. If you wouldn't build a house without learning about land acquisition, permitting, construction techniques, electrical, plumbing, etc. first, you shouldn't write a Wikipedia article without learning about the process first.

Your draft read as an essay and not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what sources say about him.

Sulfurboy, what makes you think this is AI generated? I get 0 percent likely on different checkers(which certainly are not perfect). 331dot (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

20:11, 21 August 2026 review of submission by Chef Praveen Nayak

• Chef Praveen Nayak (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Chef Praveen Nayak/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance regarding a potential Wikipedia biography for Praveen Nayak, a professional chef. I would like guidance on whether he meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and how to prepare information about his career, achievements, and professional work in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources, neutrality, and conflict of interest. Chef Praveen Nayak (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be writing about yourself, but you speak here as if you are not him. Please clarify as to if you are him or not. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

20:41, 21 August 2026 review of submission by QuietCairn47

• QuietCairn47 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DittoDub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:DittoDub was declined under WP:NCORP. I have now added a substantial Net Influencer feature by Tamara Blazquez, dated 6 August 2026, alongside the Utahn profile by Clint Betts, dated 26 July 2026. Could an experienced AfC editor assess whether these two pieces provide enough significant, reliable, independent coverage for NCORP, and whether Net Influencer is usable here? The Net Influencer URL is blocked by the spam blacklist, so the citation is present without a link while I seek guidance. I have a conflict of interest with the subject and am using AfC rather than moving the draft myself. QuietCairn47 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused, on your user page you basically deny a conflict of interest(though you say you communicated with the article subjects about their articles), but here you say you have one. Which is it? If you have one, what is the general nature of it?

If a source is on the spam blacklist, that is a good indicator that it may not be the best source to use.

If you want another review, you need to resubmit the draft, we don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

In case it needs to be said, both their userpage and their enquiry here are AI generated. Athanelar (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response, I have been out. To clarify on the conflict of interest, I do use their product as a YouTuber, and have met their team at a networking event. I am using AI to pull together what sources I can because I do not feel comfortable injecting my own personal experience into the article. Also, I do use AI to polish my writing in general. I am a bit surprised to hear on Net Influencer, I have been following them for a while in the creator space, but ofc if they are black listed I will not push the issue. QuietCairn47 (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to write your article or to talk to us. See WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMTALK. We don't expect perfect English, so just try your best. Athanelar (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep it non 'polished' haha... if you all could tell something was off, then how much of a 'polish' can it be anyways. I'll continue working on this. Thanks! QuietCairn47 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

20:58, 21 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45788-79

• ~2026-45788-79 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Battle of Holy Mother of God Monastery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewers,

I am writing to request a formal re-evaluation of Draft:The Battle of Holy Mother of God Monastery. This event is historically significant as it marks one of the earliest major defensive engagements of the Armenian fedayee movement at the Persian-Ottoman border.

To address previous concerns regarding reliable secondary sources, the article is now directly supported by established academic historical accounts and cross-referenced with related validated articles such as Nikol Duman and Armenian fedayee. The battle directly influenced the logistics of the Tashnag (ARF) arms smuggling routes between Tabriz and Sasun.

Furthermore, the article features the well-documented historical photograph "Armenian Fedayis at Derik Monastery" available on Wikimedia Commons, confirming the localized context of the garrison. I kindly ask for a reviewer to assist in moving this draft to the main encyclopedic space.

Thank you for your time and contribution to preserving this history. Utilisez le code avec précaution.= Article Proposal: The Armenian Special Striking Division (SSD) under General Andranik (1918) ==

Dear reviewers and WikiProject Armenia members,

I would like to submit a request for the creation (or validation) of a standalone historical article dedicated specifically to the **Special Striking Division (SSD)** (Հայկական առանձին հարվածող զորամաս).

This elite military unit was formed and commanded by General Andranik Ozanian in 1918 following the collapse of the Russian Caucasus front. The SSD played a monumental role in the survival of tens of thousands of Armenian refugees, defending Zangezur (Syunik) and Nakhchivan against Ottoman forces and local militias, effectively ensuring that Syunik remained part of Armenia.

While the general biography of Andranik mentions his later campaigns, the SSD as an independent, self-sustaining military entity—with its own cavalry, infantry, and logistical challenges—deserves a dedicated encyclopedic entry to detail its order of battle, key engagements, and its eventual dissolution in Ejmiatsin in 1919.

This article will be strictly sourced using established academic historiography regarding the First Republic of Armenia and the Caucasus campaigns of World War I.

Thank you for your review and guidance on moving this project forward.

Best regards. ~2026-45788-79 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. If you are using AI because you aren't confident in your English language skills or your knowledge of Wikipedia's processes, don't worry; we don't expect people to be perfect at either of those, just try your best to communicate with us in your own words. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

22:54, 21 August 2026 review of submission by IShowberryblushie

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

Digital creator sharing life through music and dance. Explore my journey on YouTube, TikTok, and Spotify IShowberryblushie (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as advertising-only account. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

23:06, 21 August 2026 review of submission by MisKeee

• MisKeee (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:MisKeee/sandbox/FartBooty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, so I did expect the rejection of this page, but I am sincerely interested in creating a wiki for a virtual idol who streams on Twitch. Is that something that could find a home on Wikipedia with scarce resources like YouTube and Twitch for references? MisKeee (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no place on Wikipedia for such activity, sorry. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

23:29, 21 August 2026 review of submission by ErinDCsupergirl

• ErinDCsupergirl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Goodbye Family: The Animated Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure how to make this article better for publishing. If anyone can help. Thanks ErinDCsupergirl (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@ErinDCsupergirl As a brand new editor, trying to dive right into creating articles from scratch is like doing a 30ft high dive before learning to swim; as evidenced by the fact you have no idea how to even improve it.

Spend a few weeks and a few hundred edits learning the basics of Wikipedia editing first. Help:Introduction is a good place to start. Athanelar (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

August 22

01:21, 22 August 2026 review of submission by Qoeudjsn

• Qoeudjsn (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dil Wali Gali Mein (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since, I want to work on this draft to make it accept as a main space article. Qoeudjsn (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Qoeudjsn This draft was already rejected at Draft:Dil Wali Gali Mein. It will not be considered for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Then, to publish this article on Wikipedia, should I be come up with the new draft of the article? Please lent some guidelines. Thanks. Qoeudjsn (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it means you cannot get this article published on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

07:57, 22 August 2026 review of submission by Sriharsha1202

• Sriharsha1202 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sagi Venkata Narasimham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Getting declined for notability reasons even when I have provided multiple citations of the works, providing Government Manuscript sources; a historical research society Journal of Repute with editorial oversight board and independent web articles that refer the Subject's many body of works. Also I find it strange when there are already existing Wiki Pages for other people which have no such citations provided but are live for example (showing one here) - https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%AC%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE_%E0%B0%B6%E0%B1%87%E0%B0%B7%E0%B0%97%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B5%E0%B1%81 - So its strange as to why the same rules/standards are not applied in this above example (and I can provide multiple such other live WIKI pages which don't have such independent citations which you are asking for my draft)?

I have provided atleast 15 references/citations for the person's works, his noticablity - multiple Government academic records have his works catalgoued; Journal of Andhra Historical Society (a very prominent and academic/scholary institue of repute has the subject refernced multiple times - Wikicommons page categorizes the journal as Scientific Journal - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Journal_of_the_Andhra_Historical_Research_Society), so its baffling when you say someone who's works are cited in such a repute independent Society Journal doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion! Each different reviewer comes up with their own strange expectations - Additionally, independent Telugu Literary websites have articles (not interviews) published - https://www.acchamgatelugu.com/2016/02/himagiri-shatakam.html (which is also cited in the article); there are independent sources from Swami Jnananda's own autobiography that again refernce the subject. Also, unsure if the reviewers are checking the citations provided by me and if they understand the language (Telugu) because if they did and they checked the citaition links provided they wouldn't keep declining.

Again, its baffling how you consider someone whose works are catalouged in Government libraries, whose works are referenced in independent historical/literary societies Journals which have an editorial oversight board, the author's works are referenced/discussed in independent literary web articles (https://www.acchamgatelugu.com/2016/02/himagiri-shatakam.html) as not notable? But you have live wiki pages for authors who have not even provided references/citations of their works (as in the above example)? Can anyone clarify? This no longer looks procedural. Sriharsha1202 (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Many people have works in national libraries(in some places it's required to deposit a published work in the national library); that conveys no notability. As the last reviewer said, "To meet our criteria for author biographies, there should be at least two different works by this author which meet our book criteria by having 2+ independent, professional published sources about them. For example, reviews or scholarly analysis -- not citations to the author or to libraries that just own the book".

Please see other stuff exists; that other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were approved by anyone or that they meet current standards, if they ever did. It only means that an volunteer has not gotten around to addressing those articles yet. We judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you would like to help us, please identify these articles with no references that you have seen so we can take action. We need the help, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Also note that comparing an en.wp article to one on te.wp is like comparing an apple to a Boeing 747. Each Wikipedia project has its own standards and practices, and en.wp is one of the, if not the, strictest when it comes to how those standards are both written and enforced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

08:27, 22 August 2026 review of submission by Bhutaneseofbhutan

• Bhutaneseofbhutan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Druk Gaki Tshogpa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am at dead-end here since I do not think I can get anything more then the BBS, The Bhutanese or Kuensel as sources. I do not understand how deeply the references need to go be considered "provide significant coverage". If anyone could possibly clarify why they don not count as such then I would be thankful. Bhutaneseofbhutan (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you will have a hard time establishing notability for an unregistered political party whose appeal for being denied registration was itself denied. This might warrant a brief mention in Politics of Bhutan but probably not a standalone article. You would need more than this for a standalone article, such as independent reporting about the views of the party and any success it had in elections or other influence. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I thank you for clarifying, I think I might discard the article if so but I will inquire on whether the DGT's appeal of the High Courts decision to the supreme court and its results could be seen as notable in any sense? Bhutaneseofbhutan (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said, that might warrant inclusion in the politics of Bhutan article, but not a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

08:59, 22 August 2026 review of submission by Souradeep05

• Souradeep05 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Soura Nath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What to do for publication Souradeep05 (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do, the draft was rejected. Wikipedia is not for telling about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

09:12, 22 August 2026 review of submission by Silver.synonym

• Silver.synonym (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alex Palmer (composer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I am unsure why this submission has been rejected. The rejection message states that sources must be provided which offer "significant coverage", are "reliable" and "independent", but I have provided 26 sources which mention the subject. 24 of these are independent to the subject, over half are from high-profile new websites, and several are from high-profile news websites which discuss primarily the subject at length, including in the title. Could you please clarify which of the possible criteria this article is being rejected for? Silver.synonym (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

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,

The personal life section is unsourced. You have described his work, but not summarized critical analysis and commentary about him. I'm not clear on which aspect of a notable musician he meets. He isn't notable for associating with notable people as notability is not inherited. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

He's not notable as an advocate for surrogacy unless you have sources that cite his particular advocacy or influence on some aspect of surrogacy(such as new laws passed specifically due to his advocacy, or increased use of surrogacy due to his advocacy). 331dot (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" does not mean "mention." There's very little meat on these bones. Many of the sources also aren't independent or reliable; there are social media links, links to his broadcaster discussing him, and in a few, it's his words, not independent observation. On Wikipedia, quantity is a very poor substitute for quality. What would you say your three, absolute best, reliable, independent sources are that provide significant coverage about Alex Palmer? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

12:13, 22 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45862-26

• ~2026-45862-26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Empress Elisabeth of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was neither funny nor a joke nor a hoax, it is stated by mutual contact between the Empress and Bahman Amidi, you have no right by law to declare it as funny. ~2026-45862-26 (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Please provide an independent reliable source that supports your claim. They'll have to compete with me because my wife proclaimed me Emperor of Iran this morning. If a law requires Wikipedia to display this content, please tell the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition, we already have an article about her, Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, which is written like an actual article you would find in an encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

17:15, 22 August 2026 review of submission by Arushss

• Arushss (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marwan Krunz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this draft has been recently declined, and two reasons have been stated as follows: (a) Use of LLM and (b) the draft was not written from a neutral point of view. I want to clarify that no LLM has been used in the writing of the draft. Also, wherever possible, the claims have been supported by independent sources such as IEEE or other academic publishers. It would be great if I could be assisted in this matter.

Thanks. Arushss (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an LLM on the draft in any capacity(even to just check spelling)? It probably seems like AI because it just documents his work, it does not summarize what independent sources with critical analysis and commentary say about him.

You have 97 sources, which far too many. Some sentences and even parts of sentences have three sources each. This can be slimmed down. What are your top three absolute best sources?

Awards generally do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No LLM was used in any capacity for this draft. Since, the draft was previously declined due to lack of "reliable sources", websites related to IEEE/ACM conferences, IEEE transactions journals, etc. have been used to support the claims as much as possible. As far as the Awards section is concerned, the draft is modeled after examples of academicians with similar accomplishments and whose Wikipedia pages have been accepted. Few examples are as follows:

Ian F. Akyildiz

Prasant Mohapatra

Ness B. Shroff

Let me know if you have any further questions. Arushss (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Arushss The whole url is not needed when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, just the title in double brackets, like [[Ian F. Akyildiz]].

We judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone, or that it meets current standards, if it ever did. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. (the biggest reason is that the draft process has not always existed, and is not required of all users) See other stuff exists.

One of the articles you linked to already has maintenance tags, and the other two probably need some. This means that those are not the best examples to use as a model or example; you should use good articles or even featured articles as a model or example.

You need to slim down the sources and focus on your best ones, with in depth coverage. One sentence should not need six sources. We would prefer a small number of high quality sources over a large number of poor quality sources. There should also be no external links in the main body of text. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. The number of the sources have now been cut down from 97 to 55. Arushss (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You are including typical AI slop characterized by writing interpretations of sources written by Krunz as fact in Wikipedia's voice. There are far too many examples of this. You claim you aren't using AI, but it sure still looks that way, including some unusual phrasing. It would be best if the draft didn't cite Krunz at all, except to provide a brief list of selected publications that have had significant impact. I don't see this draft as passing review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the nature of your conflict of interest? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I am a research advisee under the subject of the draft. Arushss (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

17:40, 22 August 2026 review of submission by ActStuffOGWiki

• ActStuffOGWiki (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:YouTube Algorithm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I improve this? I don't understand! ActStuffOGWiki (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@ActStuffOGWiki - You can't improve it, at least in the current form. It is judged to be Original Research, and this is spelled out in the rejection panel. We are an encyclopedia, we report on secondary sources, we don't create material, we aren't a research publication. So this draft isn't in line with what Wikipedia can publish, which is a summary of reliable sources. I would be pretty certain that AI was also used in this draft, but that wasn't actually a factor in the decline. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, since I can see you did spend some time on this, but have a read of Help:Your first article and it may be easier to see the context here. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

20:29, 22 August 2026 review of submission by AmphibiousRock

• AmphibiousRock (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Moors Valley Railway Horace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft has been declined due to lack of sources that meet the wikiperia criteria, however I have encountered the issue of there is just not enough sources talking about the specific locomotive, or the railway alone for me to be able to reference, and I am not sure how to solve the issue. AmphibiousRock (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have no more sources, the topic would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. The sources you do have seem associated with the railway. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you associated with the railway? 331dot (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

23:40, 22 August 2026 review of submission by Millswyn

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

Hello, I clicked the button to submit a draft via my sandbox. I'm just checking if I have done this right, or if I need to create a different Draft page for my article. (It's my first article.) Thank you for your help! Millswyn (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

It is submitted, no worries! :) GGOTCC 23:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

August 23

06:16, 23 August 2026 review of submission by Hha66627

• Hha66627 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shubham Rameshwar Kakde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It’s not An Ai generated and also he’s a notable person Hha66627 (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

He sounds like a talented young man with a bright future, but that future needs to arrive before he would merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

07:33, 23 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46097-82

• ~2026-46097-82 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, and thanks in advance. I have a declared conflict of interest (I am the subject) and am following the COI/AfC process. My draft, Draft:Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, was declined on general notability grounds (too few independent secondary sources).

Before I resubmit, I'd be grateful for guidance on whether the subject may qualify under WP:AUTHOR (criterion 3 — an author whose body of work has been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews), rather than only WP:GNG. The relevant facts:

• Five books from established publishers: The Focused Organization (Gower/Routledge), The Project Revolution (LID), Lead Successful Projects (Penguin), Harvard Business Review Project Management Handbook (HBR Press), and Powered by Projects (HBR Press, 2026).
• Independent reviews of these books: the Harvard Business Review Project Management Handbook was reviewed twice in the PM World Journal (2021 and 2023) and on Rebel's Guide to Project Management; Lead Successful Projects and Powered by Projects were also reviewed in the PM World Journal; and Powered by Projects was reviewed by the Danish outlet ib.dk.
• The HBR Project Management Handbook received the 2022 PMI David I. Cleland Project Management Literature Award.

My questions: 1. Do these reviews count toward WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, and is the current set sufficient, or does the fact that several reviews appear in the same journal (PM World Journal) weaken the case? 2. If it is not yet sufficient, what specifically would you want to see before this could be accepted?

Thank you very much for your time. ~2026-46097-82 (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft:Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez — does WP:AUTHOR apply?". Remember to log in when posting, AntonioNR1970. Prior reviews must remain on the draft until it is accepted.

Please review the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. It is also extremely unlikely to succeed; in the over 14 years I've been here I have never personally seen someone succeed at it, and the number of times its happened that I may have not seen can probably be counted on two hands. Are you the very rare person on Earth who will succeed where most other people fail? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it.

You have resubmitted the draft for review, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. If you are using AI because you aren't confident in your English language skills or your knowledge of Wikipedia's processes, don't worry; we don't expect people to be perfect at either of those, just try your best to communicate with us in your own words. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

07:37, 23 August 2026 review of submission by Atinagarwalindia

• Atinagarwalindia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Agarwal Classes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Agarwal Classes was declined for insufficient significant independent secondary coverage. I have a disclosed conflict of interest. The draft currently cites an authored Collegedunia profile, TargetStudy, Sulekha, government registration records, and the organisation’s own sources for basic facts. Could an experienced editor please advise whether the Collegedunia coverage is substantial enough for organisational notability, and what type of additional independent source would be needed before resubmission? Atinagarwalindia (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

You are essentially just describing the offerings of the institute; a Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how the organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by sources wholly unaffiliated with the organization as important/significant/influential about it, not a mere description of what it does. Most organizations on Earth do not have such coverage, meaning they don't merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I am Atin Kumar Agarwal, proprietor of Agarwal Classes, so I have a direct conflict of interest and have disclosed it on my user page. I am using the Articles for Creation process rather than publishing directly.

I understand that directory listings, government records and the organisation's own website establish basic facts but do not establish notability. I would appreciate guidance on whether an independently authored feature/profile that discusses Agarwal Classes, its teaching approach or CFL methodology in substantial detail would satisfy the significant-coverage requirement, and whether more than one such source would normally be expected. Atinagarwalindia (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop using AI to talk to us. We have no idea whether you actually understand the requirements and the feedback you're being given when you're using AI. Athanelar (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are the proprietor, I presume you founded and operate your business to earn a living and not as a hobby in your free time; this makes you a paid editor, no different than if you instructed an employee to do what you are doing. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Please answer: Exactly why do you want an article about this topic on Wikipedia?

It is extremely rare for an article written by someone with a conflict of interest to be published on Wikipedia. The vast majority of organizational articles were written by independent editors, not representatives of the organization.

If Agarwal Classes is truly notable, then someone independent will eventually come along and write an article about it. Whether that happens this year or 50 years from now shouldn't matter to you or your organization in the least. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

08:54, 23 August 2026 review of submission by AdityaVishwakarmaji

• AdityaVishwakarmaji (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Educational Multimedia Research Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I AM NEW TO WIKIPEDIA IF ANYONE CAN HELP ME CREATING THIS PAGE IT WOULD BE NICE AS IT WILL SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND THINGS WHICH ARE UNDERDOGS AND UNDISCOVERED WIKIPEDIA WOULD PROVIDE THEM SOME RECEGNITION THEY DESERVE AdityaVishwakarmaji (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Please turn off your caps lock when editing, as this appears as if you are yelling at us.

If you work for this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID.

Wikipedia does not confer recognition on any topic- a topic must already be recognized to merit inclusion here, in this case, this must be considered a notable organization. You have just described the activities of the organization. not critical analysis and commentary. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

While many of us like rooting for underdogs, Wikipedia is not for things that are discovered. Wikipedia covers things that have already been discovered, and covered at length in published sources. If you'd like to advocate for an unknown underdog, social media is one of the proper places to do that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Your purpose here violates the WP:NOTPUBLICITY policy. One doesn't use Wikipedia to "provide recognition". They must become notable on their own without Wikipedia's help, before any article can be written about them. There are no exceptions to this. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@AdityaVishwakarmaji: Anyone who told you Wikipedia helps with recognition lied to you and is a blackguard of no account. To warrant an article, a subject has to have achieved recognition to some degree in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

10:59, 23 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46160-73

• ~2026-46160-73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is in fact 100% accurate and contains factual details well substantiated about the founding of Liquor Barn of Kentucky by Robert J. Rosenstein’s; the founder, the 100% owner prior to it’s sale to the Canadian Liquor Depot Company ~2026-46160-73 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46160-73 It was not rejected due to any concerns about its factuality. We don't include articles on Wikipedia merely because they are factual. Athanelar (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Not every successful businessman merits a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

14:57, 23 August 2026 review of submission by Pspwikiuser

• Pspwikiuser (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Julian Vincent Hows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Review suggested that this was LLM generated. It wasn't, though I did ask ChatGPT to give me the outline structure of a Wikipedia Page because I'd never created one. I wrote the prose myself. I corrected the incorrect links, but some of those were related to websites changing their internal structure. I'm not sure how to handle that in the future. I also don't know what goes in a 'see also' section. I've known the subject for over 40 years, and I want to record his accomplishments for the LGBT community, but I can only work on this part time, so any help in how I can improve this and get it published would be appreciated! Pspwikiuser (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Pspwikiuser. If you've now fixed the URLs and are confident the person meets our criteria I encourage you to re-submit for review by pressing the big blue Resubmit button. qcne (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. The reviewer wanted me to create a "see also" section, and I'm not sure what to put in to it. I will see if I can find other articles with that, and decide what is appropriate for it. I am going to check again everything that they mentioned. I don't want to resubmit and get rejected again, but I appreciate the encouragement! Pspwikiuser (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

A See Also section is mostly optional - I wouldn't worry too much about it. Perhaps something like a link to HIV/AIDS activism. qcne (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

There are some additional problems here. For one, if you've personally known Hows for 40 years, then you have a conflict of interest which must be disclosed (WP:COI). Second, the sourcing is still really mixed. Half of the "HIV-rights and global advocacy" section is sourced solely to an interview with him, and when you have a claim as strong as He was instrumental in, that sure as sugar needs an in-line cite to a secondary source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

17:00, 23 August 2026 review of submission by Unhingen

• Unhingen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yellow Brick Road To Compton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ive heard this before but is YouTube a reliable source Unhingen (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Unhingen: YouTube can be a reliable source, if it's the unadulterated original content from a reliable source such as the CNN, BBC, DW, etc. But the 'SMOKE-N-BONE' channel you're citing is unlikely to be that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

17:22, 23 August 2026 review of submission by LegacyWiki

• LegacyWiki (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shashvat Nakrani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking feedback and guidance on whether the sources in the draft establish GNG, particularly the sources providing significant and independent coverage on the subject himself. Thank you in advance. LegacyWiki (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

To seek feedback, please resubmit the draft. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Right, then.

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• We can't use https://www.livemint.com/news/india/meet-shashvat-nakrani-the-23-yr-old-iitian-who-made-it-to-hurun-india-rich-list-11633151910904.html (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources with role/missing bylines because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• We can't use https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/this-23-year-old-iitian-is-the-youngest-self-made-individual-on-hurun-india-rich-list-2021/articleshow/86641605.cms (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• We can't use https://www.fortuneindia.com/rankings/40under40/2021 (too sparse). Barely anything about him or his partner on that list.
• We can't use https://www.outlookbusiness.com/corporate/who-is-shashvat-nakrani-the-co-founder-who-built-bharatpe-at-19-now-steps-back (unknown provenance). The presence of a "curated by" credit isn't the same as an actual byline, the implication being they just made whatever shite they were handed function on the website with no editorial process involved.
• We can't use https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/business/business-news/who-is-shashvat-nakrani-bharatpe-cofounder-shashvat-nakrani-is-the-youngest-self-made-individual-on-hurun-india-rich-list-2021/articleshow/86679928.cms (unknown provenance). See above.
• We can't use https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/ashneer-grover-claims-bharatpe-co-founder-wanted-to-bunk-office-for-iit-9677461.html (unknown provenance). Even if this were properly credited, this is a scandal-rag piece that we wouldn't cite in the first place.
• We can't use https://insights.dsij.in/dsijarticledetail/shashvat-nakrani-an-iit-delhi-dropout-who-became-indias-youngest-self-made-individual-23222 (unknown provenance). There's so many of this style of source in this list that the article may as well be a turf stadium.
• We can't use https://www.outlookindia.com/opinion/business-news-i-created-my-own-business-bharatpe-co-founder-shashvat-nakrani-news-305164 (unknown provenance, connexion to subject). Interview under a role byline.
• https://www.livemint.com/news/india/bharatpes-founder-koladiya-sues-grover-to-reclaim-shares-11673980430007.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Nakrani.
• I can't assess https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/prime/fintech-and-bfsi/an-iit-meet-up-upi-lessons-building-tech-for-neglected-kiranas-how-bharatpe-is-taking-on-paytm-et-al-/primearticleshow/69757728.cms (walled).
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/a-dining-table-and-drama-how-bharatpe-founder-ashneer-grover-s-world-crumbled-101647068080054.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drops; barely any discussion of Nakrani.
• I can't assess https://www.loksatta.com/career/success-story-of-shashvat-nakrani-who-co-founder-of-bharatpe-also-he-made-a-name-for-himself-as-one-of-indias-youngest-self-made-billionaires-asp-99-4754703/ (language barrier). Neither Firefox's built-in translator or Google Translate work on this.
• https://www.fortuneindia.com/enterprise/bharatpe-the-shopkeepers-best-friend/105539 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Quotes and name-drops; barely any discussion of Nakrani.
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/bharatpe-cofounder-nakrani-now-sues-ashneer-grover-over-unpaid-shares/articleshow/98941253.cms doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Source is about the lawsuit and barely discusses Nakrani.
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/bharatpe-cofounder-shashvat-nakrani-steps-down/articleshow/130237660.cms doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Source is about the company and barely discusses Nakrani.
• https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/bharatpe-co-founder-shashvat-nakrani-steps-away-from-day-to-day-operations-to-explore-new-ideas-and-ventures-11776139659547.html is borderline. The source does talk about Nakrani... for the first third of the article before it shifts focus abruptly to discuss BharatPe.
• https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/bharatpe-founder-nakrani-steps-back-from-operations-to-advisory-role-126041301033_1.html doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Source is about the company and barely discusses Nakrani.
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/bharatpe-vs-ashneer-grover-settlement-making-sense-of-the-legal-battle-between-the-two-parties/articleshow/113845870.cms doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Source is about the lawsuit and hardly discusses Nakrani.
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/ashneer-grover-bharatpe-settle-disputes-cofounder-to-no-longer-be-part-of-the-captable/articleshow/113798799.cms doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Source is about the lawsuit and hardly discusses Nakrani.
• We can't use https://m.economictimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/this-23-year-old-iitian-is-the-youngest-self-made-individual-on-hurun-india-rich-list-2021/amp_articleshow/86641605.cms (unknown provenance, too sparse). Role byline and the source is a bunch of short, scattered sentences that can't spend any significant time on one subject.
• We can't use https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/hurun-rich-list-youngest-entrepreneur-in-the-list-is-is-21-year-old-zepto-founder-check-full-list-here/articleshow/116429270.cms (unknown provenance) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Role byline and Nakrani is only ever name-dropped.
• We can't use https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/10-youngest-indian-entrepreneurs-in-2024-oyo-and-zepto-founders-make-the-list-2652283-2025-01-05 (unknown provenance, too sparse). Listicle with a role byline.

Literally nothing I was able to assess was usable, an even split between possible brown-envelope journalism and tangential name-drops in sources about other subjects. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

20:54, 23 August 2026 review of submission by Sandra0809

• Sandra0809 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Bonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Bonski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I change the draft title from Bonski to Bonski (ski resort operator)? Sandra0809 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sandra0809 Hello! There should be a "move" button on the right side of your screen if you are using a PC. GGOTCC 20:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! thanks for the quick response, unfortunately im on a Mac so couldn't find the move button, not sure if I'm just missing it or if it's located elsewhere? Sandra0809 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The exact title of a draft is not particularly important. When it is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

21:22, 23 August 2026 review of submission by Kickpointy

• Kickpointy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Student 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey y'all! I'm looking for a second opinion on the notability sourcing for Draft:Student 1 before making any further changes or resubmitting it. The draft was recently declined under the musician notability/GNG standard. I would particularly appreciate an independent assessment.

Before resubmitting, could someone experienced with AfC/notability give an independent opinion on whether the strongest sources above are sufficient for WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO, and, if not, what specifically is missing?

The sources I believe are most relevant to notability are:

Jack Spencer, City Pages, “No. 9: Student 1” (2017) — a dedicated profile with substantial independent discussion of his music and performances.

Minnesota Public Radio / The Current — recurring coverage by different writers, including Jeffrey Bissoy-Mattis's 2017 “The Come-Up,” which contains a dedicated section of independent critical commentary on Student 1, and Cecilia Johnson's 2018 full-length “You Need to Know” feature. The latter contains an interview but also includes independent editorial coverage. I understand these should be considered together as one publication/source organization for GNG rather than as two separate sources.

POW MAG — independent critical coverage in separate pieces by Steven Louis and editor-in-chief Paul Thompson in 2026. I understand multiple pieces from the same publication would normally be considered together rather than as separate sources for GNG.

There is additional coverage in The Current, Lyrical Lemonade, City Pages, the Minnesota Star Tribune, Carbon Sound, Sweety High, Drop The Spotlight, and others, but I don't want to mistake routine mentions, interviews, or weaker sources for significant independent coverage. Kickpointy (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that if you are his manager, you must disclose as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I have updated it to be more explicit. I had it on my profile and in the talk page, but I made it more explicit. Kickpointy (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kickpointy. Get rid of all the citations to Bandcamp, Apple Music, and X. They are irrelevant and obscure anything that might be valuable.

The purpose of a citation is to provide a way for a reader to verify a claim about the subject of the article, nothing else.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

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. I see you created your account fifteen years ago; but with only 48 edits, you are a new editor.

Have you read WP:PAIDADVICE? ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Those links are merely to corroborate things such as album release dates, mixing credits, and feature verses. I thought it was worthwhile to add those rather than leave it without, but I see your point.

I've been around for 15 years or so, just never edited or created an article until now! I have read WP:PAIDADVICE! Learning my best with the experience that I have :) Kickpointy (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

My specific question is: would you consider the City Pages, MPR/The Current, and POW coverage above to constitute multiple sources providing significant, reliable, independent secondary coverage for WP:GNG? If not, which element fails? Significant coverage, reliability, independence, or something else? Kickpointy (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

21:50, 23 August 2026 review of submission by Danielmarxguitar

• Danielmarxguitar (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daniel Marx (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what can I do to get the article published? Danielmarxguitar (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Nothing, it has been rejected. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

23:19, 23 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46002-17

• ~2026-46002-17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jessica Hunt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is the page being rejected? If you are going to reject, putting the reasons in plain language (like the first reviewer did) would be helpful.

It would appear that the concerns originally listed were addressed? What is "failed" in the current version? ~2026-46002-17 (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer comment says it fails WP:NPROF a.k.a. the subject-specific notability guideline for professors. Additionally, the rejection message says the drafted article does not meet our general notability guidelines and the person who created the article is obviously the subject of the article, and has therefore an undisclosed COI. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it does meet those guidelines.

Here is an evaluation of the subject against the criteria that you stated Dr. Hunt has no hope of currently meeting, and then said "wholly fails". Based on the below, this does not appear to be correct. Can you please review and reconsider?

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An evaluation of Dr. Jessica H. Hunt from NC State University against Wikipedia’s academic notability guideline (WP:NPROF) reveals that she is a strong candidate who likely meets the criteria. While Wikipedia articles require a case-by-case community vote, Dr. Hunt has multiple achievements that directly align with the 9 rules.

WP:NPROF Evaluation for Dr. Jessica H. Hunt

Rule 1: Significant Research Impact — Likely Meets The Evidence: Dr. Hunt has secured over $11 million in funded research since 2012. Her work on how children with learning disabilities process math concepts (like fractions) is heavily cited and recognized in the fields of mathematics education and special education.Wikipedia Standard: A deep track record of multi-million-dollar federal research grants generally demonstrates significant, field-altering research impact.

Rule 2: Highly Prestigious Awards — Meets The Evidence: She received the National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award.Wikipedia Standard: The NSF CAREER award is one of the most prestigious early-career honors given to scientists and researchers in the United States. Winning this award is a very strong indicator of academic notability on Wikipedia and often secures a passing grade under Criterion 2.

Rule 4: Widespread Educational Impact — Likely Meets The Evidence: Her NSF funding directly led to the creation of the Model Mathematics Education (ModelME) curriculum and the award-winning Dream2B game. These tools are actively used to change how inclusive elementary classrooms teach foundational STEM concepts.Wikipedia Standard: If a curriculum or educational software moves beyond one local school and is adopted widely at a national level, it satisfies this criterion.

Rule 5 & 6: Chairs and Administrative Posts — Does Not Quite Meet The Status: She is a full Professor of Mathematics Education and Special Education at NC State and serves as a Senior Faculty Fellow at the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. Wikipedia Standard: While highly distinguished, these are standard high-level faculty positions. They do not quite reach the "University President, Chancellor, or Endowed Chair" threshold required by Rules 5 and 6. ~2026-46002-17 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

LLM use aside, having awards and such is not enough for someone to pass the notability guidelines. I would advise you to read the policies and guidelines that have been linked yourself instead of asking an LLM to essentially just agree with what you want it to say and then copy/paste it here. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm really not clear on the hostility I'm experiencing on this platform. I am honestly confused why this scholar is considered not notable enough to be included on this platform, when comparable people - such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Ellis - are. I'm interested in contributing to the American Mathematics Education Professors listed here and asking for assistance on why Dr. Jessica Hunt is not considered notable enough to be included. Drs. Hunt and Ellis are comparable on almost every front, with the exception of the CAREER award that Dr Hunt attained, which would mean that if Amy Ellis is notable enough to be included, that Dr. Hunt would also be. What am I missing? ~2026-46002-17 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:3 ~2026-46002-17 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

So first the article was created by someone with a very clear conflict of interest. Then, it was declined because the person in question is not notable, and they were given links to read about our policies and guidelines regarding notability. When it was resubmitted by a temporary account, it was then rejected because someone noticed both the lack of notability, but also the conflict of interest. Presumably this temporary account and the original draft creator are linked, which is also a violation of our policy on sockpuppetry.

Upon the draft being rejected, this person then came to the AfC help desk to ask why it was declined. I explained that the reasoning was already outlined in the original decline and subsequent rejection, but reiterated the reasons it was rejected. Instead of reading on our policy and guidelines and either a) rewriting the article to include proper sourcing if it is truly believed this person is notable, or b) choosing not to continue writing and/or resubmitting because they are not notable, I received a paragraph of LLM text copy and pasted wholesale that basically ignores everything that has been said up to that point.

I apologize if I came off as having animosity towards you, but I'm sure you can understand this is a long and circular argument that isn't a productive use of time, and I don't really appreciate that time being wasted. I've made an attempt to guide you towards resources that can assist in writing should you wish to continue, but I cannot force you to read it and put it to use. I especially do not like being talked to by an AI, so it would also be appreciated in your potential future interactions to not do that as it's not only rude in my view but it's also not allowed to copy and paste LLM text into articles or talk pages on Wikipedia. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:3 ~2026-46002-17 (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I walked through replies to this on my talk page. No one has been hostile to you either, as I've re-reviewed all your interactions on here. Your passion and feeling of unfairness is likely due to your very clear WP:COI that you haven't disclosed. The subject wrote this draft themselves and then when they were asked to disclose their COI, then suddenly only temp accounts have been editing the draft. People aren't going to want to help you if you're not honest with us and respect or policies. Further, attempting to disparage another page because you feel you were wronged is beyond the pale and disappointing behavior to see from a fellow academic. In regards to that, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF Sulfurboy (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that whoever wrote this is disparaging another page - they are questioning your review tactics and tone, which appear to be far from ideal as a representative of Wikipedia. What is clear is your scathing and possibly libelous language about someone who you think is the original author. I'd recommend not moving forward with that language in the future, honestly. ~2026-46726-92 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Disparaging might be a strong word, but it is entirely correct they're trying to say "but these articles exist, so why can't this one also exist?" a la WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's not a valid argument for inclusion or exclusion; each article is rated on its own merits, generally speaking, and not on what else does or doesn't exist on the site.

In regards to scathing and possibly libelous language, I can't imagine what was said can be read in that tone, especially in regards to the situation that is before us. We have an article edited by someone with a very obvious conflict of interest, a brand new temporary account that took over editing it after its initial decline that later asked "why is this page being rejected?" which I struggle to read in any other way than sockpuppetry. Then another completely brand new temporary account has found its way here to presumably argue that the page should be included, and is being accusatory towards the same editor that rejected the second draft and replied here.

I'm sure I don't really need to spell it out, but it's clear that it looks as if the COI editor failed on their first draft, made a temporary account to submit the draft again two months later, ask why it failed when it inevitably did again, and then made another temporary account to cast WP:ASPERSIONS upon the above editors in this very discussion. Obviously, barring an investigation, there's no real way to know if this is the case. But it's certainly how it appears, and all of that combined leads to there not being very much trust in both the original person who submitted the draft and you + the other TA. My advice would be to drop this and walk away because there will be nothing that can or will come from continuing to ask why this article did not get accepted; the person is simply not notable, and no amount of arguing is going to change that fact. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

23:41, 23 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46002-17

• ~2026-46002-17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jessica Hunt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here is an evaluation of the subject against the criteria that "Sulferboy" stated Dr. Hunt "has no hope of currently meeting", and then said "wholly fails". Based on the below, this does not appear to be correct, and potentially is bias. Can you please review and reconsider?

An evaluation of Dr. Jessica H. Hunt from NC State University against Wikipedia’s academic notability guideline (WP:NPROF) reveals that she is a strong candidate who likely meets the criteria. While Wikipedia articles require a case-by-case community vote, Dr. Hunt has multiple achievements that directly align with the 9 rules.

WP:NPROF Evaluation for Dr. Jessica H. Hunt

Rule 1: Significant Research Impact — Likely Meets The Evidence: Dr. Hunt has secured over $11 million in funded research since 2012. Her work on how children with learning disabilities process math concepts (like fractions) is heavily cited and recognized in the fields of mathematics education and special education.Wikipedia Standard: A deep track record of multi-million-dollar federal research grants generally demonstrates significant, field-altering research impact.

Rule 2: Highly Prestigious Awards — Meets The Evidence: She received the National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award.Wikipedia Standard: The NSF CAREER award is one of the most prestigious early-career honors given to scientists and researchers in the United States. Winning this award is a very strong indicator of academic notability on Wikipedia and often secures a passing grade under Criterion 2.

Rule 4: Widespread Educational Impact — Likely Meets The Evidence: Her NSF funding directly led to the creation of the Model Mathematics Education (ModelME) curriculum and the award-winning Dream2B game. These tools are actively used to change how inclusive elementary classrooms teach foundational STEM concepts.Wikipedia Standard: If a curriculum or educational software moves beyond one local school and is adopted widely at a national level, it satisfies this criterion.

Rule 5 & 6: Chairs and Administrative Posts — Does Not Quite Meet The Status: She is a full Professor of Mathematics Education and Special Education at NC State and serves as a Senior Faculty Fellow at the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. Wikipedia Standard: While highly distinguished, these are standard high-level faculty positions. They do not quite reach the "University President, Chancellor, or Endowed Chair" threshold required by Rules 5 and 6.

~2026-46002-17 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

In your own words – and not that of a machines – can you tell us what criteria of WP:NPROF does Hunt meet? Do not use an AI in your reply and please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence. In solidarity, nil ^nz 00:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

1. She is a full professor and a research scholar at an R1 university.

2. She has published articles in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, Journal of Special Education Technology, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, and various other journals. Also, she has contributing to the writing of two position statements, most recently a joint statement on math instruction for students with disabilities published by the Council for Exceptional Children and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in 2024.

3. Hunt is the Principal Investigator on several research grants and has received numerous grants (over $11 million) from the National Science Foundation, Institute of Education Sciences, and other funders.

4. She received the NSF CAREER Award in 2014.

5. Part of the products of the NSF work is the regionally and nationally adopted gaming program ModelME.

6. She received the Linking Research to Practice Award from National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in 2018. ~2026-46111-18 (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This has already been addressed in multiple locations with you. Also, please stop using temporary accounts to dodge properly disclosing your WP:COI. And stop using LLM. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the same person but ~2026-46193-89 blanked this section on this page and attempted to blank your talk page (their filter log). Streetr4 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Technically unrelated, but odd behaviour nonetheless. On a side note, I'd encourage AfC reviewers to apply for WP:RFP/TAIV, as it provides a useful set of goggles in these sorts of situations. In solidarity, nil ^nz 03:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

August 24

09:04, 24 August 2026 review of submission by MehmetVeyselAkdemir

• MehmetVeyselAkdemir (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hair of Istanbul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a paid contributor affiliated with Hair of Istanbul, and I have disclosed this relationship on my user page.

Draft:Hair of Istanbul was declined for two reasons: insufficient evidence of organizational notability and text that appeared to be generated by a large language model. I will not resubmit the current text or use AI-generated article content.

Before manually rewriting the draft in my own words, I would appreciate an independent assessment of the available sources. In particular:

• Two GQ features by Alex Hawkins discuss his treatment at Hair of Istanbul in detail.
• A TGRT Haber article mentions the clinic in connection with international public figures.
• Gulf News published a corporate-news article about the clinic’s Dubai consultation office.
• Medihair has a clinic profile.

Do the two GQ articles provide sufficient significant, independent coverage when considered together? Do any of the other sources qualify toward WP:NCORP, or is the current source set insufficient to establish notability?

If the subject is not presently notable, I would prefer to know that before making further changes. I am requesting source guidance only, not expedited approval.

Draft: Draft:Hair of Istanbul

Thank you. MehmetVeyselAkdemir (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

MehmetVeyselAkdemir The whole url is not needed when linking, just [[Draft:Hair of Istanbul]]; I've fixed this.

The main problem currently is that the draft appears to be LLM generated. Did you use an LLM on it in any capacity?

1. A patient testimonial isn't significant coverage; it also involves an interview with you.
2. A brief mention isn't significant coverage(it also seems to be based on the aforementioned testimonial)
3. The relocation of an office is a routine activity and not significant coverage.
4. A basic profile is not independent, significant coverage.

None of these sources contribute to notability. Most businesses/companies on Earth do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

10:36, 24 August 2026 review of submission by BenRHayes

• BenRHayes (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Symmetry Process Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can you clarify on this, as i wanted to use this a reference as it is similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_HYSYS

I have more published articles which i can reference, would this help?

BenRHayes (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping @Kovcszaln6} qcne (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@BenRHayes: I'm not seeing the significant coverage needed. References 3 and 4 are just passing mentions, references 1 and 2 are somewhat better, as they are more in depth. So cite independent sources that discuss this software in depth.

Also, significant portions of your draft are unsourced. Please ensure that every statement is cited to a reliable source. The way we write articles is that we read the sources, and then summarize them. It is way harder to find sources later. And make sure to stick to what the sources say. Let me know if you have any questions. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kovcszaln6,

OK thanks i will make sure i put references and citations there.

Thanks for your advice,

Ben BenRHayes (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

13:28, 24 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44856-90

• ~2026-44856-90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Laura Dahlmeier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Laura Dahlmeier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Laura_Dahlmeier: Explore the biography, career, achievements, Olympic success, personal life, and legacy of the renowned German biathlete. ~2026-44856-90 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44856-90: firstly, that isn't a question. And secondly, this help desk is for drafts undergoing a review, not for published articles already in the main encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing This user has been continually creating weird drafts. qcne (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I guess their question (not question) was about Draft:Laura Dahlmeier, then. Or possibly Draft:Laura Dahlmeier net worth in 2026. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, we already have a far better article that isn't written with AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Oops, kind of a moot point as this TA has been blocked for spamming links. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

13:39, 24 August 2026 review of submission by Jukka Virtanen

• Jukka Virtanen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eduard Vasilj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

is this rejected or is it waiting in review status? Jukka Virtanen (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jukka Virtanen. This draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. qcne (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

14:22, 24 August 2026 review of submission by W-mjrh

• W-mjrh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:W-mjrh/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You declined it saying that it was created by AI. The text was copied from the website of the organisation. I think he/she went too far in their criticism. What can I do. I'm new to doing articles. Help, please! W-mjrh (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @W-mjrh. You copied the text from the organisation's website? That is copyright infringement and is not permitted on Wikipedia. I will mark for deletion. Please see Help:Your first article. qcne (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The best -- and only -- way to write articles is to write the article yourself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @W-mjrh.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

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. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

17:21, 24 August 2026 review of submission by JuniorSanker

• JuniorSanker (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mickel Sanker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What are the requirements to get accepted to create an Wikipedia article JuniorSanker (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@JuniorSanker: You have one source. That isn't enough for an article on any subject, let alone a(n auto)biography, and that's assuming the source were any good. We don't cite Spotify (streaming service). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

18:56, 24 August 2026 review of submission by FahadContributor

• FahadContributor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ReD Architects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft has been declined twice for not meeting the notability guideline for companies (WP:NCORP). I understand that award lists (like AD100) and routine coverage do not count.

Could a reviewer please advise whether any of the sources below would qualify as significant, independent, reliable coverage of the firm — and if not, what kind of source I should look for?

- Architectural Digest India — feature on the firm's headquarters/studio - Elle Decor India — feature on the firm's studio - MGS Architecture — profile of the practice - Moneycontrol — interview/profile of co-founder Rajiv Parekh - South China Morning Post — feature on a project by the firm (The Wavescape)

I only want to resubmit if the sourcing genuinely meets the bar. Thank you.

FahadContributor (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. If you are using AI because you aren't confident in your English language skills or your knowledge of Wikipedia's processes, don't worry; we don't expect people to be perfect at either of those, just try your best to communicate with us in your own words. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

19:52, 24 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43057-50

• ~2026-43057-50 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:James Artissen 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Im sorry please ~2026-43057-50 (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-43057-50, The submission has been rejected and will not be considered further. The submission does not meet WP:GNG. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 19:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Please unban me please ~2026-43057-50 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-43057-50, You are not banned. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 20:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

21:16, 24 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46138-88

• ~2026-46138-88 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John G. Oakeshott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can senior editors, pls comment:

1. which parts of the article appears as AI generated? Requested this because whole article in manually fixed by me - word by word!

2. Why this subject is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia - this is a biography of an Australian scientist.

How can I improve this article for Wikipedia!

~2026-46138-88 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

There are no "senior" editors.

You state things as objective facts in Wikipedia's voice, citing sources that are not independent of the subject. That, as well as synthesizing conclusions that aren't explicitly stated in the cited source, are typical hallmarks of AI writing. After it was declined, you resubmitted it without any substantive changes at all. This wastes the community's time, and is not appreciated. Therefore your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. You may appeal to the rejecting reviewer if you can explain what substantive improvements you would make. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist Requesting a "senior" editor is symptomatic of AI usage. @~2026-46138-88 Why are you using an LLM to talk to us? Sulfurboy (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought either kind would be mentioned in WP:AISIGNS but I don't see it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist WP:AIREVIEW In all likelihood they had chatgpt write out the question and then paraphrased in their own words. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

22:13, 24 August 2026 review of submission by GilesDexter2026

• GilesDexter2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:GilesDexter2026/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with getting the biography of Jim Derhaag published.

He is a significant figure in the history of Trans Am Racing in the United States and deserves a page. The issue is with the citations. I have Press cuttings from the 20th Century to support the case. Please help. Many Thanks Giles GilesDexter2026 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you connected to Mr. Derhaag?

It's fine to cite printed media, as long as you can provide enough information that someone could theoretically locate them(like in a library or archive) such as title, author, publisher, publication date, page numbers, etc. See Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your constructive reply.

Yes, Mr.Derhaag is a friend.

I have lots of scans of Press Clippings which I uploaded to Wiki Commons, but finding copies of the whole publication ( Motorsports publications from the 20th Century) may be difficult.

Thank you for the link GilesDexter2026 (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@GilesDexter2026: since you're writing about a friend, you have a conflict of interest (COI) in the subject, which needs to be disclosed; I've posted instructions on your talk page.

Please do not upload scans, as that almost certainly violates copyright. You need to go back to Commons to request that the uploaded files be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

PS: Actually, you haven't made any edits to Commons, at least not with this user account – do/did you have another account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

If your clippings do not have complete information, at least enough that someone could locate them, you can't use them as a source. It needs to be at least theoretically possible for someone to locate them and verify the information. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @GilesDexter2026.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. (Do you see why this is particularly difficult if you're writing about somebody you know?)

If several of your sources each meet all the requirements in WP:42, then you may have the basis for an article. Your best course then would be to throw away what you have written and start again, summarising what those independent sources said, and making sure not to introduce anything which is not in the sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

22:21, 24 August 2026 review of submission by DavidOguama

• DavidOguama (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Polo Jose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance for someone to proofread and review my posted submission about Polo Jose to know how good it. And i need assitance to guide me towards writing articles and publications here about a subject matter. The requirement and what to put in mind and consideration while doing that DavidOguama (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Is Mr. Jose your client? 331dot (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A client i have been working with on different projects and works DavidOguama (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes he is a client DavidOguama (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Then you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure, see WP:PAID. You should do this very soon. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and show it to Mr. Jose.

The draft was rejected because you did not show how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional or a notable actor. We're willing to answer your questions, but you're being paid- you should have learned what to do before offering your services. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, where can i indicate that. Please guide me on steps to take DavidOguama (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to help and guide DavidOguama (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Click your username, that will take you to your user page, where you may type out a statement that to comply with the Terms of Use, you disclose you are editing for a client(Polo Jose). 331dot (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Would i publish the statement too? DavidOguama (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have done that already. What is the next step

Thank you for your help DavidOguama (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Your paid contribution disclosure prevents your account from being blocked due to being an undisclosed paid editor who failed to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use.

As for what to do next with your draft: Perhaps refund money you were paid? The draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further, and you should waste neither your nor the community's time on it.

Your next step in general might be to study Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, starting with WP:Notability, and also WP:NCREATIVE. You are being paid to know that stuff already.

Once you do that, if you have additional sources that would alleviate the concerns of prior reviewers, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft to re-open it to submit an improved version. You'll likely get only one shot at this, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

What should i do next time i have an article to publish about a subject and someone

You dont accept paid contribution? Even with notability? DavidOguama (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Accepting money to write an article about someone, when you admitted you basically don't know how to write an article, is a pretty wild conundrum that none of us are going to be able to help you sort through. See WP:BOGO and WP:BOSS Sulfurboy (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here: without considerable help or lots of experience creating new articles on your own, there's a very small chance that articles you create for pay will be accepted to the encyclopedia. It's hard enough as an inexperienced volunteer editor with the community providing assistance, but unpaid volunteers tend to have little interest, if any, helping paid editors to get paid. The money that someone is paying you is for your expertise; what does it say if you take money from someone for a task that you have no ability to complete? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we accept paid contributions. Some paid editors do good work. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You might also ask your client why he wants an article about him on Wikipedia. Vanity, publicity, search engine optimization, "getting the word out", or other similar answers are not valid in Wikipedia. If the subject is truly notable, it shouldn't matter in the least if someone writes an article next month or decades after the subject has died. There are no deadlines. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

DavidOguama Would you offer your services to build a house without knowing how to build a house? Even assuming someone was willing to hire you to do so without experience in home construction, would you just go out and start without first learning the things that need to be done?

To continue the analogy, you have built a house without laying a foundation and the house fell down, and you are now here to ask us to help you build it properly when you are the one being paid. We're here for free. Can you see why this is unfair?

The point is- you should have figured out how to properly write an article before offering your services for payment, or at least, you should have done so before actually submitting a draft. My advice would be that you return any money you were given and explain to the client that you got in over your head by prematurely attempting to write about them. Yes, this may be embarrassing, but if you can't do what you promised, you shouldn't accept their money. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

23:45, 24 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41698-75

• ~2026-41698-75 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of auto advertising characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It involves characters of car care. ~2026-41698-75 (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You would need to show that this topic is itself notable- meaning there is critical analysis and commentary about it- before there can be a list article about it. See WP:NLIST. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

August 25

00:20, 25 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46355-89

• ~2026-46355-89 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Closed captions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Closed captions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I attempted to make an article for a mixtape titled "closed captions" by one of my favorite rappers, Che, and you rejected it. Sorry I kind of don't know what I am doing this is my first time doing this. ~2026-46355-89 (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is not recommended as the first thing a new user does. Please use the new user tutorial.

A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like WP:NALBUM. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

00:46, 25 August 2026 review of submission by Likes4Robot

• Likes4Robot (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:NAVER LABS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I rewrote about this draft from scratch (without using AI) so I was wondering what should I do next to get this draft published Likes4Robot (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I see you did an extensive rewrite and removed a lot of junk. The thing to do now is appeal to the rejecting reviewer Sulfurboy to allow the draft to be resubmitted. However, the excessive product listing comes across as a corporate brochure intended for promotion, and would not be accepted in its present form. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Anachronist I see no reason to overturn the rejection. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the reply. I found out that I listed every products that I could find on the internet, so I edited the draft. This time, I only leaved the things that I'm interested in(mainly about the robot system and robot foundation model. Those are the reason I'm writing the draft.)

However, as I'm not used to writing wikipedia, I understand that my edit could be unavailable. If it is not accepted, could you provide specific feedback on the remaining adjustments required? Clear instructions would be greatly appreciated to help fix the draft accurately. Likes4Robot (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Likes4Robot.

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.

(Yes, I realise I haven't directly answered your question. But in all honesty, I don't think that any direct answer would be helpful to you until you have learnt more about how Wikipedia works.) ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

02:45, 25 August 2026 review of submission by Ramezsabat64

• Ramezsabat64 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ramezsabat64/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why my company name wasent apprroved Ramezsabat64 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Ramezsabat64/sandbox is blank, so there is nothing to review. GGOTCC 02:53, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

02:54, 25 August 2026 review of submission by XPSUP

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

@Quxyz - Edit submissions from my colleague (Crispbiscuit) were denied on 6 August 2026 due to lack of secondary sources that meet required criteria. We hope to receive additional information and advice about which sources are not meeting criteria and the reasoning behind them, as we believe these to be credible, reliable, and independent secondary sources. Can you guide us with additional clarity about the sources so that we are more prepared with the right sources for a future submission? Thank you. XPSUP (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You used an AI as an author, which is prohibited. All you can do is start from scratch, writing only what the sources say.

As to the quality of the sources, see WP:CORPTRIV and WP:CORPROUTINE. For companies, it isn't enough that the sources are credible, reliable, and independent. Trivia and routine coverage, as well as interviews, don't count toward notability. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding on, for any source to contribute to notability is that sources have to meet all requirements in order to count. One issue could lead to a source being written off. Also, I would consider this essay. It might be better to do a traditional marketing technique than to try pushing through an article on Wikipedia. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

03:52, 25 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46334-84

• ~2026-46334-84 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:VICETA WANG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I was wondering if I could have further information on what type of sources I need to publish a VICETA WANG company page? ~2026-46334-84 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:GOLDENRULE and WP:NCORP Sulfurboy (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

05:35, 25 August 2026 review of submission by SoniaSamtaniPLUG

• SoniaSamtaniPLUG (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:SoniaSamtaniPLUG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

My draft for User:SoniaSamtaniPLUG was recently declined by Theroadislong. The feedback stated that my current references do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (specifically, lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources).

As a newer editor, I want to make sure I am doing this correctly before I try to resubmit. I would greatly appreciate some guidance:

Reviewing current sources: Are there any sources currently in my draft that do meet the criteria? Knowing what to keep would be a huge help.

Checking new sources: I have found a few new sources that I believe might prove notability. Before I spend time rewriting the draft, could someone tell me if these count as "significant, independent coverage"?

https://www.sassyhongkong.com/that-bride-sonia-samtani/ https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/article/1878533/hong-kong-hypnotherapist-unlocks-power-subconscious-help-change-lives https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/article/2172132/scared-turtles-petrified-pigeons-how-phobias-happen-and https://hk.asiatatler.com/society/tatler-house-stories-wellness-advocates https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/article/3166650/why-you-should-learn-love-yourself-how-cancer-diagnosis

Thank you so much for your time and help! SoniaSamtaniPLUG (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use an WP:LLM to talk to us. You are a paid editor and as such agreed to understand and abide by our policies. Writing an AI generated article and then asking questions about it using an LLM is not the way to go. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

07:35, 25 August 2026 review of submission by Erninformation

• Erninformation (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Iona Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The proposal cites 2 reviews of the subjects work in peer-reviewed journals. Do we need to submit about 4 reviews of this calibre in all in order to have the page accepted? Thanks Erninformation (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Erninformation: you need to demonstrate by way of reliable sources that this person is notable either via the general WP:GNG guideline or one of the subject-specific ones, such as WP:CREATIVE.

You also need to support the draft contents throughout with inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently you have all the citations at the end, and at least one of them is not considered reliable or independent, being an interview of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Erninformation (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. I think so far there are about 3 items in the Page that meet the criteria of independent secondary sources that discuss the subject's work in detail: 2 reviews of their books in peer-review journals and 1 Abcrit article that discusses their work in detail. Would you agree with this? I presume the article is rejected because more of the same is needed and this is not enough? How many more serious articles would enable it to quality? Any insight into this would be interesting and if this is the case I will wait/collect more relevant criteria as and when it appears. Thanks Erninformation (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional threads. There should be an "edit" link in the header. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Erninformation.

Reviews of her books may contribute to establishing that the books are notable, but unless they contain significant coverage of her (that does not come from a blurb or press release) they will not contribute to establishing that she is notable. ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok good.But surely any theorist is not going to have their personality as the centre of attention as say a singer or an actress? Erninformation (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

That's fine though. I don't think there's anything much else to add to the page so you can delete it when you wish. Thanks. Erninformation (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

13:56, 25 August 2026 review of submission by Spondoolix

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

I have had a draft declined, and I'm trying to edit. Some of the footnotes (right side of screen) contain red items which I assume are errors. The left side of the screen contains the draft, but doesn't show the footnotes, so I am unable to edit them. How can I fix the footnotes?

Spondoolix Spondoolix (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Spondoolix. I recommend you use the Visual Editor which is a bit like Microsoft Word and much easier to use, it can also generate references for you automatically if supplied with an URL.

Please see Wikipedia:VisualEditor for how to enable it and a guide (the specific tutorial for referencing is at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1). qcne (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Spondoolix. Do you have a connection with All-Tag? Please note that if you have a connection, then you have a conflict of interest, and need to be aware of what the consequences of that are. If you are in any way paid or employed by or on behalf of the corporation (even if creating a Wikipedia article about it is not specifically part of your job) then Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor and it is mandatory to make a formal declaration of this, preferably on your user page (see that link for how to).

On the assumption that you do have such a connection, I urge you to read WP:BOSS and WP:PAIDADVICE. What you are trying to do is probably impossible (most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about them is possible.)

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Your draft reads like what the company wants people to know about it. That is what Wikipedia calls promotional, and is forbidden. To successfully write an article about All-Tag (assuming the independent sources exist which makes that possible) you will need to forget everything you know about the corporation, and write a summary of what the independent sources say, good, bad or ugly. Most employees cannot do this successfully.

Your current citations fail because you have the URL wrong (you are missing the https:// part); but it doesn't look to me as if any of your sources contribute to establishing notability: the ones published by All-tag aren't independent, and the journal ones from their titles are about the subject rather than about the company (I may be wrong about that, as I haven't looked at the actual sources). ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

ColineFine:I have been instructed by All-Tag to withdraw this draft. Is this possible? They would like to reserve the right to try again at some future point. You are correct that I am associated with All-Tag. The company is a consulting client of mine. The President saw the entries by Checkpoint Systems and Sensormatic and wished to have an article that was similar to those. Surely, those two Wikipedia entries are just as promotional as the All-Tag draft. If there is anything further that I need to do to remove the All-Tag draft, please advise me, and explain the process. Spondoolix Spondoolix (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Spondoolix. Did you not see the warning templates on both Checkpoint Systems and Sensormatic articles, the former stating that it was too promotional? We are a volunteer project so no one has gotten around to improving or deleting them yet. I will request deletion of the draft for you. qcne (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Qcne: Thank you for requesting the deletion. Would I get a notification when it happens? Spondoolix Spondoolix (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

No, but it should be shortly. qcne (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw the “promotional” notice on the Checkpoint page, but the fact is that they got it published. How did that happen? Spondoolix ~2026-46455-46 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't "published", it was created directly in 2008 (by a now banned editor!) and so didn't go through any kind of approval process. Back in 2008 our standards were much more lax. There is no way this article would have been accepted if it came through the drafting process today. Unfortunately we have tens of millions of articles and a large amount of them simply are not very good. We have a very limited number of volunteer editors to identify and fix these. qcne (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

14:22, 25 August 2026 review of submission by StormL00ver

• StormL00ver (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2026 Akçamezra Tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft got rejected and I dont know which part should I improve ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 14:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This İs the draft link:Draft:2026 Akçamezra Tornado ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 14:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The header links to the draft. 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.

The reviewer noted thar your sources are contemporary news reports; are there any sources that provide a more historical look and analysis? 331dot (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

No, Atleast I Couldnt Find any. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 14:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

But it was the largest and the strongest tornado to happen on Turkey and Syria So I think it deserves an article.Even ESWD confirmes it ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 14:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

If it's the strongest tornado in a particular country, there needs to be some discussion about it from a historical perspective, or long term effects it had, such as improved disaster planning, new laws or policies, rebuilding efforts, etc. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

There is,it is listed in the Impact and Aftermath part of the draft ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

No, @StormL00ver, that talks about the immediate response, not about the long-term consequences - because those are not yet visible. ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.ensonhaber.com/mayis-ayinda-turkiyeyi-214-meteorolojik-felaket-vurdu-h1543513 does this count and does this increase notability? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 14:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

14:24, 25 August 2026 review of submission by Danielmarxguitar

• Danielmarxguitar (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daniel Marx (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would anyone help me by checking notability of my sources? Classical Guitar Magazine, Music Web International, Resmusica, Süddeutsch Zeitung and more are all covering the subject independently. Thanks in advance! Danielmarxguitar (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to start with getting the hang of identifying the sources. Are they (1) independent of Marx/you, are they considered (2) reliable, and is the coverage (3) significant about Marx/you. And make sure not to touch LLMs at all, as there's no faster way to get declined. I'd argue that Marx/you (please make sure to disclose your COI on your user page if you have a COI) may be notable under MUSICBIO#5, as Naxos is one of the most important labels in classical music along with Hyperion and Chandos. (I have the Telemann bassoon/guitar recording by the way).

Once you have a good draft, ping your last reviewer (Sulfurboy) and see if he's willing to consider it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping! That sounds reasonable! Danielmarxguitar (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

16:51, 25 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46302-84

• ~2026-46302-84 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Melissa Parmenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to check something to see if something is reliable ~2026-46302-84 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay- so what is your question? 331dot (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

17:36, 25 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46427-24

• ~2026-46427-24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:YouTube Algorithm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How is this contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? Can you please elaborate so I can learn from this? ~2026-46427-24 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see the comments left by the reviewer below the rejection notice. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-46427-24. Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

20:27, 25 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46462-55

• ~2026-46462-55 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Come Home Charlie and Face Them (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

British television crime period drama miniseries from 1990 ~2026-46462-55 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

And as the concerns of reviewers were unaddressed, the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

August 26

00:26, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Tyrowiki00

• Tyrowiki00 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kodiak AI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m seeking an independent second opinion on Draft:Kodiak AI and guidance on the appropriate process for reconsideration.

I have a disclosed paid COI with the subject and am not asking anyone to bypass AfC or the previous AfD.

The draft was previously declined with the specific concern that routine partnership coverage did not establish organizational notability. It was subsequently substantially revised, with unsupported material removed, citations re-audited, and partnership/announcement sources retained only where needed to verify individual historical facts.

The revised draft was submitted again on July 10 and rejected approximately four hours later by a different reviewer as non-notable. The rejection did not include a source-specific explanation.

Before making any further changes, I’d appreciate independent views on whether the current source set is capable of satisfying WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. In particular, the sources I believe deserve the closest consideration are:

• Fast Company, August 2023 — substantial feature coverage of Kodiak’s autonomous-driving technology and sensor architecture.
• TechCrunch, July 2024 — substantial reporting and analysis focused on Kodiak’s commercial strategy and driverless industrial operations.
• The New York Times, September 2022, together with The Washington Post, March 2024 — broader feature reporting in which Kodiak receives substantial treatment.

There are additional independent sources in the draft, but I have intentionally not listed routine funding, partnership, or customer announcements here because I understand those do not establish notability by themselves.

My questions are:

1. Do the strongest sources in the current draft provide the kind of independent, significant coverage required by WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH? 2. If they do, what is the appropriate process for reconsidering a draft that has been marked “rejected,” particularly given the prior AfD? 3. If they do not, I’d appreciate understanding specifically what is missing from the existing coverage so that we do not continue revising or resubmitting without addressing the underlying issue.

I’ve also asked the rejecting reviewer directly for clarification/reconsideration. I’m posting here separately to understand the broader AfC/community view and the correct procedural path. Tyrowiki00 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. If you are using AI because you aren't confident in your English language skills or your knowledge of Wikipedia's processes, don't worry; we don't expect people to be perfect at either of those, just try your best to communicate with us in your own words. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tyrowiki00 A perfect example of the problems with using AI; you have said I have a disclosed paid COI with the subject but you have in fact made no such disclosure. Athanelar (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, Athanelar. I did not mean to offend by using AI to try to gain some semblance of understanding of how Wikipedia works behind the scenes, and I certainly wasn’t trying to slip anything past anyone. Again, I’m purely trying to talk the talk, get to the bottom of what’s going on, and understand how it can be remedied. Wikipedia is beyond unfamiliar to me. Tyrowiki00 (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons it's recommended for inexperienced editors to not jump directly into creating articles. There's a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and it take time and effort to grasp even the basics of how this project runs. You should read WP:BOSS; if your boss asked you to create this article, they put you in a similar position as asking you to fly a plane without flying lessons or to do complex electrical work without the training an electrician requires. Now, the consequences are obviously less severe, but the bar for professionalism here is set quite high. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tyrowiki00 It's also worth noting that you're stsnding on the shoulders of another paid editor who failed at creating this exact same article. That editor failed for a reason, it's the same reason you will fail. See WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition, if Wikipedia is beyond unfamiliar to [you] why on Earth are you accepting payment in return for editing here? I will never understand why people think this is acceptable. I assume you would never have someone pay you to do plumbing when you've never plumbed before, to program their entire website having never done any web design, or to paint them a portrait having never picked up a brush, so why is it that you (and so many others) think "Sure, I'll accept this job and figure it out later" when it comes to Wikipedia? Does your client know you're charging them for a task you have zero experience in and zero idea how to accomplish? Remarkable. Athanelar (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar @CoffeeCrumbs I think there’s a misunderstanding here that I want to clear up. I am not a paid Wikipedia editor or consultant, and I am not accepting payment from a client to create or manage this page. I’m an employee of Kodiak, which is the COI I have now disclosed.

I also did not create the original article. We previously worked with someone who was supposed to understand this process, and that effort clearly did not go well. Since then, the focus has been on trying to understand what went wrong, correct the sourcing and other issues that were raised, and follow the appropriate process transparently.

I created this account because I am having an extremely difficult time figuring out how to get legitimate guidance from the Wikipedia community. I’m not pretending to be an experienced editor. Quite the opposite. I came here explicitly asking for help because I don’t understand the system and wanted to hear directly from people who do.

What I’m still trying to understand is the substantive issue. What specifically about the current independent sources fails Wikipedia’s notability standard? That’s the question I’m hoping someone can help me answer. If the sources don’t meet the standard, I’d genuinely like to understand why. If there is a different process I should be following, I’d like to understand that too.

I’m not trying to game Wikipedia or force an article through. I’m trying to understand what the legitimate path is. Tyrowiki00 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The important thing that you need to relay to your employer is that it isn't going to happen. It's as simple as that. The precise reasoning as to why it's not going to happen is irrelevant, because there is no effort from your side that will be able to change the fact that your company doesn't meet our definition of a notable company. Continuing to press the issue only wastes both your time and ours. The article has already twice failed the test, first when it was deleted for lack of notability and secondly when it has now been rejected for the same. It has been reviewed by many editors, and the consensus from the community has been that your company does not meet the requirements for an article here. There is no process for you to follow, there is no "legitimate path," the path bas come to an end and your company will not have an article on this encyclopedia any time soon. Athanelar (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

09:16, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Saiya Sharif

• Saiya Sharif (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hazrat Baba Godri Badshah. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone please give me some advice on what I should change and what sources I should use? I’ve searched everywhere I can think of, but I couldn’t find as many reliable sources as I was hoping for. Saiya Sharif (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, @Saiya Sharif. The draft has been rejected and this topic simply isn't suitable for Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Saiya Sharif: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, thus making your question somewhat redundant.

I notice there is a lot of unreferenced content in this draft, and many of the sources cited seem less than reliable – where does all the information come from, if, as you say, you haven't found sufficient reliable sources to base this on? Wikipedia articles are not meant to be written by you describing things you know or believe, but rather by summarising what reliable sources have previously published. That is clearly not the case with this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of the information came from someone who is part of Baba Godri Badshah’s family lineage, as these details have been passed down through the family from generation to generation. I understand that I still need independent published sources to support it for Wikipedia. Saiya Sharif (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You cannot have oral information in a Wikipedia article, because we cannot verify it. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

11:17, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Izumi Hsieh

• Izumi Hsieh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hyperbolic Rosen-Morse potential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I have provided a short article about a topic in order to contribute to the encyclopedia. The submission was rejected after being considered a "duplicate". My mentioned submission dates from July 3rd, 2026. The article mentioned in the review, which my draft is supposedly a duplicate, was created on August 17th, 2026, therefore AFTER my submission.

While it's perfectly understandable that editors might want to categorize a subject under a different name, writing another article, submitting it and getting it approved before the first one, and rejecting the first article claiming it's a duplicate is extremely unprofessional and offensive to a first-time contributor.

Thus, I believe you understand my motivations when I state that I don't have any intention of reworking my article or contributing to the existing one. Izumi Hsieh (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping @Aeon Sentinel} qcne (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Izumi Hsieh The point is that the article Epstein profile already exists in mainspace. It's not about which page was created first, it's just that we don't review drafts which duplicate existing mainspace articles, even if the draft came first. I understand this is frustrating to you; but it would be just as frustrating to the other person if we were to decide that your draft is 'better' and replace their mainspace article with your draft, right?

Besides, nobody owns any article, and there's no status or privilege for the person who just so happens to create it first. We're all here to build the same encyclopedia; so it doesn't matter whether "your" draft or "theirs" is the first one to go to mainspace; both of you should work together to create the best possible article. Athanelar (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I just read the article about ownership you linked. One part says "Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them".

That's all I'm asking here. If the draft was good enough to move to mainspace, why not simply accept it and edit it there? Why wait almost two months, writing another article and reject it when the other is up? Izumi Hsieh (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Izumi Hsieh. You seem to be implying some sort of conspiracy that doesn't exist. You submitted your draft into the review pile - there were (at the time) 5,000 unreviewed drafts and drafts are reviewed in no particular order by a limited number of volunteer reviewers. The Epstein profile article was written by an editor who likely never saw your draft- they work on mainly mathematical topics and it was probably that this topic was just the next one they wanted to write. qcne (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Good day!

I understand that may be frustrating, but well, these things happen sometimes. I need to underline, that the article was not considered a mere "duplicate" by me, it is well written and I would have accepted it, but the existence of the article on the same topic in the mainspace prohibits me from doing so. I am pretty sure that both you and the creator of the Epstein profile did not know about one another's work and created them independently.

From the point of view of an AfC editor, I must say that while we are quite a populated WikiProject, sometimes the drafts go unreviewed for a long time - some go 3+ month without a review! And while we are trying our best, we still are a volunteer group...

Thank you for your great work on the draft. I hope I can stumble upon one of your drafts again sometime and be the one to accept it.

I am wishing you all the best. Happy editing!

Sincerely,
Aeon Sentinel (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

11:49, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Waleskasantiagomarques

• Waleskasantiagomarques (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Free Speech Film Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created a page on Wikipedia, but it was declined. I'm confused about the reason for the rejection, as I provided reliable news sources and information that I believed were sufficient. Can anyone here help me double-check my page? Waleskasantiagomarques (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping @Vestrian24Bio} qcne (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Waleskasantiagomarques.

Which of your sources are examples of somebody with no connection to the Festival choosing to write in some depth about the Festival (not about what happened at particular occasions, but about the Festival itself)?

Looking at the titles, it appears to me that most of the sources are routine reports of things that happened or were due to happen - that is not what the core of the article should be about.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

But your draft reads very much more like what the Festival's organisers want people to know about it. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

12:10, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Aidenbalzan

• Aidenbalzan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nexa Channel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why? Aidenbalzan (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote your Roblox game. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

13:49, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Caprimul

• Caprimul (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Steffen Krebber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I would appreciate a second opinion on the notability assessment of Draft:Steffen Krebber.

An earlier AfC review indicated that the draft needed multiple independent, reliable secondary sources providing substantial coverage. I subsequently added several such sources, including coverage in *Neue Zeitschrift für Musik*, *neue musikzeitung*, *Positionen* and material related to the German Record Critics’ Award.

The most recent review declined the draft with the comment: “Seems to not be solved or fixed as of review.”

Could someone please clarify which of the added sources are considered insufficient for establishing notability, and why? In particular, I would be grateful for an assessment of whether the current sourcing meets the requirements of WP:GNG, or what specific type of additional coverage would still be needed.

Thank you.

Caprimul (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

In particular, I would be grateful for an assessment of whether the current sourcing meets the requirements of WP:GNG. You have been given that assessment multiple times. It is up to you to choose to listen or not. Please do not use LLMs to talk for you, and, for your own sake, do not outsource your judgement to LLMs. guninvalid (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

14:44, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Diginin74

• Diginin74 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Znuny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Znuny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know what to do here. I've scoured all the resources I can find. We live word to mouth, and have not had much contact with outside sources for press releases and reviews. How can I get this article published? Diginin74 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this, there can be no Wikipedia article about it.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

15:33, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Fancy45611

• Fancy45611 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David Fennessy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looking for a second opinion. This draft for composer David Fennessy has been declined twice on GNG/notability grounds, both times with the standard boilerplate text and no specific source-by-source feedback.

Current sourcing: a Guardian review of a 2025 opera revival (Clive Paget), a Gramophone review of a 2019 album (Arnold Whittall), a VoxCarnyx review of a 2023 orchestral premiere (Ken Walton), and a Scotsman year-end piece naming the same premiere among the season's highlights (also Ken Walton). All four are independent critics with no connection to the subject, and each engages with a specific work in some detail rather than a passing mention.

Draft: Draft:David Fennessy

Is the issue that these are reviews of individual works rather than profiles of Fennessy himself? Or is it the Walton byline appearing twice? Trying to understand what would actually move this forward rather than resubmit without knowing what to change. Thanks for any input. Fancy45611 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. If you are using AI because you aren't confident in your English language skills or your knowledge of Wikipedia's processes, don't worry; we don't expect people to be perfect at either of those, just try your best to communicate with us in your own words. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not using AI for my responses. Can I get some clarification on the reason for this article's decline? Fancy45611 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you describe what exactly is unclear from the decline message? 331dot (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the sources should be critical analysis and commentary about him personally, not his works. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

More specifically, the notability guideline applicable here is WP:COMPOSER. Which of the criteria listed does this composer meet, and why? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

16:30, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Cheese liker greg

• Cheese liker greg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Asthma Kittie vs Dancing Toothless War Slideshow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there any way to add reliable sources to this? Cheese liker greg (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. This isn't suitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

16:49, 26 August 2026 review of submission by ZH StrataComms

• ZH StrataComms (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fusion Connect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I’m hoping someone can provide some guidance on a draft I’ve been working on for Fusion Connect. For transparency, I have a disclosed conflict of interest and am working on behalf of the company, so I’ve been using the Articles for Creation process. The draft was initially declined, after which I significantly revised it, removing a substantial amount of company-provided information, removing weaker or less relevant sources, tightening the article, and adding stronger independent third-party sources to address the notability concerns. The revised draft was declined again on GNG grounds, quite literally within seconds of resubmission. Given the extent of the changes, the speed of the review made me unsure whether I’m misunderstanding something more fundamental about the sourcing. I asked the reviewing editor for clarification on which sources they felt were insufficient, but haven’t received a response. Before making further changes or resubmitting, I’d really appreciate another experienced editor taking a look and helping me understand whether the current sourcing is sufficient and, if not, what specifically is still missing. I’m not looking to circumvent the previous review, just hoping to better understand what needs to change. Thank you for any guidance! ZH StrataComms (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZH StrataComms: it took me about ten seconds to scan the sources cited, and conclude that they are mostly routine business reporting, plus a couple of others, none of which contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP. Hence I concur with the decline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and for the clarification on WP:NCORP. That's helpful context. ZH StrataComms (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Please look at WP:CORPROUTINE. While such sources may be reliable and independent, routine coverage doesn't count toward notability. WP:SIRS describes the kind of sources required. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE as well. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

19:23, 26 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46525-10

• ~2026-46525-10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DrDonut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is hes name

~2026-46525-10 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Your draft has no relevant sources at all. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

23:02, 26 August 2026 review of submission by Anthony71166

• Anthony71166 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Anthony Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Anthony Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I’m looking for ways to improve my article Anthony71166 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. I suggest that you focus on your football career. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

August 27

00:44, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Thuvard

• Thuvard (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Southern Aviator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article about the existence and history of The Southern Aviator magazine is a complete and accourate account of the publication that was highly popular in the late 80s though mid-2000s. SOme unknown editor deemed it incorrect, but I spent a lot of time with detailing sources. It was a real and important new vehicle for General Aviation and had national impact. I would like to have a different person review it and accept it. It is a real thing! Thuvard (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't deemed "incorrect", it was deemed as LLM-generated, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. To top that off, you resubmitted it without even trying to address the concerns. The community isn't going to waste time on AI slop, no matter how accurate or important you think it is. You're wasting the community's valuable time. Blow it up and start over, writing it yourself without using an AI as an author or co-author. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

03:38, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Acupoflatte

• Acupoflatte (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Travelodge Hotels Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted my draft a few times but it keeps getting rejected. I've tried to improve the coverage and use reliable sources. However, the subject i'm writing right now has less independent media/news articles than press release. What should I do to make a successful publication? Thanks. Acupoflatte (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If you cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS, then the topic cannot have a standalone article on Wikipedia. If you remove all the noncompliant sources and write about what's in the sources that remain, and it's a small amount of information, it may be best to merge the content into the Travelodge article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)