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 14

03:42, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Cornelius Singleton

• Cornelius Singleton (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Corneliusknock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I didn't write this article myself.I'm just submitting it. Cornelius Singleton (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cornelius Singleton The draft has been created by your account. Are you not the only person using this account? Athanelar (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, since the draft was G15'd... —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

06:16, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Jmtesla

• Jmtesla (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dancalan FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why it was declined? give me the reason so that i can fix it

Jmtesla (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Because you submitted an AI written article three times with zero references. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

06:36, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Sangeetha Varma

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

I didn't get the reason for rejection of my draft. How to meet the criteria for publishing? Sangeetha Varma (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Please click all of the blue links given in the decline notice at the top of your draft, mainly WP:NBIO. Those links contain all the information about the relevant criteria. Athanelar (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

11:16, 14 August 2026 review of submission by LifeHealthcare

• LifeHealthcare (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:LIFE Pharmacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft declined in review, kindly help to get it approved LifeHealthcare (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@LifeHealthcare Did you read any of the links I left in the decline notice? qcne (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, i read it. all those links are related to the content mentioned in the draft. Kindly advise and help me to correct the draft. LifeHealthcare (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

If you read the guidance you will know you have not evidenced how this company meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

11:18, 14 August 2026 review of submission by SAED SAIMEH

---

Saed Saimeh The World's International Master Chef Scientist And The Owner Ceo Of Elekxtreme International Restaurant Chains Saed Saimeh was Born In Jeddah In Ksa , He Studied Financial Sciences , After He Graduated He Began Pursuing The Dream Of Becoming The World's Master Chef Scientist , He Began Studying In Culinary Arts School Apprenticeship At The Same time , He Started Working In Top Teir Restaurants Chains And Luxury Hotels In Istanbul International City In Turkey . Finally He Began To Open His International Brand Elekxtreme And Inventing New Workouts Dishes And The Secret Of Food Science In Culinary Arts World .

Its Real True And In All Newspapers In The World In All Countries . References   SAED SAIMEH (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@SAED SAIMEH We do not allow spam on Wikipedia. Stop trying to submit this. qcne (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

13:13, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Jamesburden

• Jamesburden (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Botrus Mansour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Botrus Mansour was declined on 3 August by guninvalid, on two grounds: LLM-generated content, and insufficient independent secondary sourcing. I'd like some guidance before putting more work into it.

On the LLM point, the reviewer was right. The version reviewed had some AI assistance. I hadn't appreciated at the time that this breaches policy outright. Any replacement text will be written from scratch by a human author.

I have a declared conflict of interest, disclosed on my user page — I'm an independent contractor for the World Evangelical Alliance, of which the subject is Secretary General.

On notability, I've gone back through the sourcing and I think the assessment holds. What exists falls into three categories: interviews and Q&As where he is the speaker; appointment coverage across multiple outlets that traces back to a single organisational press release; and reporting on the 2015 Christian schools strike in Israel where he is one of several quoted stakeholders rather than the subject. I don't think that combination meets all three criteria, and I'd rather establish what would before continuing.

Two routes I can see are independent published reviews of his two books (Paraclete Press, 2021; Hope Publishing House, 2011), which I haven't located so far, and Hebrew or Arabic-language coverage that I'm not equipped to assess myself. Would either of those, if they turned up something substantial, be the right thing to pursue? And is there a category of source I should be looking for that I've missed?

I'd be very grateful for any steer. Jamesburden (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jamesburden You wrote the above with an AI chatbot too. How incredibly disrespectful when even the chatbot you used agrees this breaches our policy. qcne (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jamesburden: 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.
4. 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. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

14:49, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Josephlcameron

• Josephlcameron (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brach Eichler LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Our draft was recently declined, and I need further clarity on why that is so we can correct the submission. I've input all of the instructions and qualifications into AI to make sure our submission met all qualifications, and was told that our current submission meets the guidelines for approval. Josephlcameron (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I suspect it may be your sources.

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• https://www.roi-nj.com/2020/01/29/law/what-a-difference-a-decade-makes-for-brach-eichler-which-epitomizes-todays-thriving-regional-law-firms/ is borderline, leaning towards good. The source seems to be covering both the firm and the COVID-related insanity at once, but leans more toward covering the firm.
• I can't assess https://njbmagazine.com/special-sections/anniversary-milestones/firm-continues-growth-5-years-going-alone/ (technical barrier). I'm getting 504 (Gateway time-out) errors whenever I try to load the website.
• We can't use https://briefglance.com/ (website homepage). That is the exact link the source points to, and suggests this source is hallucinated. And now that I'm seeing a hallucinated source, the rest of the draft becomes suspect.
• We can't use https://chambers.com/law-firm/brach-eichler-llc-usa-5:81202 (connexion to subject). The "Overview" blurb is uncredited and uses the first-person, meaning it was written by one of Brach Eichler's PR men or otherwise dictated by the company.
• We can't use https://patch.com/new-jersey/livingston/brach-eichler-marks-50th-anniversary (no editorial oversight). The article has an op-ed disclaimer. (This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.)
• https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70_wolfblock_lawyers_find_new_homes seems okay.
• We can't use https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/brach-eichler-talks-law-legal-insights-from-lawyers/id1708302603 (connexion to subject). Note this assessment is for the podcvast specifically regardless of where it is published.

You have one unambiguously usable source, one borderline source, and one source which seems to be glitching up. Of your unusable sources, one of them appears to be LLM-generated, which raises serious questions as to the provenance of the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm able to get into the NJB Magazine one, and when I click on the PDF that shows the original form of this page that was printed in the magazine , I see "advertisement" on the bottom of their printed page. So definitely not a source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Why are you trusting an AI over human reviewers? It does not meet the requirements due to a lack of Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Don't trust the mindless AI machine. qcne (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I would certainly think given the fairly severe sanctions that law firms have been receiving from courts for using LLM-based filings, something which most lawyers have been talking a lot about these days, there would be extra care to not outsource thought to a chatbot here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

14:55, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Creativeinfo

• Creativeinfo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Raju Baviskar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was previously declined because the sources did not adequately establish the subject’s notability and did not clearly demonstrate how he meets WP:NARTIST. I have revised the draft using independent sources, including Hindustan Times, Loksatta, and coverage of his 2023 painting exhibition. I have also disclosed on my user page that Raju Baviskar is my family member. I am requesting an independent editor’s advice on whether the revised draft now meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and what further improvements are needed. Creativeinfo (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft was rejected, which means it won't be reviewed again, you have added a number of external links and press releases, you need to read WP:REFB to learn how to reference correctly and start agin from scratch. Theroadislong (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping @Athanelar} qcne (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

16:24, 14 August 2026 review of submission by ABehjat

• ABehjat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:No Mana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What's the best pathway to receive second opinion for a given article?

I noticed the AfC editor has made some interesting declines of numerous articles on the basis of lacking notability - including historic events and individuals such as Draft:Xiang Jiada, 16th century Qing dynasty scholar (citation is drawing on content from https://www.shidianguji.com - which is a collaboration by ByteDance and Peking University to digitize historical books), Draft:Siege_of_Baghdad_1508 claimed as lacking independent coverage (it includes tertiary coverage that needs better formatting and clearly a sign of a junior Wiki editor learning that needs help with citation building/syntax/formatting), and a TV show that has Amazon MGM Production backing with reasonable sources Draft:Boys_of_Tommen.

Anyway, for this artist, he was in mau5trap label (Deadmau5, Rezz, etc), has been called out on the same line as Nero and Deadmau5 in a CBS news in Las Vegas for Electric Daisy Carnival, and has collaborated with EDM giants like Tommy Trash and Wolfgang Gartner.

Perhaps someone who's more familiar with the EDM scene can help out here? ABehjat (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ABehjat! Being familiar with a subject is not required, and indeed not being familiar can be better - the article should be understandable to pretty much anyone, after all. Many reviewers go on wild adventures across many kinds of drafts; I've certainly tackled some very random subjects myself.

Would you mind pointing to your top three sources? A good source meets all three criteria in WP:42, and usually three good sources equals a draft that's likely to be accepted. My quick skim of the sources popped up a lot of interviews, which are not independent, so please immediately discard those from your top three! Meadowlark (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for responding to my question. Interviews are fine within the confines of sourcing personal biographical details like where one lives and such as per WP:IV, and the article only uses those for the personal biographical data or section discussion equipment and tool usage which is common in other articles of performers.

I’m not using interviews as solely the source for transcribing facts. For the whole article as WP:IV warns against. ABehjat (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you're completely correct that you can use interviews; my point is simply that they don't count towards notability, which is your goal here. For a musician, you can use things like reviews of their work (in-depth, in a reliable source, by an independent author), articles discussing their life and work, and so on - you just need those magic three criteria (WP:42) all in a single source to count towards notability. We usually look for three or more sources meeting WP:42 in order to be able to accept a draft, which is why I asked if you could point to your three best. Meadowlark (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I’m AFK at the moment but will circle back. Mixmag, EDM and Nocturnal are few I recall I added. And just recently added CBS news which highlighted headliners Deadmau5, Nero and No Mana ABehjat (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Meadowlark! Hope you had a good weekend!

Following up on this - I added a few more references that I found over the weekend + trimmed more interview sources.

My three best under WP:42 - these are release write-ups and two of the three are from the same outlet (EDM.com). It goes with the advice that was provided It is often easier to prove the notability of an album or artist than an individual song or band member. Pasting from my reference list:

1. Sunkel, Cameron (February 15, 2020). "Mau5trap Artist No Mana Releases Debut Album, Secret Level". EDM.com. - established EDM outlet. I used the writer's own prose with no quotes from the Orcaz.
2. Sani, Niko (September 11, 2021). "No Mana Ushers In the Return of Electro House With "Electromag" Compilation". EDM.com. - dedicated piece on the compilation Orcaz curated for mau5trap, including the writer's own assessment of his standing on the label.
3. Vance, Will (June 6, 2024). "How It Was Made: No Mana – City2City". Magnetic Magazine. - opens with three paragraphs of the writer's own evaluation of his sound and career, independent of anything the subject supplied.
4. Middleton, Ryan (February 14, 2020). "The Director's Cut: No Mana – Secret Level". Magnetic Magazine. is comparable to no. 3 above, with an independent framing section around the artist's track notes.

I re-reviewed WP:MUSICBIO, and one thing I think that was discounted was point number 5: two of No Mana's studio albums were released by two notable independent labels: Secret Level (2020) on mau5trap and I Contain Flashing Images (2024) on Monstercat. That criterion is met by verifiable fact rather than by depth of coverage, and the label relationship is confirmed in Billboard (Feb 2019 and Oct 2019).

Happy to iterate if needed, and thank you again for reviewing my comment!

- ABehjat (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Meadowlark! Sorry for the ping, but just wanted to follow up on our conversation. I recognize this is a volunteer effort, but would appreciate your insight into Draft: No Mana given your expertise in AfC. Thank you again for your time! - ABehjat (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

16:35, 14 August 2026 review of submission by DymonMarketing

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

Hello I would like to put some information about my company on Wikipedia. How do I do that should I consider using a third-party?

I am new to this and if you recommend someone I can send it there.

DymonMarketing (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zahra at Dymon Please read WP:SCAM as a matter of grave importance.

As I said on respomse to your question on my talk page, please read WP:BOSS, and then show it to the person who passed you this poisoned chalice of a task.

This is an encyclopaedia, not a trade directory. Many thousands of companies exist. almost none of which pass our notability threshold. If oyu are one of the very few employees who can write a facuakm neutral, well references daft about your employer, and if it passes WP:NCORP, then you will succeed. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent FYI, your message got a little garbled there near the end. David10244 (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 So it did, bt it was decipherable 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent I finally was able to decipher it after I figured out what "factuakm" was.  :-) I hate typing on a tablet; I mess up a lot and have to fix things.tablet... David10244 (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

16:59, 14 August 2026 review of submission by CD.roms

• CD.roms (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aslam Khan (vocalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am not sure if I am messaging in the right location and thank you for any help. I am not entirely certain why this draft submission has been declined on the basis of notability. I say this because I am comparing the level and types of sources in my draft to those in previously-published articles in the area of Indian classical music. 'Suresh Haldankar', 'Ramarao V. Naik', and 'Jagannathbuwa Purohit' are examples of articles with far fewer sources than this draft, and whose sources either do not provide in-depth discussion of the subject of the article, or are written in arguably hagiographic language by people who are personally connected to the subject. Since those articles are already public while mine has been denied, I am wondering if there is some key difference in the sourcing which I am just not noticing, or if perhaps the article submission policy has become stricter since those were published? So I am writing this really in effort to clear up my own confusion. Thank you for your time. CD.roms (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. 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 an article exists does not necessarily mean that it has been approved by anyone, or that it meets current standards. Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use other random articles as a model or guide for this reason. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles or featured articles. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply which is really quite helpful. (and, to be very clear, I did not use any of those other articles as models for my own.)

Just to put my mind at ease I am honestly still wondering, though, how it is possible that those articles even got through the submission process. Based on my experience it does not seem like it should be possible. Are you telling me there has not been any explicit large-scale shift in the stringency of submission requirements? If that's the case, then did those articles randomly get accepted by some rare volunteer who was feeling particularly generous that day? Or, did they start out as better-quality than they are now, and somehow lose material over time? (I just picked those three particularly egregious examples at random - there are many others which are more less grey-area)

Thanks again and appreciate your time. CD.roms (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an AfC editor, but since I'm passing by:

• AfC is not mandatory, so for many editors (editors that are autoconfirmed with no conflict of interest) the "submission requirement" was and still is zero; poor-quality articles just get deleted afterwards, usually by new pages patrol
• the standards have indeed slowly shifted over time, meaning articles that would have been deleted right-away nowadays could have survived when they were created back then and then slipped through the cracks
• some articles might have been vandalized, but my hunch is that those are rare since the obvious ones are caught very easily

LkL-70547 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a helpful answer and does clarify the situation significantly. I will continue to work on understanding and putting into practice what is expected of good or great articles here. CD.roms (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Articles for Creation wasn't in place in the early days of the project. It didn't come into existence (or at least resemble anything like its current form) until 2011, and wasn't made nigh-mandatory until 2018. Anything published before 2011 is guaranteed to have never seen AfC (barring a recent AfD forcing it to draft) and anything before 2018 isn't guaranteed to have gone thru it. See User:Jéské Couriano/A brief history of AfC for a bit more on the history. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 03:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Interesting reads, and funny to realize I'm one of basically-infinite new users asking variations on the exact same question. You're all probably really tired of this by now, haha. CD.roms (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a reason I wrote that essay. :P —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 06:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It's okay. We'd rather you ask. You are not expected to go through the archives before asking something. Best wishes to you. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

17:26, 14 August 2026 review of submission by BCDresbach

• BCDresbach (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ron Stokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A couple weeks ago, I submitted an article on Ron Stokes (former Ohio State basketball player and current sports radio commentator). My article was declined because the reviewer said there was obvious evidence that the story was written by an LLM. I wrote the article. I did have Chart PGT review it and identify areas where I was probably being too promotional, and I also used Chat GPT to help format the source citations since I had no idea how to do that. During my writing and editing process, I also used other Wikipedia articles (on other players who are now commentators) as a guideline for what Ron's should read like. I'm assuming the LLM notice had to do with the way the source citations were done, because I wrote the article myself. Again, I made some edits to make the article more objective and less promotional based on recommendations from Chat GPT. But even then, I ignored some of the recommendations, and in most cases, I addressed the concern with different wording than what Chat GPT had suggested. But, I'm not here to argue whether or not I used Chat GPT. I'm here to ask what I am supposed to do next. Is there something about the citations that I need to change? Should I write the whole thing again in a more conversational and potentially promotional feel? I'd be more than willing to go through and rewrite it with more personality, but I thought that was discouraged. I'm just looking for some help. Thanks. BCDresbach (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

BCDresbach You need to start over and do the work yourself, and do not use a LLM/AI in any capacity. Trying to remove the influence of a LLM from an article is like trying to remove rat poison from soup. It's possible, but far easier to just start over. LLMs often goes beyond what is asked of them.

Please see WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to Mr. Stokes(or whomever hired you). In short, you are extremely unlikely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest/being paid to do so.

Please review referencing for beginners to learn how to format references. An article does not merely document information, it summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic. This should be critical analysis and commentary about the subject. Please see Your first article. Frankly, these are things you should have done before attempting this effort; as a paid editor you have a fiduciary responsibility to those who hired you or pay you to do your best. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and the links to what seem like some pretty useful pages that I can reference as I'm rewriting this article.

And to clarify, I did write this article by myself, using newspapers and magazines for the sources, as well as the Ohio State Athletic Department's website for statistical information.

My use of the LLM was to help me format the source citations, and also to identify any sentences that might get flagged as "promotional." I now realize this idea was probably not so great. And I'll proceed with my updated draft without that assistance (which proved not so very helpful anyway).

Thanks again. BCDresbach (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm not an AfC editor, but a passerby, but when I reviewed your article I do notice that there's a bit of hallucination/content introduced that's not present in a source. For example: Ron Stokes was recruited to play basketball at numerous colleges across Ohio and the Midwest. He – along with his high school teammate and friend Troy Taylor – chose to attend The Ohio State University. - the provided reference does not highlight any of that information (for some reason it returns blank). Hope this gives some guidance as to how LLM failed in this scenario + everything that @331dot mentioned about paid advice given your COI - ABehjat (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I see how that reference looks like a hallucination. I made the reference to the landing page on Ohio State's website where anyone can click in to see any season or game stats, rosters, etc. I put that as the reference, simply as proof that Ron and Troy were both on the roster the years that I wrote that they were on the roster. I should have linked to an article that talked about their decision to attend Ohio State, not simply a page that confirms that they did. Thank you. (Oddly... I'm not sure why that link is coming up blank for you. Even when I clicked on the link in your note it took me to Ohio State's Men's Basketball History/Records. Hmmm.)

I think my biggest mistake was that for a couple pieces of the story – such as that sentence – I wrote what I (as a fan of Ohio State Basketball) knew to be true, and then went back to find proof that it was true. And I'm seeing that I need to work in kinda the opposite order, even when I know something to be true and relevant to the article's narrative.

Thanks again. BCDresbach (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Anytime! Trust me it takes a while to pick up the learnings and pieces on Wikipedia. The toughest part is placing yourself in the mind of an average Internet reader who has 0 idea about the subject, and you're trying to build that picture up from scratch. One learning that helped me was inverted pyramid writing structure - sometimes it's best to write less and focusing on covering essential notability facts, and then you gradually improve the article (and the core facts that are sourced directly are easier for an AfC to review and approve).

By the way, for the link you shared, it did show a sidebar of records, but as you shared you have to connect the link to exactly the description you provided: does the article mention about the friendship? is this friendship a notable thing to account for? Evidence that they were from the same high school? etc.

All the best in the new draft!

- ABehjat (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@BCDresbach References need to point to specific pages on sites, which support the specific fact(s) from the article. You should not point to a site's home page and leave it to the reader to click around and hunt for the info that backs up the material that's being sourced. I hope this helps explain why that reference needs to be improved. David10244 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate that, thanks. BCDresbach (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@BCDresbach You are welcome. David10244 (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

18:21, 14 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44400-30

• ~2026-44400-30 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Serge Bronstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do qualify for inclusion in wikipedia, I am quite famous in Russia with a large Youtube channel with over 50k subscribers, I have had articles about my projects, sources for which I have included in the wikipedia article. Why does it keep getting rejected? ~2026-44400-30 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

You just told of your activities; instead, we want a summary of critical analysis and commentary about you personally. Please see the autobiography policy; writing about ourselves is highly discouraged, and difficult to succeed at, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

18:56, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Jean-Charles121

• Jean-Charles121 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Beauregard Watches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like more detail about the reasons the draft was declined:

-provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles; -are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; -are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Could you please give me more details about what should be add or removed from the draft

Thank you :) Jean-Charles121 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. In short, you are not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. Most company representatives fail at it, because they are too close to their company to be able to set aside everything they know about it and all materials its puts out, limiting themselves to summarizing independent sources. Are you one of the rare people who can do this? Possibly, but the odds are against it.

You have just told of the routine activities of your company; a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by sources wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as its own importance or a mere description of its activities. Most companies on Earth do not actually meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article, just as most people do not. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

19:23, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Sd0455

• Sd0455 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Mike Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Mike Diamond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

Can you please help me with creating a page for Mike Diamond? I'm a new contributor looking to help out the Wikipedia community, and he's one I realize doesn't have a Wikipedia page, despite his numerous contributions.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4083532/ Sd0455 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sd0455 My earnest advice would be; don't. First spend at least a few weeks and a couple hundred edits learning how Wikipedia works. Writing an article requires a robust understanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, style and processes which you as a brand new editor simply do not have. It's like trying to do a 30 foot high dive before learning to swim. Athanelar (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! I will do that. Sd0455 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I would add to Athanelar's excellent advice that your draft isn't going anywhere. Drafts may be marked for deletion after six months of inactivity, but even if deleted can be restored via WP:REFUND. It will be there when you've obtained more knowledge of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you so much for the advice and helpful context. Appreciate it as a newbie here! Sd0455 (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

19:40, 14 August 2026 review of submission by SunlightSound

• SunlightSound (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Kenneth Brian Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft has now been declined twice for notability, and before resubmitting again I would appreciate specific guidance on the existing sources.

Could an experienced AfC editor please review the sources in Draft Kenneth Brian Band and explain whether references 1 (Tahoe Onstage), 3 (The Austin Chronicle), 10 (Blogcritics), and 11 (MusicRow) count as significant, reliable, independent secondary coverage for WP and/or WP?

If any of those sources do not count toward notability, could you please explain specifically why and what kind of additional source would be needed? I would like to understand what is missing before making further changes or resubmitting the draft again.

Thank you for your help. SunlightSound (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SunlightSound thanks for asking about specific sources. Tahoe Onstage is largely based on press release, what they say about themselves and is also is routine announcement about a show so almost entirely a WP:Primary source and not WP:Independent. Likewise for the Austin Chronicle as it is an interview, Blogcritics is a blog so not a WP:reliable source (see WP:BLOGS) and Music Row is a blurb. In order for a source to help establish notability, it needs to meet all four of the criteria: reliable, secondary, independent and provide in-depth coverage about the topic. In addition, multiple sources meeting that criteria are needed. I hope this helps. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@SunlightSound Your username should not be the name of a company. You'll probably be asked to pick a new username. David10244 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

20:13, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Yousaf Essazai 7

• Yousaf Essazai 7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Yousaf Essazai 7/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please 🥺 Yousaf Essazai 7 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't host profiles of random people. We're an encyclopaedia not a social media website. qcne (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

22:10, 14 August 2026 review of submission by Omniking2100

• Omniking2100 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I was wondering why my article was rejected because of lack of unreliable sources. The content in the article about homosexuality and marriages, is not disputed by scholars and in my talk page[] I did clarify that few of those sources are contested and even so their documentation on homosexuality and relationships is not considered a debate. Omniking2100 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Omniking2100: Fire your LLM. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 03:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

August 15

05:58, 15 August 2026 review of submission by DanielAppiahGH

• DanielAppiahGH (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yomi Boiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please I just add news Ghana article about yomi boiz and got declined. Please should get extra two before they can resubmit or?…please I want to know more about it so that we can fix and resubmit. Thank you DanielAppiahGH (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@DanielAppiahGH You need to demonstrate that the group meets the requirements at WP:NBAND. Athanelar (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

09:55, 15 August 2026 review of submission by Ali Burak Çadırcı (Positive)

• Ali Burak Çadırcı (Positive) (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ali Burak Çadırcı (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just wanted to provide information. Ali Burak Çadırcı (Positive) (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do that on social media. Wikipedia 8s interested in what others say about a topic, not what it says about itself. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

20:28, 15 August 2026 review of submission by Interpol$fsegrg

• Interpol$fsegrg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aditya Roy Bardhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i added references where i got his names but those files onn darkweb so i added news paper articles where his names involved as officer Interpol$fsegrg (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

We can't accept AI generated articles about non-notable subjects. Please see WP:YFA Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

IF I WRITE IT AGAIN THEN IT WILL BE PASSED ? Interpol$fsegrg (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing to suggest the subject is notable, so no, probably not. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

i submitted after edit this time write every words by myself kindly check it and pass it Interpol$fsegrg (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

20:52, 15 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44646-15

• ~2026-44646-15 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:About Dayton Jiang-Keddie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why do you keep on declining my drafts? ~2026-44646-15 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise/promote yourself or others. This would be better suited for Linkedin or other social media sites. We are an encyclopedia, not a billboard. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

21:13, 15 August 2026 review of submission by User055672

• User055672 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dayton Jiang Keddie - About (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why User055672 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

22:01, 15 August 2026 review of submission by R3i7c9e3

• R3i7c9e3 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Rumi Ide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Rumi Ide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted a draft to Wikipedia, but it was rejected and I’ve been asked to resubmit it. Could you please review the revised draft below? R3i7c9e3 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This page is not for submitting a draft. I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended. Using the whole url in the template breaks its function.

You may resubmit the draft by clicking "resubmit" if you have addressed the concerns of the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

August 16

04:19, 16 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44300-90

• ~2026-44300-90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jose Aburto Zolezzi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is it missing? It does have all the 3 criteria, unless I'm misinterpreting something? Thanks so much for any advice! ~2026-44300-90 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44300-90 Which criteria of WP:NARTIST do you suggest your subject meets, and which of the sources in your draft prove it?

If he doesn't meet anything in NARTIST, then which sources do you have which meet all of the points at WP:42 in order to show that he meets the WP:GNG? Athanelar (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

05:58, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Unhingen

• Unhingen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wrath Of My Madness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I really dont understand what to do. I've read the rules about writing an article about a song and single but i just can't understand it. Please tell me directly what the problems are please

Unhingen (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Unhingen If you've read WP:NSONG and are still unable to understand the requirements, you simply might not be the right person to write this article right now, and that's okay. It's expected, even, since you're still very new to Wikipedia and writing articles is probably the most difficult task to accomplish here.

Stick around on Wikipedia editing other articles and learning the basics for a while and come back to creating new articles later when you have a bit more experience and understanding of the requirements. Athanelar (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

07:36, 16 August 2026 review of submission by EditsofDB

• EditsofDB (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Birger Corleis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not know what i need to change exactly. EditsofDB (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you seen the message left by the reviewer, as well as the pages linked therein? 331dot (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

yes but i do not know exactly what each thing is that is wrong.i could speculste and if that is the only option then i will do that and edit what i think needs to be edites but if there is a way to make it nore clear, then i would love to know it. EditsofDB (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You have not shown that this person is either broadly a notable person or more narrowly a notable musician. You have documented their work and activities, but there needs to be sources with critical analysis and commentary about them or their work- about what makes them important/significant/influential. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

09:56, 16 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)

it got declined even i used references ~2026-44648-03 (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-44648-03. You have precisely one citation, which does not even mention the subject.

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.

Unless you can find several sources (articles, papers, chapters of books),which nobody from the station or the railway company was in any way involved in, that contain significant coverage of this station specifically, you will not be able to demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's criteris for notability, and you will be wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Future Utopia

Second opinion requested before resubmitting Draft:Future Utopia I have a disclosed conflict of interest and am using the Articles for Creation process.

Draft:Future Utopia was declined because the reviewer did not think the references clearly established notability under WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG.

I asked for advice here on 5 August, but the question was archived without receiving a reply. I have now placed a source-by-source notability explanation at Draft talk:Future Utopia#Notability under WP:GNG.

The principal sources are substantial independent reviews in The Observer, The Line of Best Fit and Clash. Could an uninvolved editor please advise whether these establish notability for Future Utopia itself, rather than only for the album 12 Questions?

I do not want to resubmit until I understand whether the reviewer's concern has been addressed.

EdwardHopkinsPR (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-reviews, simply re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@EdwardHopkinsPR Wikipedia really isn't the place for PR professionals to ply their trade; please heed WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read WP:PAIDADVICE and understand the concerns surrounding paid advocacy. I have disclosed my professional relationship, kept the article in draft space and used Articles for Creation so that it can be independently reviewed, in accordance with WP:COI and WP:AFC. I will make the employer/client disclosure more explicit on both my user page and the draft talk page before resubmitting. EdwardHopkinsPR (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The content of WP:PAIDADVICE isn't related to any of that. Please actually read the page. Athanelar (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

(ec) That's actually not the gist of what PAIDADVICE says; it says that you're not likely to succeed at writing about your company. Most company representatives fail at it. You're free to attempt it, but the odds you will succeed are low, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You’re right. I misunderstood the page you linked and conflated it with the COI and paid-disclosure guidance. I have now read it properly. Thank you for the correction. EdwardHopkinsPR (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's rather more likely you're using an AI chatbot to talk to us and it's telling you to say nonsense which makes you look foolish; the same way in your initial enquiry you said I have now placed a source-by-source notability explanation at Draft talk:Future Utopia#Notability under WP:GNG. when you have in fact done no such thing.

Please stop using the AI to speak to us. Athanelar (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You also didn't ask a question here on 5 August, but rather put it on the top of your draft. Coincidentally, Athanelar was the one to remove it as being in the wrong place. I will suggest that you might want to have a look at Your First Article, which covers everything a draft needs to be accepted; after reading through that, you should be able to assess your sources and decide whether to prepare your draft for resubmission.

One last note, on the subject of AI/LLMs: they have absolutely no idea what you've done or haven't done, don't understand our policies, and will cheerfully lie to you (and us). Please be aware that there are restrictions on how you can use an AI/LLM on Wikipedia, especially when writing a draft or article. Meadowlark (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

12:50, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Enkh.eerdene

• Enkh.eerdene (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Дахын Готов (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like help changing the title of the draft, as it is in Mongolian and I would like to change it to English. Enkh.eerdene (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The specific title of a draft is not particularly important. If accepted, the draft will be placed at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

14:54, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Sethspielman3030

• Sethspielman3030 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rachel S. Franklin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft has been flagged twice for use AI but the flag is not specific and I'm unsure where traces of AI remain. The first flag of the use of AI was fair, however for this revised draft it is not. I wrote the initial draft, used AI for editing, formatting and citations. After the initial draft was flagged I reread the guidelines for reworked the draft. I'm not sure how to address the problems because it's not clear to me what specifically seems AI generated?

Thanks for your assistance, new to this, still learning.

-SS Sethspielman3030 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI in any way when you reworked the draft? Athanelar (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

No. The revised draft is written by hand, I looked at the diffs and all of the AI generated text is removed. The only text remaining that I did not rewrite entirely by hand below. I was not sure rewriting this is necessary. I am willing to so but my knowledge of available categories is not this comprehensive.

::[[:Category:Living people]] [[:Category:Women geographers]] [[:Category:Population geographers]] [[:Category:Human geographers]] [[:Category:Indiana University Bloomington alumni]] [[:Category:University of Arizona alumni]] [[:Category:Brown University faculty]] [[:Category:Academics of Newcastle University]] [[:Category:United States Census Bureau people]] [[:Category:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society]] [[:Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]] Sethspielman3030 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Not an AfC reviewer, but since I'm stopping by: your draft contains an non-existent category Category:Population geographers, which is one of the AI signs, since AIs are known to hallucinate categories. LkL-70547 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

15:41, 16 August 2026 review of submission by MarcelM777

• MarcelM777 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • == Draft:Kingvention – notability/source question == (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Kingvention – notability/source question

Hello. I have been working on Draft:Kingvention, an article about Kingvention, a Michael Jackson fan convention founded in London in 2015.

The draft has now been declined several times on the basis that the references do not demonstrate sufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

I understand the concern and am not looking to argue with the reviewers. I am trying to understand whether the subject can meet the General Notability Guideline and, if so, what additional sources would be appropriate.

The sources I currently have include:

• Echoes Magazine (2016), which provides a substantial article about Kingvention 2016 and also discusses the inaugural 2015 event.
• The Isle of Thanet News (2019), which independently covers the 2019 Kingvention and its participants.
• Propstore's 2023 article about its participation at Kingvention, although I understand this may not count as independent because Propstore was involved with the event.
• Other coverage from Michael Jackson-related publications, which I understand may not be considered sufficiently independent for establishing notability.

I also have primary sources documenting the individual events, attendance figures, guests and history, but I understand that primary sources do not establish notability.

My question is therefore: does the existing independent coverage appear capable of contributing toward notability, or would the draft require additional independent publications that specifically discuss Kingvention in substantial detail?

I would be grateful for advice before I make another submission, as I do not want to repeatedly resubmit a draft that cannot currently meet the guideline.

Thank you. MarcelM777 (talk) 15:41, 16 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) 15:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and I understand. English is not my first language and I was using Ai as I am struggling to understand the Wikipedia processes.

My main question is about the sources. I understand that the draft was declined because there is not enough independent coverage. I have found an article in Echoes Magazine from 2016, which is specifically about the event and another article in the Isle of Thanet News from 2019. Are these the type of independent sources that can contribute to the approval? I have found many other articles on fan websites that are mentioned within wikipedia, I also found hundreds of videos about the events from influencers in that community. Would that also help or those are not necessary?

Thank you MarcelM777 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Basically, No, @MarcelM777.

For a source to contribute to establishing that the subject is Notable in the way Wikipedia uses the term, it must meet all the criteria in WP:42.

• The Echoes piece, being mostly an announcement of the coming event, is clearly based on a press release and so is not independent. It is possible that the final paragraph about the previous event is independently researched, but it seems much more likely to come from the same press release. In any case, it is not significant coverage.
• Isle of Thanet News hardly says anything about the event, so is not significant coverage.

I haven't looked at the others you mention, because you give good reasons to expect them to not be independent.

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. ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

16:35, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Eliska.rokrok

• Eliska.rokrok (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:BeOak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I would like to ask how to improve the language of this article. I tried to be as objective as possible and always quote sources but it was still declined. I would like help please.

Thank you so much !

Best, Eliška Eliska.rokrok (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. In short, you're not likely to be successful at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is entirely promotional, @Eliska.rokrok. This is not about the particular language you are using: it is because you are doing what you are presumably being paid to do, and writing what the company want people to know.

This is the reverse of your duty as a Wikipedia editor, which is to ignore almost everything the company tells you, and write a summary of what wholly independent commentators have published about the company (and see WP:CORPDEPTH). ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

18:20, 16 August 2026 review of submission by CuratorArchive

• CuratorArchive (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Giorgos Pol. Ioannidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I would appreciate some advice before resubmitting Draft:Giorgos Pol. Ioannidis. The draft was previously declined because the sources were considered insufficient to establish notability through significant independent coverage. I have two print sources which are not available online and I am unsure how best to use them. The first is Despoina Kontonatsiou, “Παιδί, Τρόμος και Βία” (“Child, Terror and Violence”), Trito Mati, issue 182, August 2010, pp. 64–67. The article includes discussion of Ioannidis and his painting on p. 66, together with a reproduction of one of his works. The second is Elisavet Barmpaliou, “Αναζητώντας τη Λύτρωση στη ζωγραφική του Γιώργου Πολ. Ιωαννίδη” (“Seeking Redemption in the Painting of Giorgos Pol. Ioannidis”), Koinoniki Epitheorisi, issue 9, November–December 2014, pp. 56–57. This is a two-page article devoted specifically to his painting and discusses his work, themes and technique. I have the physical copies of both publications and can provide photographs or scans of the relevant pages if needed. There are also institutional sources in the draft documenting works in public collections, including MOMus and the Municipal Art Gallery of Thessaloniki. Would these offline print sources be appropriate for establishing significant independent coverage under WP:GNG? If so, is the bibliographic information in the citations sufficient, or should I provide further information before resubmitting? Thank you for your help. CuratorArchive (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You should provide a description on the draft talk page as to what the offline Greek language sources say, as those are difficult for reviewers to evaulate. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your guidance. I have now added a separate section to the draft talk page describing the three offline Greek-language sources, including the relevant page numbers and a summary of what each source says about Ioannidis.

I have also added the official Municipality of Thessaloniki publication to the draft as a source for the 2000 solo exhibition at Alatza Imaret.

Before resubmitting, I would be grateful for any further guidance on whether the independent sources described on the talk page, together with the other sources already cited in the draft, sufficiently address the previous concerns about significant coverage.

Thank you again for your time and help. CuratorArchive (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

18:33, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Interpol$fsegrg

• Interpol$fsegrg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aditya Roy Bardhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

but previous reviewer told me that subject is ok i just need to work on words why u rejected Interpol$fsegrg (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

18:40, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Ninozam

• Ninozam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nino Zambakhidze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been declined two times i have included as a sourse publications if Forbes BBC and Emerging Europe and no understanding why it is declined can you assist? Ninozam (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy.

Two of the sources are interviews with you, which do not establish notability because they are not independent sources. They are you speaking about yourself. The third source only briefly discusses you and is also an interview. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It is possible that your content would be acceptable on the Georgian Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

18:58, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Tatyoska

• Tatyoska (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Remzi Gokdag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my draft [Draft:Remzi Gokdag] was declined because it appears to contain text generated by a large language model. I want to clarify that the text was written in my own words, based on published sources.

Could you please advise me on how to properly sourced, so that it can be reconsidered? Are there specific changes in style or formatting that would help avoid the impression of LLM-generated text?

Thank you. Tatyoska (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you use a LLM on the draft in any capacity?

The notice at the top of the draft links to some specific areas of concern. LLM is great at telling that a particular source contains a person's name, but it is poor at telling what is said about the person- which is really what we want to know. We don't merely want a telling of what media outlets they were mentioned in, we want to know what those outlets say. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tatyoska There are multiple signs in your article that you used AI, errors and formatting that could not possibly been mistakenly done by a human. Is there a reason you don't feel the need to be honest with us in terms of your AI usage? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

21:14, 16 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44687-11

• ~2026-44687-11 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Debaines Hotel Santiago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advice requested on repeatedly declined draft

On the draft's talk page. I have a disclosed a conflict of interest with Draft:Debaines Hotel Santiago

The draft has now been declined four times, most recently on 16 August 2026, each time with essentially the same general feedback that it reads like an advertisement and should be rewritten neutrally. I have progressively removed promotional descriptions and have tried to keep the article factual and based on published sources. The current draft contains no marketing claims such as “luxury”, “celebrated”, etc. Could an experienced editor please identify the specific passages that are still considered promotional, or advise whether there is another underlying issue with the draft? I would prefer to address the actual issue before submitting it for another review.~2026-44687-11 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are the creator of the draft, remember to log in when editing.

The issue is that you just tell of the hotel and its features. That is considered promotional on Wikipedia, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. See WP:YESPROMO.

The architecture section just names the architect and designer, and tells that the architect received an unrelated award.

The sustainability section is sourced exclusively to the hotel website; we aren't interested in how the hotel describes itself. If others wholly unaffiliated with the hotel, and unsolicited, describe the sustainability aspects of the hotel, that might be something, but not the hotel's own description.

Awards are meaningless towards notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Pritzker Prize).

The press coverage section just names media outlets- if they say something of substance about the hotel(and unsolicited by the hotel) that's what the article should summarize, not its mere appearance in media. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed feedback. This is helpful.

I understand the distinction now: the article should not simply describe the hotel and its features, but should summarize what independent sources have written about the subject.

On the architecture section, I understand that the architect's unrelated awards should be removed. The Medalla Brunet de Baines is more directly relevant to the project, as it was awarded to the architect during the design process, but I understand that its inclusion would need to be justified by independent coverage of its connection to the hotel.

The Gubbio award is directly related to the hotel project and recognizes its intervention in Santiago's historic centre. I will include independent sources that discuss the award and what the jury recognized, rather than treating the award itself as evidence of notability.

I also understand the issue with the sustainability section and agree that information sourced only to the hotel's own website should be removed unless independent sources discuss those aspects.

Regarding the press coverage, yes, I understand your point: rather than listing publications that have mentioned the hotel, I should summarize what those independent publications actually say about the hotel and its significance, where that coverage is substantive.

Thank you again, this gives me a much clearer basis for revising the draft. Anna und Louis (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use an LLM to communicate with us, nor should it be used in your article. I'm issuing another warning about your LLM usage. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. Yes, i have used the AI in wordprocessing, grammar and re-writing for clarity in these replies, as English is not my native language, but I will stop doing so. The editing of the article I will continue with my own research and writing, and I am glad about the advice I have got in the previous comment from 331dot . Anna und Louis (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Anna und Louis. Have you read WP:PAIDADVICE? Note that nearly all businesses in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article on them is possible; and that even where a business is notable, a paid editor, especially one with no experience in the very very different world of writing for Wikipedia, is extremely unlikely to be successful.

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. This advice applies even more strongly to paid editors. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this recommendation, and will start on other entries, like hotels I was also involved with, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radisson_Blu_Hotel_Hamburg or https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Méridien_Grand_Hotel_Nürnberg . I agree, the process with Debaines is more complex than anticipated. I personally have been doing the research on everything related to the project and its references, instructing the architects in a development role, up to assisting the researching institutions like Universidad Católica, and its investigators on Brunet-Debaines. I had previously disclosed my connection to owner/operator, but I am in no way part of an agency to market the hotel or facilitate the Wikipedia entry. Anna und Louis (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

23:47, 16 August 2026 review of submission by CarnaticHistoryEditor

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.

• CarnaticHistoryEditor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Advice on sources for Draft:Ravi M. Ravichandhira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking advice before resubmitting Draft:Ravi M. Ravichandhira.

The draft has now been declined several times on notability grounds. The most recent reviewers have asked for multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject.

Before making another submission, I would appreciate an assessment of the following sources in particular:

1. Kate Watson, “Virtuoso of the drum”, Waverley Gazette, 8 September 1993. This is a substantial newspaper profile discussing Ravichandhira’s musical training, teaching, Australia Council-supported study in India and his work through the Academy of Indian Music.

2. “Ravi is a master of the mridangam”, The Malay Mail, Weekend section, 4 February 1989. This is a substantial newspaper feature discussing Ravichandhira personally, his mridangam career in Australia, promotion of South Indian classical music and experimentation with other musical forms.

3. Sumathi Krishnan, “Ravi Ravichandhira OAM: Seven Notes of the Noted”, Indian Link, 19 February 2025. This contains editorial biographical coverage but also includes a substantial interview/Q&A.

4. Nick Thorpe, “Piccolo Spoleto”, JUKE, 28 October 1989, p. 28. This is an independent review discussing the East Meets West project and Ravichandhira’s role as a percussionist in an intercultural collaboration.

Could an experienced AfC editor please advise:

• whether the Waverley Gazette and Malay Mail features would qualify as significant independent secondary coverage under WP:BASIC/WP:GNG;
• whether the Indian Link profile can be counted at all given that part of it is interview material;
• whether the JUKE review adds meaningful notability evidence; and
• what further type of sourcing would be required before another resubmission if these are still insufficient?

I do not wish to resubmit again until the sourcing issue is properly resolved. Thank you for any guidance.

CarnaticHistoryEditor (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Do not use LLMs to talk to us, please use your own words. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

23:59, 16 August 2026 review of submission by Tomidreams

• Tomidreams (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bella Disu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft, Draft:Bella Disu, has been declined twice because the reviewers found that the references did not establish sufficient significant coverage from independent secondary sources. I have revised the draft to remove promotional language and to use a more neutral, encyclopedic tone.

I would appreciate assistance identifying what additional independent, reliable secondary sources would be required to establish notability under Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons and general notability guidelines.

The draft currently cites coverage from Nigerian newspapers and magazines, including BusinessDay, The Guardian Nigeria, THISDAY Style, QED.NG and Forbes Afrique. I would particularly appreciate an editor’s assessment of whether the existing sources constitute significant independent coverage, and if not, what type of sources would satisfy the requirement.

I am seeking editorial guidance before submitting the draft again so that I can address the reviewers’ concerns rather than repeatedly resubmitting an inadequate version. Tomidreams (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The only WP:SIGCOV I see of the subject that isn't routine seems biased and weirdly unreliable (eg, The Pulse article). There's nothing here to indicate this isn't just a routine businesswoman doing routine things. As a procedural note, this draft has been rejected by @FuzzyMagma and thus the draft will not be considered further at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

August 17

03:59, 17 August 2026 review of submission by YasasPerera95

• YasasPerera95 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chrome Readiness Tool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just received the notification that the Wiki article was rejected. Could you please let me know the reason for the rejection so we can understand what needs to be improved? YasasPerera95 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@YasasPerera95 The reasons are outlined in the decline notices and the comments left at the top of the draft. Athanelar (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

07:23, 17 August 2026 review of submission by Hobart.History

• Hobart.History (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Derwent Scottish Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We're simply trying to write a factual piece about a piece of tasmanian history and nothing we do seems to be good enough despite pages we've drawn inspiration from having little to no factual referencing? Hobart.History (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

If you tell us what articles you've seen, we can take action and edit or remove them so that others do not do what you did, and (if understandably) use a poorly written article as a model to create another one. Please see other stuff exists; many inappropriate articles exist on Wikipedia, for several reasons, this cannot justify adding more. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.

Who is "we"? Only a single person should have exclusive access to your account.

Wikipedia articles are not merely "factual". They must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic. "Significant coverage" means critical analysis and commentary. Most organizations on Earth do not have such coverage. You have just descried the activities of the band, not critical analysis and commentary about it. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify the use of “we”: I meant the people involved in contributing, care of this platform of matters of significance to the Tasmanian community. I imagine it's no differnt to how you apply "we" when you say "we can take action".

I understand that LLM-generated article prose is prohibited, but when I write from my own experience that is suited to your evolving needs so I fail to see a path forward. There isn't enough time in a day to point out the contradictions in the standards being set when compared to articles of a similar nature with little to no referencing, commentary or analysis. If I'd simply contributed to one of those that commentary would be held to far less scrutiny that this very factual contribution.

To be candid I find the tone of the response discouraging and unnecessarily dismissive. I was not suggesting that poorly sourced articles should justify creating another poorly sourced article. I was trying to explain why the expectations have been difficult to understand when apparently comparable articles remain publicly available. Responding that those articles could instead be edited or removed may be procedurally correct, but it did not help me understand how the sources I have supplied are being evaluated.

I have spent considerable time locating contemporary and specialist material. The objective is to document a longstanding part of Tasmanian cultural history accurately, not to advertise. I recognise that historical importance to a community does not automatically establish Wikipedia notability, but contributors acting in good faith should be able to ask how particular sources are being assessed without feeling that their efforts are simply being dismissed. Hobart.History (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can, when they can. This is why inappropriate articles can exist, even for years- no one has gotten around to addressing them. There are many ways this can happen:

• the draft process is not required of all users
• the draft process has not always existed
• standards have changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer

We need volunteer help to address these things. We are only as good as those who choose to help us.

My intention was not to dismiss, but to be clear and honest. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd have hoped that endeavouring to provide factual information on a nice community piece that has genuinely attracted coverage, analysis and commentary would be helpful and actively seeking to engage by asking questions may demonstrate a desire to help let alone collaborate creatively. Your responses and the rejections suggest otherwise. I'm genuinely sorry for the apparent inconvenience and trouble this has caused you. It appears safer not to try any further considering the negativitiy these efforts attract when they've been entered into in only good faith. Hobart.History (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hobart.History.

I'm afraid that most organisations (most companies, most people, most bands, etc) in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and acceptable articles about them are not possible. We try our best to tell people this before they start putting in effort to an impossible task; but - perhaps because this is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit - it is difficult to get that message across. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

08:26, 17 August 2026 review of submission by Saffronesther

• Saffronesther (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • International Communities Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:International Communities Organisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Is someone able to provide comment on why this was rejected. And what will my next steps be? Saffronesther (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Saffronesther. Unfortunately there are no next steps, the draft has been rejected which means it cannot be re-submitted for review. Seven reviewers have reviewed the draft and have not found evidence this organisation meets out criteria for inclusion at this time. If, in the future, better sources appear and you think you can evidence the organisation meets the criteria you may contact the rejecting reviewer and ask them to undo the rejection.

Otherwise, this is the end of the road for this draft. qcne (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

12:30, 17 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44856-90

• ~2026-44856-90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Laura Dahlmeier net worth in 2026 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why this page is reject ~2026-44856-90 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

We already have an article at Laura Dahlmeier. We don't need a separate article about her net worth. qcne (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

And even if it were appropriate to have a completely separate article about Laura Dahlmeier's net worth in 2026, "your" article doesn't actually say anything about Laura Dahlmeier's net worth. Most of it just a short summary of the existing article, with a bizarre section added on to the bottom that says abso-fucking-lutely nothing about Dahlmeier's actual net worth, and even seems completely unaware that she died in 2025. I mean really During her professional career, her income came from sources such as competition prize money, sponsorships and endorsements applies to every professional athlete that ever existed. A bad, redundant article that doesn't cover what it says, and is obvious AI slop is worthless to English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

13:10, 17 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44943-76

• ~2026-44943-76 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Manjot Singh Sandhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

to get it published

~2026-44943-76 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This person does not meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

13:30, 17 August 2026 review of submission by Donvirgule

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

I have a COI on this draft: I am employed by the subject and have disclosed this on my user page and on the draft's talk page. The draft was declined for notability on 15 August by Sulfurboy. Rather than resubmit and take up a reviewer's time twice, I would like an assessment of my sourcing first.

I accept the decline. Five of the seven original references were funding-round announcements, which are routine coverage under WP:ORGCRIT and should not have been presented as establishing notability. I have kept them, but only to source specific facts (amounts, dates, investors).

I have since added one new source and would appreciate an opinion on whether it, together with one existing reference, meets the "multiple independent sources" requirement:

Philip Lorenz, "Kestra: Ops automation beyond CI/CD", heise online, June 2026. A feature article in an established German technology publisher with full editorial oversight. The author is an independent DevOps engineer with no connection to the company, and the article does not appear to derive from company material; it contains original architectural and conceptual analysis. Andrea Messetti, "Kestra: a Scalable Open-Source Orchestration and Scheduling Platform", InfoQ, March 2022 (already in the draft). Independent technical coverage of the architecture.

I have also cited a self-published ecosystem analysis (pracdata.io) for one sentence, with in-text attribution, to note that some features are restricted to the commercial edition. I am not offering it as a notability source and will remove it if that is preferred.

Separately, I have corrected two factual errors in the draft where the text did not match the cited source, and reorganised the Design section so that the substantive technical content rests on the two independent references rather than on the funding coverage.

My questions:

Do the heise and InfoQ articles together satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, or is a third source needed? If not sufficient, what kind of source would close the gap? I

Thanks. Donvirgule (talk) 13:30, 17 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) 15:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

15:16, 17 August 2026 review of submission by GlammySammy

• GlammySammy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Surprise and Seek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I Want Advice on finding sources. GlammySammy (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @GlammySammy. It looks like there are not yet enough reliable source that review and discuss this TV show. As such, the draft can not be accepted as an article at this time. If new sources appear in the future feel free to message me and I will consider un-rejecting the draft. qcne (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

17:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC) review of submission by Meadow987

• Meadow987 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nomupay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm the disclosed paid-COI author of Draft:Nomupay (declined 7 August on WP:CORPDEPTH grounds; since revised and resubmitted). The revision updates the litigation to its 2024 court disposition, compresses the routine funding coverage per WP:CORPTRIV, and sets out a two-source WP:SIRS case with an assessment table on the draft talk page: Financial Times staff reporting (16 April 2021) and The Currency legal-affairs reporting (6 July 2023). While the draft waits in the queue, I would value any input as to whether those two sources meet WP:NCORP in their view? If there is a real gap I would rather address it now than through another decline cycle. Thank you. Meadow987 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The reviewer will leave you feedback regarding any issues with the draft. We don't do pre-review reviews because that duplicates what the actual review will do. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Meadow987 The vast majority of companies in the world do not meet our criteria for inclusion. Yours is highly unlikely to be the exception; and even if it were, you as a paid editor are very ill-equipped to write a policy-compliant article. Please heed WP:PAIDADVICE. If you intend to continue your efforts, you must stop using AI to help you edit your draft and speak to us here; it's not permitted. Athanelar (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

18:00, 17 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45172-09

• ~2026-45172-09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stars Fútbol Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how can this page get approved? ~2026-45172-09 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am afraid it has been rejected so will not be approved. qcne (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

18:24, 17 August 2026 review of submission by PChu6605

• PChu6605 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MGNA Crrrta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I noticed that this article has been declined pretty recently for lack of notability. I agree that the original draft is pretty small, but I have some thoughts on how to flesh it out as a full fledged page. As for notability: I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I misread the notability guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Of course, if the ultimate decision is that they are still not yet notable enough to merit their own page, I'm happy to bide my time and wait for them to hopefully become Wikipedia-notable, as I would hate for this draft to be deleted.

Since the declining of this draft, MGNA Crrrta has been named the opener for Ninajirachi's North America tour of her award winning album, I Love My Computer (Guideline 4, although I can see that that has been a contentious subject). Crrrta has also supported Kesha in multiple appearances. They have been interviewed by multiple publications, including Paper Magazine and Flaunt, and are objectively (per guideline 1, in my opinion) featured in https://vmagazine.com/article/nmf-new-releases-from-lana-del-rey-willow-remy-bond-and-more/, https://www.nylon.com/entertainment/mgna-crrrtas-jfk-lax-music-video-nyc-release-party, https://palomosa.com/en/artists/mgna-crrrta, and https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/mgna-crrrta-beautiful-disaster/. They have also played multiple festivals, including Capitol Hill Block Party in Seattle (though I am a little biased on that one), FVDED in the Park (Vancouver, Canada), and have opened for both jigitz on his tour pt. 2 and brutalismus 3000 at one of their sets.

Again, if the above does not prove sufficient as evidence of notability, no hard feelings! I will wait until the mainstream recognizes Ginger and Farheen for their contributions to the musical canon. Please let me know what your thoughts on this are. PChu6605 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

If you would like to add those sources to the draft and submit it, we'd be happy to review it. This help desk is primarily for helping with the AfC process and explaining decline reasons. We don't typically assess whether a draft would be notable before it's submitted, as it just doubles our workload. There's no time limit on this work, you are more than welcome to make changes as you see fit to the draft on your timeline. We will continue to review any submissions and let it incubate until it is ready for mainspace as long as you continue to make constructive edits to it. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

21:01, 17 August 2026 review of submission by Orange isles

• Orange isles (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2026 Chiba Prefecture flood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this article has nothing to do with Typhoon Hagibis but yet it was rejected, i'm a little confused. I've added loads of new references and up to date info Orange isles (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by this decline by @A.Classical-Futurist as well, as that Typhoon happened seven years before this flood. I'm resubmitting it on your behalf and a reviewer can look at it again when they get the chance. (Edit: Nevermind looks like you already resubmitted which works as well)Sulfurboy (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Orange isles per the notability guidelines for events, you need to show there is long(ish)-term sustanined coverage. Looking at the draft, all the sources are dated in August so it appears this is WP:TOOSOON. It might meet notability if there is still substantial coverage six months from now. @Sulfurboy not sure where you getting this happened seven years ago? S0091 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@S0091 It's in reference to the reason that @A.Classical-Futurist gave for the decline and OP's initial question. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy, @Orange isles - A.Classical-Futurist changed their decline, which is fine but the cause of confusion. Either way, the article is about an even that occurred on 13 August 2026 and does not yet show historical significance so I have declined it. S0091 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

TBH, I was kind of half awake and not really thinking straight, so sorry for my mangled review. Prost, A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@S0091 As a note WP:TOOSOON applies to future and anticipated events, not ongoing ones. I assume you meant to quote WP:NOTNEWS, but even then I think a solid argument can be made that anything that displaces 400k people and kills 10+ of them is going to have historical significance beyond the routine. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'll let someone else take the reins in the future then, thought it was an interesting article for English Wikipedia to cover! Orange isles (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Orange isles add it to Chiba Prefecture which currently has only one (misplaced) sentence about it. In the interim, continue to build out the draft. S0091 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

21:44, 17 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-39720-60

• ~2026-39720-60 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Texas Spirits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the same kind of page as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejas_Club. Shouldn't it be able to be published? ~2026-39720-60 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39720-60 See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is like trying to get a building inspector to ignore all the code violations in the house you just built by pointing to the illegally-constructed shack down the street. Athanelar (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

August 18

04:15, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Stinger-chosen

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

Hey so im sorry for wasting ur time but are memes really not allowed? Like memes happening in real time It may seem as a dumb question ik but like this is the best i could phrase it so could u please answer me ty Stinger-chosen (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stinger-chosen Memes really are not allowed, no. You might want to try posting this to KnowYourMeme. Athanelar (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stinger-chosen, memes are allowed as subjects on Wikipedia, but they must meet our notability guidelines. The general notability guideline is probably the one to reference here. guninvalid (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

06:08, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Flankerivo

• Flankerivo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Denitza Bantcheva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. In case Denitza is my sister, what for prove do you need in order to accept the content, which is a simple translation from her french wikipedia site with no changes? How has it been accepted years in the french wikipedia and why don't you accept it now? 2. What are the next steps? And who are you to lecture me? Who gave you the right to decline and to determinate what is and what is not wrong? 3. In case the idea of wikipedia is to always decline texts and photos, then stay calm and continue with your unemployment!

Nota Bene: If you are a human and not any machine learning, please be kind to make the simple changes in the article and to accept it in the end. Flankerivo (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Flankerivo The French Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is considered acceptable content there may not necessarily be considered acceptable content here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to make sure the content they are translating is acceptable on the Wikipedia for which they are translating.

You may not use the French Wikipedia as a citation on the English Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Most of the rest of your draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

And note that personal attacks are not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! She is a relative to me and the info is 100% proven. I don't understand what for proving do you need. Or finding a source from a person that never met Denitza is more reliable than from a person which is a part of the family. Strange logic. I personally have read hundreds of articles in wikipedia that are 100% wrong, but obviously these articles response to the strange policy. They are so to say "proven". PLease be kind to do the changes in the article in order it to get proven. Flankerivo (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see the Biographies of living persons policy. Every piece of information about a living person needs a reliable source to support it. Would you want someone to pretend to be you and post information about your relative that is incorrect? Anyone can claim to be related to the subject of an article. We need to be able to verify the information in an article.

Yes, we prefer what independent sources say over sources that are not independent. If you just want to tell the world about your relative, you should use social media, or keep editing the French Wikipedia if your unsourced content is acceptable there simply based on your claim that you are her relative.

If you see a Wikipedia article that is "100% wrong", please tell us what those are so action can be taken. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, so inappropriate content can get past us. We are only as good as those who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

06:47, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Hsalem90

• Hsalem90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Hsalem90/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why rejected? Hsalem90 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hsalem90: It has no sources and we don't accept curricula vitae. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 07:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

07:35, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Saikiranz.in

• Saikiranz.in (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:M. Sukumarji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page I created was rejected. I provided reliable sources, so why was it rejected? Please help me refine and revise it. Saikiranz.in (talk) 07:35, 18 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.

Please see the message left by the reviewer, "Most of the sources are either not independent of him, or seem to have little mention of him. Additionally, were any AI tools used in creating this draft?" 331dot (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Please disclose your connection to this man, you took a very professional looking image of him where he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

08:48, 18 August 2026 review of submission by IsmihanBayramoglu

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.

• IsmihanBayramoglu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ismihan Bayramoglu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I am the subject of Draft: Ismihan Bayramoglu and therefore have a conflict of interest, which I have disclosed. The draft has been declined twice for insufficient evidence of notability. I do not want to resubmit it again without first addressing the reviewers' concern.

I would appreciate advice specifically concerning WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 1.

There are independent peer-reviewed publications that discuss and extend research attributed to Bairamov/Bayramoglu. In particular:

Arnold, Castillo and Sarabia, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 100 (2009), 946–951, state that “Bairamov [6] ... introduced a concept of conditional ordering of k-dimensional random variables” and devote a section to showing that this construction is a special case of their more general concomitant-based ordering. Zhang, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140 (2010), 454–460, states that the mean residual life of a parallel system conditional on no component having failed at time t>0 “is first introduced in the work Bairamov et al. (2002)” and subsequently developed by Asadi and Bairamov. Huang, Dou, Kuriki and Lin, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 114 (2013), 201–208, independently study a bivariate distribution proposed by Bairamov and Bayramoglu; their paper is titled “Dependence structure of bivariate order statistics with applications to Bayramoglu's distributions.”

I understand that WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 1 requires independent evidence of significant impact and, for a pioneered concept or technique, a substantial number of independent scholarly references establishing significance and attribution.

Before I make any further changes or resubmit the draft, could an experienced editor advise whether this type of independent scholarly evidence is potentially appropriate for Criterion 1, and what additional evidence would be needed to establish it adequately?

I am not asking that the draft be accepted at this stage; I would like to understand how to address the notability concern correctly before resubmitting. Thank you. IsmihanBayramoglu (talk) IsmihanBayramoglu (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Please fire your LLM and talk to us using your own words. You shouldn't be using AI on your draft either. I'm am posting a warning notice about this on your talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

IsmihanBayramoglu (ec) I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Request for advice on WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 1 – Draft:Ismihan Bayramoglu".

Please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. While not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves. People naturally write favorably about themselves. It is also difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves, limiting themselves to summarizing what others have said. I personally have never in 14 years seen someone successfully write about themselves, though it may have happened. The point is that it is very rare. Are you the rare person who can succeed where most fail? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it- especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience.

Also know that an article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one.

And yes, stop using a LLM to talk to us. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

There are too many biographies of people included in the wiki that are much weaker than mine. I am a scientist having important contributions to probability and statistics, and it is natural that I want my biography to be included in Wiki. Please see my scientific records and my contributions:

Prof. Dr. Ismihan Bayramoglu (Bairamov)

Department of Mathematics

Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Izmir University of Economics

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8575-8405

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hYlaue0AAAAJ&hl=tr

Scholargps: https://scholargps.com/scholars/75903405738063/ismihan-bayramoglu

Web of Science Research Profile: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/E-7721-2018

Web: https://ismihanbayramoglu.academia.edu/

GPS: https://scholargps.com/scholars/75903405738063/ismihan-bayramoglu

I asked ChatGPT how to do this and followed its recommendations and assistance. Unfortunately, I am not sure that you are a human; I suspect that you are also an AI. If a person thinks that he deserves to be included in a free encyclopedia, you should help. Otherwise, while many people with little contributions are included to Wiki, others with more contributions to science and humanity stay unrecognized by Wiki as if they do not exist. Is this fair? Having many papers published in international journals and getting many citations, where it pointed out that "introduced by Bairamov", "Bairamov-Kotz local dependence function" , "Bayramoglu's distribution" etc , you can easily see from the web that you are supervising more than 20 PhD students, many Ms students, organizing international conferences, and serving as an associate editor of international journals and guest editor of international journals; is it not enough to be included to the wiki? And doing everything with AI, you do not want me to be included to wiki?

Regards IsmihanBayramoglu (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not an AI. Do not rely on AI for your knowledge of Wikipedia, it is often wrong.

If you see inappropriate articles that do not meet our criteria, please tell us what they are so we can take action. We need help on this volunteer project, and we're only as good as those who choose to help us.

You are allowed to submit a draft about yourself, but it is unlikely you will be successful. You could try the Azerbaijani Wikipedia or Russian Wikipedia, both of which likely have looser standards than we do.

You are claiming to have taken the headshot of you and hold fhe copyright. Typically copyright rests with the photographer, not the subject. If it's your official university photo, the university holds the copyright, not you. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you recommend? ⁣ Do you think that my biography does not deserve to be included? You can easily investigate my personality and contributions if AI can do the job. I use this photo because there is no restriction; the photo is made for me. There are many other photos I can upload. What is the right way to be included in the Wiki? IsmihanBayramoglu (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The best way is for you to go about your career and life, and allow an independent editor to take note of your work and decide to write about you, which is how almost all articles are written. You can tell the world about yourself on social media or a personal website.

Again, you are permitted to submit a draft, but then you need to listen to what reviewers tell you.

Saying that you deserve to be here isn't going to make this process faster. We don't care what you think you deserve, we are only interested in what sources choose to say about you.

Photos are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about uploading a photo yet, but you do need to go to Commons and request deletion of the official headshot, or work with the editors at Commons to change the information with the image to accurately reflect its provenance. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Who are the independent editors? What are the criteria? IsmihanBayramoglu (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Independent editors are anyone in the world who chooses to participate here that is not associated with you. You don't think that Stephen Hawking or Joe Biden or Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin wrote their articles, do you? Independent people wrote about them, because they took note of independent sources that wrote about their lives and decided to summarize those sources. The same could happen to you, though we cannot guarantee it because this is a volunteer project where people write what they choose to write based on what interests them. People trying to force the issue and do it themselves, though that is permitted, almost never succeed. In my over 14 years here I have never seen someone successfully write about themselves. What we are telling you is that the odds are you are just wasting your own valuable time here.

You have had the criteria pointed out to you, click the link WP:NACADEMIC. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I am a hard-working scientist, and I have never been interested in telling about myself on social media. I thought that Wikipedia was just a platform providing information about people having contributions, and it is natural to provide information about yourself. In my draft I did not write that I am the famest, most important, etc., and just provided objective information. Of course I do not think that the persons like you have listed have written their own biography. However, I am sure that you (your independent editors) are doing this work for many others for a fee. That is why I lost my interest in Wikipedia. I doubt that it is a reliable source of information about people. Thank you. IsmihanBayramoglu (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Very surprising and disappointed to see an academic react this way. No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. You seem to misunderstand what we do here. Wikipedia does not just provide information, and is not a place for people to provide information about themselves.

If you have evidence that an editor is editing for payment and has failed to disclose that as required by the terms of use(see the paid editing policy), please let us know as instructed here.

As I said, you could try another language Wikipedia that likely has more permissible rules. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards have evolved a great deal in 25 years. You are welcome to list the low-quality articles you have found, and the rest of us can discuss whether they should be deleted for not meeting our current standards. We certainly do not make allownces for anyone who thinks they "deserve" an article here. If you do meet WP:NACADEMIC, a volunteer who recognises the value of your work may independently decide to write about you, without any conflict of interest. You can see the community's current consensus on generative AI at Writing articles with large language models. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 10:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

09:56, 18 August 2026 review of submission by RB202619

• RB202619 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Quentin Deluermoz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have rewritten this page reframing context. How do I ask for this to be reviewed? RB202619 (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You first ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider their rejection in light of your edits. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

10:06, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Stuntsman

• Stuntsman (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Profit Ability 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, This page was declined because it didn't have multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

However, the draft cited lots of respected secondary sources talking about Profit Ability 2 - Campaign, Marketing Week, The Media Leader, The Telegraph etc. - all of which covered the study. Plus I cited a podcast by WARC that was dedicated to the study and featured independent experts. Plus I cited independent organisations that had seen fit to give the study awards. All these sources are reputable and independent and are subject to editorial oversight. I did link to the study's page on the Thinkbox website as that is where it can be found in full - that's its home. Was that a mistake?

So I feel I have met the criteria! Not sure what other sources to cite beyond the national and media/marketing press that have written about it. Is it possible to be specific about the problematic sources I have used?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Stuntsman (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I will say that awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like.Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Awards). 331dot (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

10:20, 18 August 2026 review of submission by DevTheSlayy1212

• DevTheSlayy1212 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bhai Tera Star Hai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you accept now? All the changes have been made DevTheSlayy1212 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You first need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer and ask that they reconsider. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

10:53, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Nmecipe

• Nmecipe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:European Centre for International Political Economy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to receive a clear guidelines how the article can be published. The page was originally published more than 10 years ago and only was updated recently to reflect the changes in the organisation. Despite multiple revision, which included reputable reference sources it has been declined again, while other similar organisation successfully publish they pages. Nmecipe (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Nmecipe First, our articles are typically written by independent editors, not the subject(or its representative). If you have evidence that an article was written by an organization's representative that failed to disclose their status, we would like to know per the instructions at this link.

Second, the fact that an article exists does not necessarily mean that it was approved or accepted by anyone. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. See other stuff exists.

You have just told of the activities and offerings of your organization. Instead, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your organization and what makes it notable in a Wikipedia sense. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important about your organization, not just telling what it does or what it views as its own importance.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. In short, you're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia experience. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I do see you made a few edits in 2011 after you created your account, but had not edited since then until recently. Essentially, you are a new editor. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that I have now reported this editor to ANI for not only resubmitting their draft without improvement after 7 declines, but for then going on to move the draft to mainspace after I rejected it.

@Nmecipe The AfC process is not optional for paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

12:34, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Kant-València

• Kant-València (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pedro Jesús Teruel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing the biography of a distinguished academic. Should I include their Scopus score? Is a short list of publications preferable to a long one? Thank you in advance. Kant-València (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kant-València Given your username, it would seem that you have some connection to the subject of your draft. You need to disclose this if so; instructions can be found at WP:COI. Athanelar (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

14:24, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Ohok12

• Ohok12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aeroflot Flight 9981 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know the reason why it got rejected. Ain't WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE clear here? I mean if it was caused by some unsuitable source, or writing, it should not be a reject. Ohok12 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Accesscrawl Could you elaborate on the reason for rejecting? It's my understanding that most commercial aircraft accidents that cause death or serious injury are notable, especially with additional information like a lawsuit and a government investigation. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The main issue is sourcing, claims aren’t properly verified, few sources are unreliable and lawsuit section needs better sourcing. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

So you think these issues are unfixable? (which is fine, I'm just trying to understand) 331dot (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I rejected it because it had already been declined several times without the main issues being fixed. If decline is more appropriate here, I’m happy to change it. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I'm not seeking to overrule you. To Ohok12, if you can address the concerns of the draft, you may then ask Accesscrawl to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Got it, I was not aware of the last decline as an editor just submit the draft without any improvement. Ohok12 (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

14:41, 18 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45175-10

• ~2026-45175-10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Datsla/Alstad-draft-v1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have two drafts concerning the same subject and would appreciate advice on which page should be used going forward.

Draft:Datsla/Alstad-draft-v1 was declined on 9 June after a content review. I subsequently prepared a substantially revised and shortened version at Draft:Datsla/Alstad-draft-v2.

V2 was then declined as a duplicate, with the comment that another submission, Michael Alstad, was currently submitted for review and that future improvements should be made there. However, Draft:Michael Alstad redirects to V1, which is itself already declined.

I asked the reviewer for clarification on which draft should be updated and resubmitted, but have not received a response.

Could someone advise which draft should now contain the revised version and be resubmitted? My goal is simply to maintain one draft and avoid creating further duplicate submissions.

thanks! michael ~2026-45175-10 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. I've fixed your header so it links to your draft as I think you intended, and not to the Duplication article.

I would suggest editing the Draft:Michael Alstad draft that is already in Draft space, the preferred location for draft submissions. If a draft is declined, a new one should not be created, the existing one should be changed. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks for your help. I edited the draft-v1 so it's now up to date with the most recent edited draft. should I delete Datsla/Alstad-draft-v2 to avoid any confusion? thanks again.. Datsla (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not necessary to. But if you wish, tag it with {{db-user}} at the top, and it will be deleted. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks.. I added the tag to draft V2 Datsla (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

14:54, 18 August 2026 review of submission by UncleRonny77

• UncleRonny77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jeff Laski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not understand why this is getting rejected. there are 4 sources. it is factual and basic. he was a professional tennis athlete with significant high school and tennis accomplishments. the sources are credible. UncleRonny77 (talk) 14:54, 18 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.

As noted by a reviewer, the sources do not really offer in depth coverage of Mr. Laski. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification of terms. there is a page for his former teammate Gavin Sontag that has fewer references.

and his name is already included on the Illinois Men's Tennis wikipedia page Illinois Fighting Illini men's tennis. UncleRonny77 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. Though understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this as a new user. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, based on what interests them, it is possible for inappropriate content to exist and go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles or even featured articles.

There are many reasons inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia. The Gavin Sontag article was created in 2019 and last edited in 2022, and has no references at all. I have marked it for deletion pending the addition of sources within a week. Thank you for finding this inappropriate article. We are only as good as those who choose to help us- and we need the help. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I will also note that in recent years the notability criteria surrounding athletes has changed; WP:NSPORT is no longer a list of hard criteria meriting someone an article(i.e. appearing in the Olympics or in an NFL game). It is a list of suggestions; all people must be shown to meet the broad definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

15:18, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Michael Blumenthal

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

i need help by creating a page for a motor racing team based in italy Michael Blumenthal (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place to solicit co-editing; you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

15:56, 18 August 2026 review of submission by Zwelch3296

• Zwelch3296 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Penelope Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do i make this page on wikipedia im so confused Zwelch3296 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zwelch3296 As a brand new editor, it's understandable that article creation is confusing you. It's the hardest task on Wikipedia.

Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion anymore at this time. I suggest you forget about it and get started with editing existing pages for a while. Check out Help:Introduction. Athanelar (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

16:21, 18 August 2026 review of submission by MiaBiglia

• MiaBiglia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Edoardo Miola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! I am not sure I understand what you mean by "Reliable Sources" . Everything I have submitted is accurate and the references websites you can reach. What am I missing? MiaBiglia (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@MiaBiglia: Literally everything a reasonable person could challenge MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that explicitly corroborates the claim. Your prose is almost entirely unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have added a lot of external websites. Do you think it might help? MiaBiglia (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Not really, @MiaBiglia.

Please read WP:42 to understand what kind of sources we need. Many of your cited sources, as well as many of the URLs you have listed, are clearly not independent of Miola: non-independent sources are acceptable for certain kinds of information, but the bulk of the article should be a summary of what fully independent reliable sources have published about Miola.

Also, Facebook is not a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

18:18, 18 August 2026 review of submission by AnalyticsTogether

• AnalyticsTogether (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Altos Tequila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello

I’m requesting guidance on the current version of Draft:Altos Tequila.

The draft was previously declined because it was considered not to be written from a neutral point of view. We have revised the article to remove promotional or subjective language and make the content more neutral and encyclopedic.

The revised draft has now been resubmitted for review. Could an editor please advise whether the current version adequately addresses the neutrality concern, or whether any specific sections still require changes?

Thank you. AnalyticsTogether (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't field requests to review drafts before they're reviewed, it is redundant and doubles our workload. The draft is currently in our queue. In the meantime, you may want to properly disclose your WP:COI Sulfurboy (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@AnalyticsTogether Who is "we"? Multiple people are not allowed to edit using the same Wikipedia account. Athanelar (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You want a "pre-review review"?

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• We can't use https://www.timeoutmexico.mx/ciudad-de-mexico/bares-y-cantinas/tequila-olmeca-altos (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of role/missing bylines because they are frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• I can't assess https://forbes.com.mx/media-videos/tradicion-tequilera-esencia-la-cocteleria/ (language barrier, technical barrier). I don't speak Spanish, and the video appears to be broken on my end.
• https://strangehilleducation.com/olmeca-altos/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Writeup from a company partnered with Olmeca Altos.
• https://www.liquor.com/olmeca-altos-plata-tequila-review-7558867 seems OK.
• We can't use https://www.gourmets.net/revista-club-de-gourmets/altos-el-tequila-perfecto-para-cualquier-coctel (unknown provenance). No byline.
• We can't use https://financialfood.es/tequila-altos-la-tradicion-mexicana-con-un-toque-de-sostenibilidad/ (unknown provenance). No byline.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20260208203056/https://m.drinksint.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/10847/Altos_Tequila_launches_range_of_RTD_Margaritas.html doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Product launch news.
• We can't use https://www.larepublica.co/ocio/altos-tequila-gano-the-tequila-masters-2840316 (too sparse). The article spends barely any time on any of the award winners, coming off as the journalist equivalent of "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)".
• We can't use https://www.houseoftequila.mx/house-of-tequila-awards-san-francisco-world-spirits-2025/ (unknown provenance). No byline.

You have one source that's unambiguously good. The fact so many of your sources are lacking bylines is concerning. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

19:07, 18 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45293-77

• ~2026-45293-77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sougata Pramanick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

person with all the references, news article, patents to his name deserves a place on wiki - far less prominent people are present. The user:Flyingphoenixchips has various objections raised against for similar arbitrary deletions. ~2026-45293-77 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article 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. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We're only as good as those who choose to help us.

You have documented their work, but not summarized critical analysis and commentary about them, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

August 19

02:18, 19 August 2026 review of submission by Lexx Che

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I do not fully understand why my draft was declined, as the review provides only general reasons and does not identify which specific parts of the draft or sources are considered insufficient.

The draft contains numerous sources accumulated over approximately 15 years, from different countries and independent institutions, including professional award archives such as Awwwards, Kyiv International Advertising Festival records, media publications, and other third-party sources. It also documents humanitarian work and the subject’s work as an author and systems practitioner.

I have already disclosed my conflict of interest and I am fully willing to revise or remove any wording that is considered promotional. I would appreciate specific guidance on which sections should be rewritten and which sources do not satisfy Wikipedia’s requirements.

I respectfully request that the underlying sources be reviewed individually rather than the draft being assessed only by its current wording. If the subject still does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements after such a review, I would appreciate an explanation of which criterion is not met so that I can understand the decision and revise the draft appropriately. Lexx Che (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

09:19, 19 August 2026 review of submission by Shankorella

• Shankorella (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bamboo (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a declared paid contributor (disclosure on my user page; {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the draft talk page). My draft was declined under WP:NCORP and I accept the outcome — I am not asking for it to be reviewed again.

My question is forward-looking, so I know what to aim for rather than guessing:

Of the sources currently cited, I believe two may meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND:

• TechCabal, 2 April 2024 — an analytical piece on the company's leadership and governance structure, not based on a company announcement or interview.
• Nairametrics, 10 August 2026 — original data journalism using Nigerian Exchange broker performance reports, in which the company is the principal subject.

I have already excluded, as failing ORGIND or CORPDEPTH: funding and product-launch announcements, interviews (including one in The Africa Report tagged as an interview), database listings, listicles, a passing mention in the Financial Times, and one piece that appears to be unlabelled promotional content.

Two questions:

1. Would those two sources be considered qualifying, or does either also fail?
2. Roughly how many sources of that kind would a reviewer typically expect for a company of this size?

I would rather spend the next several months seeking the right kind of coverage than resubmit prematurely. Thank you. Shankorella (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Shankorella.

In answer to your question: no, I don't believe that either of those has significant coverage of Bamboo. In addition, the TechCabal one looks very much as if it is based on a press release, and so is not independent.

Have you read WP:BOSS and WP:PAIDADVICE? ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. In short, you're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. It's as if you built a house that fell down and are now asking the building inspector how to do the wiring correctly. Most companies on Earth are not notable, and most company representatives fail in their efforts to force the issue and create an article about themselves.

All companies have leadership and governance, so a description of that does not contribute to notability. We usually look for at least three independently sources with critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by sources wholly unaffiliated with a company as important/significant/influential about it; how it is a notable company.

The second source might be okay, but it just seems to say that the company is good at what it does. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine and 331dot: Thank you both — that is exactly the clarity I was after, and I appreciate you being direct rather than diplomatic about it.

Understood on all three points: the TechCabal piece does not qualify, the Nairametrics one is marginal at best, and the working expectation is at least three sources carrying critical analysis and commentary rather than description. That tells me the draft is well short rather than nearly there, which is far more useful to know now than in six months.

I will not resubmit. The draft can sit, and if it is eventually deleted under WP:G13 that is fine. I am not going to keep it alive with token edits. Should genuinely independent analytical coverage appear in future I may revisit, but I will not be chasing coverage for the purpose of an article.

I have read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS and am circulating both internally as suggested; they make the position better than I could. Thanks again for the time. Shankorella (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to keep the draft alive, but if deleted per G13 it isn't gone forever; it can be restored non-controversially simply by posting a request at WP:REFUND, provided you have new information that you feel would improve it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

09:38, 19 August 2026 review of submission by ZyTun

• ZyTun (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shan United W.F.C (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now I just filled more sources. Could you please check. Thanks ZyTun (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected which means it wont be considered further at this time. Your best bet is to reach out to the rejecting editor to see if they'd be willing to overturn it. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

09:55, 19 August 2026 review of submission by Sesellu

• Sesellu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Polleo Sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm asking for a second opinion on Draft:Polleo Sport, which was declined three times, most recently within minutes of resubmission by Sulfurboy citing WP:NCORP.

I disclosed my COI (paid editing declaration on user and talk pages) and substantially rewrote the article, removing all paid PR sources and keeping only signed editorial coverage. The current independent sources are:

• Puškarić, Ksenija (16 May 2025). "Sramežljivi vladar domaćeg tržišta sportskih dodataka i opreme razmišlja o IPO-u". Lider, pp. 26–29. Four-page in-depth feature.
• Đaković, Miloš (3 June 2025). "Polleo Adria razmatra IPO: Što kažu brojke i tržišni potencijal?". Bloomberg Adria. Dedicated in-depth financial analysis.
• Lukačić, Rudi (20 July 2026). "Rast cijena sirovina testira profitabilnost i daljnje širenje Pollea Adria". Bloomberg Adria. Dedicated financial analysis with peer comparison.
• Premužak Dvorski, Marta (3 June 2025). "Žito najavilo iščekivani IPO, a Polleo bi mogao biti idući". Bloomberg Adria. Briefing.

Bloomberg Adria is the regional (Adriatic) affiliate of Bloomberg Media, with independent editorial oversight. Both Đaković and Lukačić pieces are dedicated in-depth analyses of the subject with critical financial commentary, not routine coverage.

Could an experienced reviewer confirm whether these sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH? If not, I want to accept that and park the draft. If yes, I'd like guidance on how to proceed, given that the recent decline appears to have been issued within minutes of resubmission without substantive review of the added sources. Thank you. Sesellu (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sesellu I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft:Polleo Sport — request for second opinion on sources".

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues; in short, you're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Most companies on Earth are not notable in a Wikipedia sense, and most company representatives fail in their efforts to force the issue and create an article about themselves instead of allowing one to organically develop in the usual way, when independent editors take note of appropriate coverage in independent reliable sources and choose to write about the company.

If those sources have significant coverage(meaning critical analysis and commentary), that's not apparent in the article, which just describes the routine business activities of the company. That the company earned 24 million Euros is nice, but not particularly significant/important/influential, unless the sources state how and you just haven't put that in yet. Most successful companies earn money, that in and of itself is not significant in a Wikipedia sense. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

What I have said only applies to the English Wikipedia; as this is a Croatian company, you could consider editing the Croatian Wikipedia, which likely has looser standards than we do. This content may be acceptable there, even if it isn't here. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

12:50, 19 August 2026 review of submission by Reena.rex

• Reena.rex (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:TechnoS Instruments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Team, I need some guidance regarding the resources I have collected about TechnoS Photonics, which are mentioned below.

Could you please review these resources and advise whether they are sufficient to create a Wikipedia page for TechnoS Photonics, or whether we need additional reliable sources?

https://www.csir.res.in/sites/default/files/2023-06/CSIR-AR-21-22%20ENGLISH_with%20cover.pdf https://www.csir.res.in/sites/default/files/2023-10/CSIR_Achievements-2014-2023_Final.pdf https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2122190&lang=2&reg=48&utm_source=chatgpt.com https://employmentnews.gov.in/newemp/MoreContentNew.aspx?k=110630&n=SpecialContent https://ampri.res.in/en/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Annual-Report-English-2021-22.pdf https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/sites/default/files/drdo_news/NPC17Apr2025.pdf https://mrc.mnit.ac.in/Mnit_mrc/facilities.aspx https://www.manit.ac.in/node/7654 https://ioe.iitm.ac.in/project/quantum-centres-in-diamond-and-emergent-materials/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921509326003254 https://csirnews.niscpr.res.in/home/article/703

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Advances_in_Manufacturing_Technology_and/m4qbEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=technos+instruments&pg=PA281&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Frontiers_in_Chemistry_Rising_Stars_2022/IO3xEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover&bsq=technos%20instruments

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Frontiers_in_Chemistry_Rising_Stars_2022/IO3xEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=technos+instruments&pg=PA48&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Handbook_of_Semiconductor_Wafer_Cleaning/AAJTAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=technos+instruments&dq=technos+instruments&printsec=frontcover

Reena.rex (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Reena.rex The advice you'll receive now is the same as the advice you received back on June 5; you are highly unlikely to succeed at what you're trying to do. Please be sure to disclose your relationship with this company on your user page as per WP:PAID, and heed WP:PAIDADVICE while you're at it. Athanelar (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

13:11, 19 August 2026 review of submission by Mattheusmacena

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

I have submitted this article several times, ensuring that I followed all guidelines and incorporated the requested changes. Could you please provide specific feedback on the remaining adjustments required? Clear instructions rather than general requests would be greatly appreciated to help me finalize the piece accurately. Mattheusmacena (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mattheusmacena When writing an article about a company, you need sources which provide significant coverage of the company, and not just reports on the surface level facts and figures and routine business operations of the company. As of now, your entire draft consists of only this kind of routine information.

The vast majority of companies in the world do not attract the kind of coverage necessary to meet this threshold. Yours is highly unlikely to be the exception. Even if it were, you (like every other paid editor) are very ill-equipped to write the article in a neutral manner. Please heed WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

An AI wrote that. You did not. Here are clear instructions: Read WP:BACKWARD and WP:SIRS and keep them both in mind when you start over from scratch. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

19:10:20, 19 August 2026 review of draft by Zkahn101

Hi all, hoping for a second read before I rewrite anything.

I'm working on Draft:Aven Hospitality (paid editor, disclosed on my talk page). A reviewer pointed out that notability has to be judged under WP:NCORP and that announcements, the TPG deal, the rebrand, and product launches don't count toward it, which rules out most of what I'd been leaning on. That leaves me with a smaller set of sources, and before I put more time into reworking the draft I'd rather find out whether they actually clear the bar.

The three I think are strongest:

Skift (Adriana Lee, 2026-03-02) — independent trade coverage of Aven specifically, in-depth on the business rather than an announcement.

Reuters (2025-04-30) — the $1.1 billion TPG sale. Independent and significant, though I realize this may read as deal coverage.

LODGING (2026-01-27) — the rebrand piece, independent trade press covering Aven directly.

My question is whether Skift plus those two next-best sources are enough to pass NCORP, or whether this is a "not yet" until more independent coverage exists. I'd rather hear that now than keep rearranging sources that were never going to get there. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkahn101 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zkahn101 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.

Please also be aware that the vast majority of companies in the world do not meet our requirements, and yours is unlikely to be the exception. Please heed WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

19:24, 19 August 2026 review of submission by WesleyDog

• WesleyDog (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alex Jules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, My draft was declined on the notability grounds and I was specifically pointed to the issue being missing sources to satisfy WP:GOLDENRULE. I am putting 5 links below and I am hoping you can indicate to me which of them might satisfy the issue and constitute significant independent coverage under WP:GNG? Thank you for the help.

Long Island Press (2017) — “Band of Brothers (Part II)” https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/02/23/band-of-brothers-part-ii/

Coachella Valley Weekly (2019) — review of Topiary https://coachellavalleyweekly.com/alex-jules-topiary-alexjulesmusic/

Buzz Bands LA (2020) — Bebopalula “Coloring Book” feature https://buzzbands.la/2020/01/22/video-premiere-bebopalula-coloring-book/

TheWrap (2025) — “Weird Al Yankovic, Margaret Cho to Headline ‘Let’s Get L.Aid’ Music and Comedy Night for Wildfire Relief” https://www.thewrap.com/lets-get-laid-los-angeles-wildfire-relief-event-weird-al-margaret-cho/

Rolling Stone (2026) — “Al Jardine to Perform ‘The Beach Boys Love You’ in Full at Los Angeles Concert” https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/al-jardine-beach-boys-love-you-los-angeles-concert-1235511082/ WesleyDog (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? (which I would also declare on your user page, for better visibility, click your username in your signature to access it)

Regarding your sources:

1. an interview, so not an independent source
2. a review of his album, which might merit the album an article, but not necessarily him personally.
3. a story about an upcoming song release, not significant coverage of him(and the song was a group effort)
4. an announcement of a fundraiser he produced, routine coverage with an interview
5. an announcement of a performance, another routine activity

None of these really contribute to notability of him; one might contribute to the notability of a album he made. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

20:37, 19 August 2026 review of submission by LegacyWiki

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

The earlier article was deleted after an AfD discussion due to insufficient sourcing and notability concerns. The draft has since been substantially revised with additional independent sources covering his national and international shooting career. I would appreciate advice on whether the current sourcing is sufficient for notability. Kindly help. Thank you in advance. LegacyWiki (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Your draft was rejected and will not be considered further at this time. Please contact the reviewer if you would like to overturn your rejection. guninvalid (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@LegacyWiki: I'll have a look at your sources.

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• We can't use https://www.issf-sports.org/athletes/SHINDM1002199201 (too sparse). Content-free profile.
• We can't use https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/sangrur-shooter-selected-in-wc-skeet-team-215864/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of role/missing bylines because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• https://www.truescoopnews.com/newsdetail/sangrur-shooter-named-for-upcoming-delhi-world-cup has been discussed and dismissed; it's a slightly-reworded copy of the Tribune India source (possibly a variant translation of the underlying sources?) and is also published under a role byline.
• I can't assess https://jagbani.punjabkesari.in/malwa/news/sangrur--karam-lehal--punjab-state-championship-rifle-shooting--gold-medal-1143336 (language barrier). Neither Firefox's built-in translator or Google Translate can translate the page.
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/shooting/rathore-sodhi-to-lead-indian-challenge-in-shotgun-world-cups/articleshow/18468815.cms doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop; no discussion of Lehal.
• I can't assess https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/sodhi-narang-miss-out-bindra-to-lead/ (walled).
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/shooting/anantjeet-leads-jr-skeet-team-to-gold-at-asian-shotgun-championship/articleshow/45089450.cms doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Match report.
• https://www.sportskeeda.com/shooting/junior-indian-mens-skeet-team-wins-asian-gold has been discussed and dismissed; it's a copy of the TOI piece directly above.
• We can't use https://thenrai.in/PDF/1044fa33-73ae-4499-b270-715d77323224.pdf (too sparse). Match stats/box scores.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20190405123249/https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/smit-s-skeet-double-helps-punjab-pip-maharashtra-115020800581_1.html doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Match report.
• https://www.sportskeeda.com/shooting/smits-skeet-double-helps-punjab-pip-maharashtra has been discussed and dismissed; it's a copy of the Business Standard piece directly above.
• We can't use https://www.the-sports.org/shooting-sports-universiade-results-2015-men-epm63200.html (too sparse). Match stats/box scores.
• We can't use https://zgodovina.strelska-zveza.si/rezultati/ZO_MK_VK/2015/20150709_Univerziada_Gwangju-Bilten.pdf (too sparse). Match stats/box scores.
• " " " https://thehra.co.in/admins/hranews/files/1720151027-59th%20National%20Shooting%20Championship%20Jaipur%20%28SHOTGUN%29%20Result%202015.pdf (" "). " "/" ".
• " " " https://www.thenrai.in/PDF/3f72be3d-b689-4698-845c-8cdb7c46d360.pdf (" "). " "/" ".
• " " " https://www.thenrai.in/PDF/e1168961-5f13-43bf-9000-35bc0c5bc6ea.pdf (" "). " "/" ".
• " " " https://www.thenrai.in/PDF/dc5988b4-e2f3-44e9-bdab-e1f3647970aa.pdf (" "). " "/" ".
• https://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/mairaj-areeba-shoot-mixed-skeet-gold-in-the-63rd-national-shotgun-championship/article30125793.ece doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Match report.
• https://scroll.in/field/987115/indian-shooting-nrai-announce-57-member-squad-for-issf-world-cup-in-delhi doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name in a list, no discussion of Lehal.
• https://thepatriot.in/sport/all-guns-blazing-india-prepares-for-the-world-shooting-cup-20393 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name in a list, no discussion of Lehal.
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/shooting/indian-team-for-issf-world-cup-picked-chance-for-anish-to-stake-claim-for-tokyo-olympics/articleshow/80996895.cms " " " " (" "). " " " ", " " " ".
• https://www.olympics.com/en/news/indian-shooting-team-issf-world-cup-new-delhi-57-shooters " " " " (" "). " " " ", " " " ".
• I can't assess https://jagbani.punjabkesari.in/punjab/news/national-shooting-champion--karam-singh-lehal--bjp--involved-1338065 (language barrier). Same website as before.
• I can't assess https://www.punjabijagran.com/punjab/sangrur-national-shooting-champion-karam-singh-lehal-joins-bharti-janata-party-9016124.html (language barrier). Again, neither of my translation options are working.
• I can't assess https://web.archive.org/web/20240125141623/https://punjab.news18.com/news/punjab/bjp-sports-cell-yuva-morcha-incharge-karam-lahil-met-union-minister-nitin-gadkari-skm-522491.html (language barrier). Next verse, same as the last two.

Every source I could assess is unusable in one way or another. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 03:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

22:13, 19 August 2026 review of submission by Neelam.Modi

• Neelam.Modi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Victrix LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure what to do with the feedback and why my submission was rejected. I don't have anything that would be considered offensive or to be "trash talk". I site all my sources that are third party to show that the information is accurate. What am I missing? Neelam.Modi (talk) 22:13, 19 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.

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? (You should also disclose it on your user page for better visibility) If it is general employment, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure.

You have just summarized the activities of the company, not critical analysis and commentary about it. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not clear on what Wikipedia wants to include about companies/businesses. I was just trying to include basic information to define what the company is and does.

Regarding conflict of interest, I am not an employee or part of the company. I was not paid to add this information. Just a friend of the manager trying to help out...I can disclose that I know the manager of Victrix. Would that suffice? Neelam.Modi (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody said it was offensive. But it's very, very thin. It's basically just stating that this is a real estate developer that builds stuff. Real estate developers aren't inherently notable; where is the independent, reliable, focused commentary about the company that isn't simply listing that it's building X or Y? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not looking to make any commentary on the property. I thought Wikipedia was more of a source of information for what entities do or don't do. I don't want to provide any biased information, just that they exist and this is what they do. What am I missing on what Wikipedia wants here? Neelam.Modi (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Neelam.Modi. I am afraid you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We are an online encyclopaedia of topics that meet our criteria for inclusion. We're not a business directory. qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Neelam.Modi Wikipedia is not for the purpose of telling "that they exist and this is what they do". We're interested in critical analysis and commentary about a topic, not just that it exists. If you just want to tell the world about this company, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

August 20

02:04, 20 August 2026 review of submission by BLong4Music

• BLong4Music (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daniel Demoivre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The current draft article includes the statement from cited references that Demoivre's first published work has no known extant copies. However, on a search of the British Library, I have found they do indeed have a copy of this work. I would like to clarify this and want to know the appropriate way to reference this (since it is not a secondary reference). I do have the shelfmark for the library copy and could include that, if appropriate. Thanks for any advice. BLong4Music (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The best approach would be to remove the false statement. If the cited source got it wrong (and it is relied upon too heavily in that draft) then one wonders how reliable it really is. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

04:15, 20 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-38920-73

• ~2026-38920-73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ringway Transportation System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why article declined while covered in many publication? https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/future-netzero-transportation-system https://www.intelligentliving.co/ringway-transportation-system-trackless/ https://youthtimemag.com/ringway-transportation-system-a-gliding-mass-transit-of-future/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/if-were-going-to-get-excited-about-unrealistic-mass-transit/ https://www.mobilize.org.br/noticias/14661/ringway-o-trem-futurista-que-nao-toca-nos-trilhos.html

~2026-38920-73 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Article rejected because generated by AI. Athanelar (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

06:31, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Maritime26

• Maritime26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yaoundé Architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have many academic article sources, and got declined because it sounded like an essay. If i write things like "A 2024 study found that..." with that also be read as an essay? Or how do I incorporate it, without it sounding like an essay/opninion? Maritime26 (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maritime26: The article is, to some extent, over-detailed. The KISS principle applies to Wikipedia article editing - summarise what your sources say in a way that a regular person who isn't deeply read into international affairs in Africa would understand quickly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 06:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

06:35, 20 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45364-81

• ~2026-45364-81 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jump singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Guys i am new in wikipedia.

Please help me to fix the page ~2026-45364-81 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This page is not only blatantly promotional, it's completely unsourced. This is nowhere close to acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 06:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-45364-81.

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.

Also, when the first thing a new editor does is to try and create an article, especially an article about a living person, group, organisation, or company, at least 90% of the time their primary purpose is telling the world about that subject. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is promotion, and forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for collecting and summarising reliable secondary sources that have already covered a subject, not for what a subject wants people to know. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

07:59, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Univestor

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

This draft has been completely rewritten with new independent sources including The Economic Times, The Hindu BusinessLine, Inc42, Entrackr, VCCircle, and DealStreetAsia. The article covers five distinct topics - funding, brokerage launch, founding story, financial performance, and IPO roadmap - across three years of coverage (2024-2026). Conflict of interest has been declared on the Talk page per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Could you please advise specifically what additional sourcing or coverage would be needed for this subject to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements?

We want to understand exactly what threshold needs to be met before resubmitting. Univestor (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

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

As the draft was rejected, you would need to first ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider the rejection. However, that is not likely to work, because you have just summarized the routine business activities and offerings of your company. A Wikipedia article about a company summarizes significant coverage of the company- meaning critical analysis and commentary, not its routine activities and offerings. Most companies do not have such coverage.

I see no pathway forward for this draft at this time. Like most companies on Earth, your company simply does not meet the definition of a notable company that we have. Please see WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

11:34, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Ezoliveh

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

How can i get this approved? Ezoliveh (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You don't. It's unsourced, rejected as blatantly promotional, and given your username, it appears you have a conflict of interest that you have not disclosed. It also seems to be written by an LLM, too. The draft has been nominated for speedy deletion, as it should be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

13:30, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Mattwall17

• Mattwall17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Haply Robotics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m looking for guidance on the sourcing for Draft Robotics before making another resubmission.

I am an employee of Haply Robotics and have disclosed my paid editing relationship on my user page.

The draft has now been declined twice for not establishing company notability under WP. Before making further changes, I would appreciate feedback on whether the following sources are considered sufficient significant, reliable, and independent coverage, and specifically which ones do or do not contribute toward notability:

Les Affaires, 10 January 2024, “Lier le virtuel au réel avec Haply Robotics” — a dedicated article about the company, its haptic technology, international activity, applications, and business development. Le Journal de Montréal, August 2026 — a dedicated article about Haply Robotics, its technology, operations in Montreal, company development, and robotics applications. InDro Robotics, January 2024, “Quebec's Haply Robotics makes the virtual feel real” — a long-form article covering the company's history, founders, technology, and a hands-on evaluation of its haptic controller. BetaKit, March 2023 and February 2026 — substantial articles about Haply Robotics that include company history, technology and applications, although financing is the primary news hook.

I understand that routine funding coverage, product launches, listicles, press releases, and sources connected to the company may not establish notability. I am therefore particularly interested in whether the Les Affaires and Journal de Montréal articles count as qualifying significant independent coverage under WP.

If these sources are still insufficient, could someone clarify what is missing or what type of additional coverage would be needed before the draft should be resubmitted? Mattwall17 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE: in short, you're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Most companies on Earth do not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

13:43, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Frd dION

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

please help me make this published. Frd dION (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for posting your resume, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

14:17, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Thegreatnick

• Thegreatnick (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Happier Lives Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - has been rejected with details saying not notable. I have provided what I believe are notable sources in the Talk page. I suppose I am hoping that I could get confirmation that someone has read through and confirms that even those sources do not make it notable. Best TGN Thegreatnick (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping @FuzzyMagma} qcne (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thegreatnick.

On your User page, you say I also have started volunteering with the HLI on their social media strand.

This suggests that it is specifically your role as a volunteer to tell the world about your organisation.

Unfortunately, telling the world about something is precisely what Wikipedia means by promotion, and is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE - even though you probably do not count as a paid editor (and your COI declaration is sufficient), much of that essay will be relevant to you. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

14:58, 20 August 2026 review of submission by JMKRichards

• JMKRichards (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:James Richards (art dealer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the subject of Draft:James Richards (art dealer) and have disclosed my conflict of interest. The first submission was declined on the basis that the sources did not provide sufficient in-depth independent coverage.

I have since revised the draft and added further independent sourcing. Before resubmitting, I would be grateful for a source-specific second opinion on whether the available coverage, taken together, satisfies WP.

The principal independent sources include the Financial Times, Antiques Trade Gazette, Art Media Agency, Apollo, TEFAF and Cabana. There are two separate Financial Times appearances: one concerning Richards's move from Daniel Katz Gallery to Charles Ede, and another quoting him as a specialist on the work of Olga Fröbe-Kapteyn. Antiques Trade Gazette and Art Media Agency specifically cover his appointment to Charles Ede, while TEFAF independently identifies his role as Manager and Head of Research at Daniel Katz Gallery.

I appreciate that several of these are not individually long profiles and that some are stronger than others. My question is whether the cumulative independent coverage is sufficient under WP, or whether editors consider the coverage still too brief or incidental.

If it remains insufficient, I would be grateful for guidance on which of these sources do and do not count towards notability, and whether the problem is principally depth of coverage rather than reliability or independence. I do not intend to resubmit unchanged if the sourcing is still considered inadequate. JMKRichards (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-review reviews, because that will duplicate what the reviewer will do. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns, please resubmit the draft.

If you haven't already, please review the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Very, very few people succeed in writing about themselves here; I personally have never seen someone succeed in 14 years, though it may have happened. The point is, it is very rare. Are you one of the rare people who can succeed where almost everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

17:42, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Maurizio Dècina

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

Hello. I submitted User:Maurizio Dècina/sandbox for Articles for Creation review on 27 July 2026. It has been pending for approximately 24 days.

I understand that AfC reviews are conducted by volunteers and that there may be a backlog. Could someone please confirm that the draft is correctly submitted and visible in the review queue? I am not requesting priority; I only want to make sure there is no technical or procedural issue.

Thank you. Maurizio Dècina (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Maurizio Dècina I fixed our header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Question about pending AfC submission"

Your draft is not submitted, I will shortly move it to draft space and enable you to submit it. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I have now placed the draft at Draft:Maurizio Dècina and you may submit it. I would suggest that you read the autobiography policy; while not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged.

You may also be approached by scammers who see your draft. Please read the scam warning and never give anyone money to edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

19:11, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Dyna4980

• Dyna4980 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adam Neeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer keeps saying that the draft reads like AI. But I have written and re-written this draft over and over trying to simplify it. Reading the current draft that was just declined I don't know what to change to make it "read less like AI". Any help would be appreciated. Dyna4980 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Trying to remove the influence of AI from a text is like trying to remove rat poison from soup. It's possible, but it takes far longer and is more complicated than it would be to just start fresh. You should blank the draft(while leaving the decline notices) and start fresh without the aid of an AI in any capacity. Focus on summarizing critical analysis and commentary about Neeley's work, not just naming his work.

Awards are meaningless towards notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Awards). 331dot (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll re-write the sections from scratch and see if that passes muster. For my own defense I did not use an LLM to create this article as it was my first article that I tried to write for Wikipedia. But I did write it originally with flourished language and tried to mimic styles of writing from other jewelers that were already represented on Wikipedia in other articles. Dyna4980 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

20:20, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Demetre Bestavashvili

• Demetre Bestavashvili (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tamta Magradze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to contest G15 Nomination. this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, so i asked an AI tool for hlep woth basic Wikipedia, structure and markup (such as how to organize sections and format references). it did not generate or rewrite article or factual content. I personally researched the subject over the past 2 days, found and checked sources and added references myself. The information in the draft is based on those sources. i understand and respect Wikipedia's policies regarding AI generated content. However I believe this draft may have been mistakenly identified as AI generated simply because i used an AI tool to help me understand Wikipedia's technical formatting as a first time contributor. The draft was also intentionally kept as a draft after previous review. Demetre Bestavashvili (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The use of AI which you have described is still not allowed. Please see WP:YESLLM for some common mistakes in intetpreting this guideline. Athanelar (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay but I can even open my article, what can i do ? Demetre Bestavashvili (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You will need to start fresh. Take your time, there is no deadline. Please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Please restore my draft so i can use the research and references i compiled, even if i need to rewrite the article from scratch. This all seems more like a disrespect to my work... Demetre Bestavashvili (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I've emailed it to you. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I almost changed my mind about continuing... Thanks a lot. this meant a lot to me now. Demetre Bestavashvili (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

20:58, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Forum-Al

• Forum-Al (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jump singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there anyone who can help me?

Forum-Al (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Forum-Al Please read Help:Your first article. Athanelar (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

22:23, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Monster67qw

• Monster67qw (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nikki Lindt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! Someone reviewed my draft and said my sources are not reliable. Could you tell me which sources need to be changed? They are all third-party reputable sources to me. Monster67qw (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Youtube and Instagram generally aren't considered reliable, particularly if the info is coming from unverified accounts. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

22:42, 20 August 2026 review of submission by Tarunm28

• ~2026-45732-12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bharat Chugh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am working on Draft:Bharat Chugh, which has been declined for insufficient significant independent coverage. Before resubmitting, I would appreciate guidance on whether the following sources constitute significant coverage for WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. In particular, The Indian Express published a feature substantially discussing Chugh’s judicial handling of a Railways Act case, and the same judicial episode received separate coverage from The Better India and LiveLaw. There is also independent coverage of his transition from the judiciary to legal practice by Legally India, VCCircle and Bar & Bench.

Would these sources collectively satisfy the significant-coverage requirement, or are the latter considered routine career coverage? ~2026-45732-12 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

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)