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 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Draft:Hair of Istanbul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_HYSYS

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Kovcszaln6,

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

Thanks for your advice,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @W-mjrh.

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can senior editors, pls comment:

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

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

How can I improve this article for Wikipedia!

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

There are no "senior" editors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you connected to Mr. Derhaag?

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

Hello

Thank you for your constructive reply.

Yes, Mr.Derhaag is a friend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @GilesDexter2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have done that already. What is the next step

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Likes4Robot.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hello Sulfurboy, thank you for the edits; I saw your edits and moved the page to draft for us. I really cannot appreciate that more. I am an ESL (please forgive my language and expressions), with no expertise on Wikipedia and a person working probably a whole team's job (so I truly feel the stretched bandwidth of the Wikipedia volunteer team behind this)... my apologies and will surely take note on the platform policies. Aside from reading the articles about notability (https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)), how do we evaluate the notability of a person as this seems quite subjective from person to person? I am hoping to save our time as well as yours by finding this out, please bear with me if this is not something deem right to be asked. SoniaSamtaniPLUG (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're not Sonia Samtani, as you seem to be suggesting, you need to change your username via Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

As a paid editor, you should have figured these things out before offering your services for payment. Would you offer your services as a homebuilder before learning how to construct a home? The notability of a person is determined by the coverage they receive in independent reliable sources; it should involve critical analysis and commentary about the person.

It's not required that English be your first language in order to participate here, but you may feel more comfortable editing the Wikipedia of your primary language instead, so you will not struggle to understand or to be understood. The Wikipedia of your primary language also likely has looser requirements for inclusion than we do. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Erninformation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The header links to the draft. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My questions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tyrowiki00, let me attempt to explain the source situation to you. To establish notability by Wikipedia's standards, you need generally three or more good sources. A good source is one that meets all three criteria in WP:42, and is not in the list of corporate trivia. Interviews with anyone closely connected with the subject, or information produced by the subject, don't count as independent. Since you mentioned four sources in particular, I will quickly assess them.

• Fast Company - based around an interview with the founder; all information has most likely come from the company. Not independent, and potentially unreliable (people tend to speak positively of their own company).
• TechCrunch - same as above.
• NY Times - not really about the company; the subject seems to be driverless trucks rather than Kodiak.
• Washington Post - definitely not about the company; it's only mentioned briefly a few times.

So you can see that finding good sources is difficult, especially when your subject is a company - companies do a fantastic job at producing lots of press releases, new product hype, and that kind of thing, and those make the good sources a needle in a haystack situation. Like other editors have said, the vast majority of companies will never be notable as Wikipedia views it. If you do happen to find your three good sources, you can try to write a draft based on them - but at the moment there's not enough. I hope this has helped you understand the situation, and give you a way to assess any future sources you find. Best wishes, Meadowlark (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Wikipedia editors,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good day!

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

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

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

I am wishing you all the best. Happy editing!

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Waleskasantiagomarques.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Draft:David Fennessy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is hes name

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

07:24, 27 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-35220-08

• ~2026-35220-08 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Crono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Crono (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I've submitted a draft article for review multiple times, and each time it has been declined due to insufficient sourcing to establish notability under the General Notability Guideline.

I'd like to better understand what's missing before resubmitting, and would appreciate guidance on the following:

What counts as "significant coverage" in my case do brief mentions in larger articles count, or only sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail? How many independent, reliable secondary sources are typically needed to support notability? Are there subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) that might apply here instead of the general one? If the available sourcing genuinely isn't sufficient yet, would it make more sense to include this content within an existing related article rather than as a standalone page?

I want to make sure the draft meets Wikipedia's standards before resubmitting rather than repeating the same issues. Any specific feedback on what's currently missing would be very helpful.

Thank you for your time, ~2026-35220-08 (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-35220-08: if you are Iampona, please remember to log into your account when editing.

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.

But to answer your question for future reference, passing mentions do not count as significant coverage, which needs to be not only significant in size, but also significantly (ie. not merely incidentally) about the subject in question. A published source such as a newspaper article or a TV programme does not need to be solely and exclusively about the subject, for it to count towards notability, but it does need to discuss the subject directly and substantively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

10:40, 27 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46869-82

• ~2026-46869-82 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Omar Pitras Waqar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi can you help me understand why this is being repeatedly stonewalled? Every time a change is made to reflect standards a new person comes in with a new unrelated grievance about the article. The wording has been changed numerous times, most of the article detail content was removed, reputable academic and media sources are provided. Tone was changed. Seems like a lot, if i'm honest. ~2026-46869-82 (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Having multiple experienced editors rejecting your draft independently does not make it a case of stonewalling; in fact, that strongly implies the community's consensus.

Please read Wikipedia's article inclusion criteria for individuals; a subject failing the notability guideline would still fail it until they receive significant coverage. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 10:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I re-read that criteria again to see what i'm missing.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or

The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

All of these criteria are met, which is why i'm confused by repeated rejections. Did you look at the sources? Time magazine, Rollingstone, a bunch of academic articles from well known colleges. What am I misunderstanding exactly? ~2026-46869-82 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You submitted the draft for re-review without changing a single word after its decline. That's generally not going to help.

And don't write with LLMs. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I've also replied on my talk page. In solidarity, nil ^nz 23:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

11:29, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Anacreon.core

• Anacreon.core (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marco Lo Presti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I would appreciate some advice before resubmitting Draft:Marco Lo Presti.

For transparency, I have a personal relationship with the subject and therefore a conflict of interest. I am using the AfC process rather than creating the article directly.

The draft has been declined twice. The first reviewer noted that it relied too heavily on the Winnipeg Free Press. I revised it by adding independent sources from different publications. The second reviewer has now raised a broader notability concern, stating that the references do not demonstrate sufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Before making any further changes or resubmitting, I would be grateful for an independent assessment of the strongest sources currently available.

In particular:

1. Winnipeg Free Press – "Onward and upward" (2023): contains several paragraphs specifically about Lo Presti, including his background, training, previous career in Innsbruck and move to the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.

2. Ara – review of "Lorca" (2023): discusses Lo Presti as the protagonist and comments on his performance in several parts of the production.

3. Opera Online – review of "The Great Gatsby" (2022): contains independent critical commentary on his portrayal of Tom Buchanan.

4. The Manitoban – coverage/reviews of Royal Winnipeg Ballet productions: discusses his performances, including his work as Prince Florimund/Nutcracker Prince.

There is also independent coverage in Tiroler Tageszeitung concerning his performance as Picasso in "Maledetto Modigliani", and Pointe reported his promotion to principal dancer.

My question is not whether these sources verify individual facts or roles, but whether, taken together, there is sufficient significant coverage of Lo Presti himself to satisfy WP:GNG.

If not, it would be particularly helpful to know which of these sources should not be counted toward GNG, and why, so that I do not simply resubmit the draft without addressing the underlying problem.

Thank you for your help. Anacreon.core (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't write with LLMs. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

11:38, 27 August 2026 review of submission by SWJeff1750

• SWJeff1750 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stanley L. Robbins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My latest submission was declined because the languaging seemed to be AI generated. Could you please give me an example from the draft of a sentence (or section) that triggered this concern? SWJeff1750 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Too many holes to mention. 1. sources are either self-published ones (subject's own book) or from related entities (university). No independent reporting on him. Even if the entire article is human-written, without changing the source the article is going to keep getting rejected. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

14:23, 27 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46584-70

• ~2026-46584-70 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Spotler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am an employee of Spotler and previously disclosed my connection, but I clearly have not handled the AfC/COI process correctly. I also used AI extensively to help research and draft the article, but I did not copy-paste AI texts 100% as it is stated by the reviewer. I do not want to continue editing or resubmitting the draft contrary to Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate guidance on whether there is an appropriate path forward, particularly whether I should leave the subject entirely to independent editors and, if so, how best to make the independent sources I found available without advocating for creation of the article. ~2026-46584-70 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

_{Courtesy ping @Sulfurboy} qcne (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. Yes, it would be best if you went on about the work of your company and forgot about Wikipedia, allowing independent editors to write about it if and when sufficient coverage exists. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and advice @Qcne ~2026-46584-70 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Woof, you literally used AI to write out this query. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy I am an AI agent myself. I clearly have taken control of ~2026-46584-70's Wikipedia account. ~2026-46584-70 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy If I handover all my research and sources, would you want to edit the page/draft and make it fully compliant with the Wike rules? ~2026-46584-70 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not how this works; this forum is not for soliciting others to edit for you. In addition, someone else editing it will not change the notability of the company. Most companies on Earth are not notable as we define it. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

14:52, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Bobby7757

• Bobby7757 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Antonina Suhanova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I have a question regarding issues with my draft. I was creating the page for another living classical Latvian pianist, the same as the existant ones in Wikipedia (Andrejs Osokins, Vestards Šimkus). The example and content of the page is about the living pianist from Latvia and her musical path. Why my contribution not being accepted just yet? When other pages exist with the same content. Bobby7757 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, so we consider each draft individually and not based on the presence of other articles. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Why is it impossible to create a page about the living Latvian pianist? Bobby7757 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what else can I provide more for the person with all the references to the events, radio broadcasts, recordings and publications? Bobby7757 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not impossible, but every draft and article should be written in an encyclopedic tone that summarizes information from reliable, published, secondary sources. GGOTCC 15:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is your sourcing is not very good. You can't just link to broadcast listings; that tells us that she is a performer, not that she is notable. Nor is simply linking to a shop that sells one of her recordings. What you need is independent, reliable sourcing, that provides significant coverage about Suhanova. Things like this profile of Martha Argerich is the type of things we look for in new articles . It provides coverage of specifically her, explains why she's important, and while it does quote her in certain places, the article isn't driven by things she says. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

17:13, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Ieiasu

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

All the sources I have cited are either from reputable journals or from books edited by World Scientific and Heldermann. I have now added the full bibliography. I understand that I should add more references.

Ieiasu (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You should also try to write it so that it's understandable to a lay audience. I understand that's difficult for articles about higher mathematics subjects, but do your best. One reason nobody has commented is likely because your sources are not accessible online. This isn't a problem, there's no requirement for sources to be online, but being offline makes verification difficult. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

17:14, 27 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46770-65

• ~2026-46770-65 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The European Union’s strategic approach to the Black Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Wondering a bit over the LLM mark. Is it due to the error in the references/citations, which I can see is missing some information. Is it possible that I can fill in the titles of these, so they dont encounter the referencing error? ~2026-46770-65 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting.

Did you use an LLM on it in any capacity, even just to check spelling?

The draft reads as an essay of original research, not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

18:36, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Tmarovino

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

Ultrasound Imaging in Physical Therapy So how do I source a story? I discovered a novel application to an existing technology-brought it into our professional space and began developing/refining the application over the years. I have evidence via my publications and presentations that preceded any others- are those the sources you are requesting or do I get affidavit of merits from any or all people that witnessed my using the device during this time? I'm not sure what an acceptable source of corroboration your reviewer is expecting. Thanks....tiziano Tmarovino (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Tmarovino I fixed your header so it links to your draft(even if deleted) as intended; I would suggest that if you try again that you use the Article Wizard so the draft is in draft space, the preferred location for submissions.

A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Sources need to be provided so they can be verified. We cannot verify your personal observations or experiences unless someone, unsolicited, has written about them. Wikipedia is not interested in what the topic(or people associated with it) wants to say about itself. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something- that's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

19:19, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Hha66627

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

What happened to this page Please review it Hha66627 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hha66627 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "What happened to this page"?

You asked about this previously; your draft was rejected, which means it's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Shubham Rameshwar Kakde has been reviewed, and rejected, for being promotional and not meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. GGOTCC 19:22, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

21:06, 27 August 2026 review of submission by Tchaikovs

• Tchaikovs (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gavin S. K. Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

None of the sources belong to what is listed as unacceptable: "Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute." Several sources belong to what is listed as acceptable: "magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers." Tchaikovs (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tchaikovs.

As is often the case with inexperienced editors, you're focussing on one important quality of sources - reliability - but ignoring other qualities that are nearly as important: independence from the subject, and significant coverage of the subject specifically.

Several of your sources are by Lee, and do not contribute to notability.

I haven't looked at the reviews, but unless they contain significant coverage of Lee, not just of a particular work, they also do not contribute to notability.

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

August 28

04:59, 28 August 2026 review of submission by Cinema Creatives

• Cinema Creatives (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pradeep Srivastava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello respected reviewers,

Thank you for reviewing my draft Draft:Pradeep Srivastava. I understand it was Rejected by @Thilsebatti.

I want to follow the rules correctly. As advised earlier, I have already removed ANI (press release) and added News18, and I have kept Amar Ujala and ETV Bharat as independent sources. I also created COI.

I was told earlier that worst case would be Decline, but now it shows Rejected with STOP. I don't want to resubmit incorrectly and get blocked.

kindly guide me: 1. Are my current sources - News18, Amar Ujala, ETV Bharat - considered significant coverage or still trivial? 2. What kind of additional coverage do I need to meet WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR for a film producer? 3. Should I keep this draft on hold until detailed news coverage comes?

I have big coverage expected in future for my film producer, actor and entreprenuer journey, but right now this is what I have. I will not resubmit until you advise.

Thank you. Cinema Creatives (talk) 04:59, 28 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) 07:20, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry for that. I am new here to work on wikipedia and i assure you i'll not use AI again for any grammatical corrections.

Also i will tell pradeep srivastava sir to create new account with his real name and details and also tell him to declare required COI. please guide me. Cinema Creatives (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cinema Creatives Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered for inclusion. There will not be an article about Mr. Srivastava at this time. Athanelar (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

08:31, 28 August 2026 review of submission by CarnaticHistoryEditor

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

I have revised my draft again and simplified it considerably following the previous AfC feedback. I am trying to understand whether the sources I now have are sufficient to establish notability before I resubmit the draft.

The revised article relies mainly on two older independent newspaper profiles. The first is by Kate Watson, “Virtuoso of the drum,” published in the Waverley Gazette on 8 September 1993. This profile covers my musical training, teaching activities in Melbourne, Australia Council-supported study in India, and my work through the Academy of Indian Music and Cultural Studies.

The second is “Ravi is a master of the mridangam,” published in The Malay Mail, Weekend, on 4 February 1989. This feature article discusses my work as an Australia-based mridangam musician, efforts to introduce South Indian classical music to wider audiences, and collaboration with other musical traditions.

There are also supporting independent sources. Nick Thorpe's “Piccolo Spoleto,” published in JUKE on 28 October 1989, reviews the East Meets West program and discusses the musical interaction between bassist Geoff Kluke and myself on percussion.

Soundarajan Iyer's article in Sruti, 10 September 2018, covers the Melbourne Trinity and Nandhikeshwara festivals and my long-term role with the Academy. I have also cited Sumathi Krishnan's Indian Link profile of 19 February 2025, but I am treating this only as supplementary material because much of that article is presented in interview format.

I have used institutional sources only for factual verification rather than to establish notability. The Music Academy Madras publication verifies the Coimbatore Ramaswamy Pillai Award for Junior Mridangist, and the Commonwealth Gazette/Governor-General source verifies my 2012 Medal of the Order of Australia.

Before resubmitting, I would be grateful for advice from experienced editors on the following:

1. Do the Waverley Gazette and The Malay Mail articles appear to constitute the multiple instances of significant, reliable and independent secondary coverage required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG?

2. Since these are older print newspaper articles and may not have online versions, is it acceptable to cite the original newspaper clippings? Is there anything further I should furnish to help an AfC reviewer verify them?

3. If these two sources are still considered insufficient, could you please indicate what is specifically missing — for example, greater depth of coverage, another independent profile, or coverage in a larger publication?

I'd appreciate guidance on these questions before making another AfC submission. I prefer to address the underlying sourcing issue properly rather than resubmit the draft without resolving the concern raised by the previous reviewers. CarnaticHistoryEditor (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

CarnaticHistoryEditor I have fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Notability advice before resubmitting Draft:Ravi M. Ravichandhira". 331dot (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that you have edited the draft to address the concerns of the reviewer, please resubmit the draft for feedback. We do not do pre-review reviews, because that would duplicate what the reviewer will do. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

First, it looks still very LLM-written, as does your edit here. That should not be the case on English Wikipedia.

The modern sources are rather weak, and the ones that look better are hard to access. Normally, that's not a problem, but because of the extensive LLM use and the related hallucination problem, it may be a bit tricky without more substantiation.

Also, you're suggesting here that you are the subject of the article. Yet the conflict-of-interest disclosure in the article's talk page only suggests a "close connection" and that you have "assisted" them. Clarification is necessary. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I am the subject of Draft:Ravi M. Ravichandhira. I accept that my earlier conflict-of-interest disclosure was not made sufficiently clear. I will certainly correct the disclosure on the draft Talk page. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. CarnaticHistoryEditor (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I might have led off with that tidbit of information. You should also disclose this on your user page(click your username, currently in red, above to access it).

Please review the autobiography policy. Though not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Almost no one succeeds in writing about themselves here; I personally have never seen it happen in 14 years. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

10:05, 28 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46423-70

• ~2026-46423-70 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KeepActive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am being rejected for several puposes, I correct them and then get rejected for another reason. Is there a person who can help me edit the article and publish it fianally. ~2026-46423-70 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It has now been deleted as LLM generated content. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

15:38, 28 August 2026 review of submission by ButterSkate

• ButterSkate (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Javier Baez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Javier Baez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which one is a generated article content? From the draft. They were the actual sources that were put in . Wikipedia is asking me to write a summary of reliable, published sources that discuss the subject. But all the published sources are facts, so I'm wondering which one is generated? ButterSkate (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

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

It certainly reads like one, even if it isn't entirely LLM generated. It just names his activities and name drops in media, it is not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about him, with critical analysis and commentary. You need to show that he is a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ButterSkate. The reviewer is saying they think you used an AI chatbot like ChatGPT to help write and research the draft. Did you? qcne (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I was helped with AI to write the draft but all the research to my reference was done by me. I found it on Google or I have collected information of the reliable sources. ButterSkate (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

16:25, 28 August 2026 review of submission by LegacyWiki

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

Hello everyone, this draft was recently rejected following a previous AfD discussion. However, the subject won a bronze medal and a team gold medal at the 2014 Asian Shotgun Championships and a team gold medal at the 2015 National Games of India and many more. These achievements are supported by independent news coverage and official competition results. I would appreciate clarification on how the subject would still be considered non-notable. Thank you. LegacyWiki (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Rejected drafts cannot be resubmitted; you must first appeal to the rejecting reviewer to ask them to reconsider. The notabilty for athletes has changed in the last few years; they are now treated like any other person, there must be significant coverage of them in independent reliable sources, meaning critical analysis and commentary about them. No longer is merely appearing in an event considered notable, or merely being awarded a medal(though those things may increase the chances notability is met, it is no longer automatic). 331dot (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. LegacyWiki (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

18:32, 28 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46936-04

• ~2026-46936-04 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:OpenEye (surveillance company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've received the feedback several times that the listed sources aren't reputable. After several edits and removal of sources that could be seen as non-reputable, I'm still receiving the same feedback. I've taken a look at a few other Wikipedia pages for video surveillance companies, and they appear to have similar sources. I wanted to see which source/sources were non-reputable for this page so I can remove them? Thank you! ~2026-46936-04 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are Abelsiemens, remember to log in when posting.

Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer; as a new user you would not be aware of what is inappropriate. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. You are extremely unlikely to succeed at writing about your company, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience; it would be no different if you were instructed by your boss to build a new company headquarters without any knowledge of construction techniques. Most company representatives fail at writing about their companies, because they are too close to their company to be able to set aside everything they know about it, all materials it puts out and all mere reporting of its routine business activities, and limit themselves to summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. Most companies on Earth actually are not notable.

You have just summarized the activities and offerings of your company, no critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by others as important/significant/influential about your company. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

21:02, 28 August 2026 review of submission by HilltopVilla

• HilltopVilla (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:State of Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I improve the article to make it notable/acceptable? HilltopVilla (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HilltopVilla. We do not host articles about personal fictional nationstates. We also do not host worldbuilding content or any other imaginary fiction. Please go elsewhere. qcne (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

August 29

03:06, 29 August 2026 review of submission by FinnDalyyy

• FinnDalyyy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Zucchini Bread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Zucchini Bread (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have been told that my article, (Zucchini bread) is not significant enough to deserve an article. I am very hopeful for this article, though. Is there anything else I could add that would give it significance?

Thank you for your help,

-Finndalyyy

FinnDalyyy (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that this isn't anything here that's actually about zucchini bread. It's basically just a bunch of recipes, some in really random places, for zucchini bread. What is the history of zucchini bread? What cultures make zucchini bread? What are the characteristics of zucchini bread? How did preparation of zucchini bread evolve? What variations of zucchini bread are there (and not just referencing different recipes)? How is zucchini bread typically eaten/served? Is there pop culture significant to zucchini bread? Does food scholarship have anything to say about zucchini bread?

I don't know if sources exist for all these questions (and many others unwritten), but they're the kinds of things you see in articles about notable food, reported on by reliable published sources. This isn't RecipeWiki. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

03:15, 29 August 2026 review of submission by Skibbyfinny

• Skibbyfinny (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Artin Wants to Marry Jarrah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this is not a hoax im just trying to write about it

Skibbyfinny (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a self hosting service. If you want to write about this topic, you can continue to write about it on Google Sites, assuming you are not violating their terms of service or laws against libel. But Wikipedia requires notability, and this topic is not notable. guninvalid (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

05:44, 29 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-47081-21

• ~2026-47081-21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Come Home Charlie and Face Them (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank You For My Creating a Draft and For Your Patronage. ~2026-47081-21 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

That's not a question, and this draft has been rejected already, multiple times, and will therefore not be considered further; do not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

06:17, 29 August 2026 review of submission by ListenSpravatoFan

• ListenSpravatoFan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Justin Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, and thank you to the AfC reviewers. I’ve recently resubmitted Draft:Justin Page after addressing all prior decline reasons.

Changes completed: • All cite errors resolved and all references properly defined • Inline citations added throughout the draft • Independent secondary sources expanded and clarified (NYT, ABC News, Mainebiz, Portland Press Herald, etc.) • Press releases are now used only for basic bibliographic facts, not notability claims • Technology section sourcing updated with primary records (NY DOS, USPTO, archived captures) and independent coverage

I’m not requesting expedited review — only confirming that the draft is now fully updated and ready for re‑evaluation whenever it reaches the queue.

Thank you for your time and volunteer work. ListenSpravatoFan (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ListenSpravatoFan, please don't use an AI to talk to us. You don't need to tell us that you've made changes to your article – simply clicking the "resubmit" button is enough. In solidarity, nil ^nz 06:21, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Just to clarify — I wrote the draft and the messages myself. ListenSpravatoFan (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Bollocks. I just looked at your draft, and it's full of AI signs, including a hallucinated URL. Continual submissions of AI-generated content – including in your replies to other editors – will see you blocked. Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence. In solidarity, nil ^nz 06:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

09:48, 29 August 2026 review of submission by Huzaifaw

• Huzaifaw (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ameen Laghari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi everyone, I am working on a draft for [Ameen Laghari],located at Draft:Ameen Laghari. I want to ensure it has best chance of acceptance. Could someone please review it and let me know how i can imrove its encyclopedic tone and citation formatting? Thanks! Huzaifaw (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? You should disclose it on your user page as well, for better visibility.

For instructions on formatting references, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

"Thank you for bringing my attention. I want to be completely transparent; I have a conflict of interest because I am son of the subject. I have officially declared this on my user page. Huzaifaw (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use AI to talk to other editors. Athanelar (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

11:13, 29 August 2026 review of submission by Dryoung247

• Dryoung247 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oil and Gas Free Zones Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editing assistance Dryoung247 (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

What specific questions do you have? qcne (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You have resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

My article creation was denied, I possibly assistance on editing to compliance. I have a conflict of interest and had declared it.

The draft page URL is:

https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oil_and_Gas_Free_Zones_Authority Dryoung247 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dryoung247.

You have resubmitted the draft, and you will get feedback from the next reviewer.

I have restored the decline notice and the AI warning, which you should not have removed. The reviewer may decide that the AI notice is no longer appropriate, but it is a part of the history that the reviewer needs to see. ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dryoung247 You must not use AI to help you with editing Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

14:04, 29 August 2026 review of submission by Soundblox

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

I require assistance as to why the page was denied. Soundblox (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Soundblox Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. Please tell about yourself on social media. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Soundblox: because there is no indication that this person is notable enough to justify an article in a global encyclopaedia. The vast majority of people aren't, so in that sense there is nothing unusual about that.

You also shouldn't publish someone's (whether yours or someone else's) private personal details unnecessarily, especially on a highly visible website such as Wikipedia. For that reason, I will shortly delete this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

16:00, 29 August 2026 review of submission by ActStuffOGWiki

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

The reason why this page was declined was because it didn't have "independent and reliable" sources. Well, I don't know if you know this or not, but I used to make skull edits before. Also, other than YouTube, Reddit and some other small websites on the internet, there are basically no other sources. It's not easy to find sources for this topic if you exclude YouTube. Also, basically everything is true. You can fact-check everything I wrote.

I also wanted to ask another question: What is this "Question" beneath the draft I submitted that says: "In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guideline, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article." Are you guys just going to decline everything I submit? ActStuffOGWiki (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ActStuffOGWiki, and welcome to the help desk.

A Wikipedia article, like any encyclopedic article, should be a summery of information from reliable, published, independent secondary sources (see WP:Golden Rule for more). YouTube and Reddit posts are user-generated context and are not reliable. If there are no reliable secondary sources on the topic (such as an encyclopedic entry or newspaper article) then the topic does not meet the requirements for inclusion on the English Wikipedia.

The statement is a conflict of interest disclosure that you placed on the draft. This is required for people who are writing about themselves/their employer/another topic they have a close connection with. Plenty of drafts with conflict of interest disclosures are accepted; the issue here is that it seems there is not enough reliable sources on the topic as this time. GGOTCC 16:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@ActStuffOGWiki Since you seem to be quite a fan of wikilinks, please see the following;

Help:Your first article - Help:Introduction - MOS:OVERLINK. Athanelar (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

16:02, 29 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-47065-34

• ~2026-47065-34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tim Maurice Netzel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would Like to ask, what could be done better.

Thanks!!! ~2026-47065-34 (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-47065-34

Are you @Wikiplomat? If so, please remember to log in.

What can be done better is to find several sources each of which meets all the conditions in WP:42, and base the article almost entirely on those sources.

It is possible that some of your sources meet those requirements: I haven't looked. But it is obvious that many of them are not reliable sources and/or are not independent of Netzel.

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

Do you have a connection with Netzel? If you do, you need to be aware of the conditions on editing with a conflict of interest.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

16:07, 29 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45426-09

• ~2026-45426-09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Loco Baby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How yall saying google aint allowed yall need to google me or ask Gemini questions sir! Whoever is auditing being byast are ysll even looking the references starting a genre named by and certified by googke hundred of thousands of views its more than just spotify can someone hoigke loco baby please! ~2026-45426-09 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

See below. GGOTCC 16:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

16:08, 29 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-45426-09

• ~2026-45426-09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Loco Baby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone google me! Please I started a,genre goigle named it ~2026-45426-09 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft would be rejected if there are no sources. Please finish the draft before it is submitted. GGOTCC 16:12, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-45426-09.

Google is a search engine. It is often good at finding possible sources for an article.

It is the responsibility of the editor adding and using the sources to check the each source meets Wikipedia's requirements - see WP:42.

That is not a task Google can do or will try to do. Unfortunately it is a task that looks like the sort of thing many people believe that LLMs can do: they are wrong. LLMs are particularly bad at evaluating sources for reliability, independence, and the other qualities; that Wikipedia requires. Please see WP:NEWLLM

It is also not a task that it is reasonable for you to expect a reader or reviewer to do for you.

In other words, if you add a source to any article, whether a new or an existing article, it is your responsibility to personally view the source critically, and make sure that the source meets the criteria, and that it does indeed verify the piece of information about the subject of the article that it is claimed to.

Writing an acceptable article is hard. From your wording above, I suspect that you may be trying to write about yourself. If that is the case, then the chances of your succeeding are extremely low, and you would be better spending your time on a site which allows promotion, which Wikipedia does not. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

16:53, 29 August 2026 review of submission by Creatorhiphop

• Creatorhiphop (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tony Lopez (breaker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, yes, well, I'm trying to help write a page about Tony "Powerful Pexster" Lopez history in hip hop and breaking platform over the last 50 years. There are good sources in the hip hop and breaking industry. So I need some help structuring a clear, concise article. I can donate to the cause or community to guide me through the process, or should I leave this alone? Sincerely, Morris Creatorhiphop (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Please only donate your time to create the article! Please do not give money (or any other form of currency) to anyone in exchange for edits to Wikipedia.

Regarding the draft, a good first step would be to write it without LLM assistance and find reliable, independent, secondary sources that focus on Lopez's impact/life. GGOTCC 16:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that they were offering to donate to the WMF, not pay an editor. Creatorhiphop, donating money will not grease the wheels here, we don't see the money, and donation records are not linked to accounts. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

17:07, 29 August 2026 review of submission by Withplug

• Withplug (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mahmood Alam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kindly recheck the edited draft of Mahmood Alam Withplug (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for it. If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer and ask they reconsider. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

And I would not ask the reviewer to give it a second look in its current state. Much of it is poorly sourced and even worse, it's quite clearly written by an LLM/chatbot/AI, which is unacceptable. Clear examples:

• The claim that the club was established in 1990 and registered in Jharkhand should be supported by an independent registration record or reliable secondary source before being added as an established fact.
• Alam has stated in biographical material that he began his social and political activities in 1983, at about 15–16 years of age, and later participated in the movement for a separate Jharkhand state. The exact 1983 date is currently better treated as a self-reported biographical claim than as an independently established fact.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and filed an SPI, as it seems very likely that this editor is a sock of globally locked editor SunniCreed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

August 30

01:25, 30 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-40910-09

• ~2026-40910-09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ok! Let's get divorced (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What's wrong it's literally a. Kdrama

~2026-40910-09 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft is blank. Is something missing? GGOTCC 01:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)