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

July 25

00:41, 25 July 2026 review of submission by JiyuSoftware

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

I'm new to writing for Wikipedia. I have translated part of this article from Dutch and added a few extra sources. I tried improving the article to make it sound more neutral, but I'm having trouble finding more fundamental issues if I have not solved them already. If you could give me some pointers and example so I could get used to expected writing style I would appreciate it. JiyuSoftware (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

03:20, 25 July 2026 review of submission by Cristygarna

• Cristygarna (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Second Coonan Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I submitted Draft:The Second Coonan Cross, but it was declined because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I have already found coverage from The Times of India, The New Indian Express, Asianet News, and Indian Express Malayalam. However, I have been unable to find books or academic publications that discuss the topic in depth. Could someone advise whether there are additional reliable sources that I may have overlooked, or whether this topic is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for a standalone article? If the latter, would it be more appropriate to include the information in the existing Coonan Cross Oath article instead? Thank you Cristygarna (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The draft you linked to just has a reference list and no content. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention those references all have ChatGPT UTM parameters. Athanelar (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Andrii Sahach - feedback addressed

• Andy Nakamura (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Andrii Sahach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I have addressed the feedback provided by the previous reviewer on Draft:Andrii Sahach (removed the standalone Sources section and incorporated all references into proper inline citations). The draft has been resubmitted for review. Could an active reviewer please take a look when time permits? Thank you! Andy Nakamura (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You have resubmitted the draft. We don't review drafts on demand(otherwise everyone would ask for a review); asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

12:08, 25 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41398-86

• ~2026-41398-86 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:International Music Competition for Youth “Dinu Lipatti” (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If any experts can help me improve the presentation of this page, I'd be grateful. If the page is published, I'll also publish the list of all the contest winners. The event is highly regarded culturally in many countries around the world and is supported by the Ministry of Culture, as it is held at Villa d'Este, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The historic newspaper Corriere della Sera wrote an article about it, which I shared among the reviews. Thank you. ~2026-41398-86 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is just blatant advertising there is no encyclopaedic content and no reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-41398-86.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Esimio Colin, essendo un neofita con la contribuzione e la partecipazione su Wikipedia, ho provato a redigere questa voce ispirandomi alla struttura di altre pagine di Wikipedia dedicate a concorsi musicali. Ho cercato di adottare un punto di vista strettamente neutrale, ma a quanto mi dici, non è bastato. Ti sarei grato se tu potessi conformare al meglio il testo di questo articolo agli standard richiesti dall'enciclopedia, e pubblicarlo. Ti ringrazio per quanto potrai fare. ~2026-41398-86 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

18:47, 25 July 2026 review of submission by Openwaterwimmer

• Openwaterwimmer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Prisha Tapre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am looking for guidance on Draft:Prisha Tapre before making any further resubmission. The draft has been declined for notability concerns. I have tried to reduce promotional wording and add independent coverage, including BBC News, Evening Standard, The Independent, Hertfordshire Mercury, Outdoor Swimmer, News18 and The Tribune. Could someone please advise whether these sources are considered significant, reliable and independent enough for a biography, or on the issue. I do not want to keep resubmitting without properly addressing the concern, so any specific guidance on which sources or sections are weak would be appreciated.

Thank you, Rahul Openwaterwimmer (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

MCE89 already left a pretty helpful comment in their decline: "It looks like apart from some local awards, all of the coverage in reliable sources is solely about Tapre's swim across the English Channel. Generally a living person who is notable only for one event is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Are there any reliable, secondary sources that cover Tapre outside of the context of that particular achievement?" Sulfurboy (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Openwaterwimmer I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft:Prisha Tapre notability guidance". 331dot (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

20:24, 25 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41288-51

• ~2026-41288-51 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zac Benalloul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to improve the draft page Draft:Zac Benalloul to get it improved ~2026-41288-51 (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you are Aboutsix, remember to log in when posting.

The portion about his agency should be removed. The draft is about Mr. Benalloul, not his agency.

The draft just summarizes his work and career. A Wikipedia article about a person must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what others view as important/significant/influential about the person, not what they view as their own importance or a mere description of their work.

Interviews with him are not independent sources, being the person speaking about themselves.

If you work for Mr. Benalloul or his agency, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

22:16, 25 July 2026 review of submission by Herbivore

• Herbivore (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Graf Petöfy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted this as a new article and it was rejected. But I'd point out that the book's author, Theodor Fontane, qualifies under rule 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. " Thoughts? Herbivore (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Herbivore I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended. 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 author may be notable, but that does not in and of itself make all their works notable. You still need to summarize what independent sources say about the work. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Key word in rule 5 is "may". If the author is in fact so historically significant that all of his works are notable, then there should be readily available secondary analysis of the subject. You only provide one source in which the subject isn't even the main topic, but part of the larger topic of the subject's author. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Did a quick search and there is a Wikipedia page on this in German. See link below

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graf_Pet%C3%B6fy DeltaEcho4 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at those sources they all run into the same issue that Sulfurboy already raised, they're only discussing it in context of the author's larger body of works. His article lacks anything like a legacy section that would support the claim of the author is at all historically significant, and even the unsourced claim in the lead about his importance is: 19th-century German-language realist author. Which is rather specific. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

July 26

05:56, 26 July 2026 review of submission by Guddusinghparas

• Guddusinghparas (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Guddusinghparas/sandbox/ Rajendra Pratap Singh alias GUDDU SINGH PARAS block parmukh belsar gonda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why is this rejecting whatsthe main point

Guddusinghparas (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As explained, you repeatedly resubmitted without any improvements. You were warned that this would ultimately lead to a rejection for WP:GAMING the system. This was explained in detail on the draft page and your talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

08:11, 26 July 2026 review of submission by Abdullah2000000

• Abdullah2000000 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jehan Ali Ahmed Ziad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have a draft ready for review at User:Abdullah2000000/sandbox. Could someone please move it to Draft:Jehan Ziad? Thank you. Abdullah2000000 (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Abdullah2000000 The draft is at the link now in the header, not your sandbox. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like an LLM wrote this, not a human. As such, it cannot be accepted on the English Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

10:33, 26 July 2026 review of submission by Steven.paul.openshaw

• Steven.paul.openshaw (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Steph Openshaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I have amended the article in a way which meets Wiki's rules. I have removed links to various sites which might be deemed advertising or promoting the illustrators of Steph's books. I have then tried to re-publish but not sure why it is not responding. Please can you help me out. Thanks. Steven.paul.openshaw (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

First, if you are not Mrs. Openshaw, you must immediately change your username to something other than her name. You may do this via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. If you represent or are associated with her, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

The draft has been rejected, meaning that resubmission is not possible. If you believe that you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns that led to rejection, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that you are her husband. You should disclose this on your user page. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

See my post on your Talk page. Deb (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

13:00, 26 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41742-63

• ~2026-41742-63 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Global Universe Record Industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Give me a advice for Wikipedia profile published ~2026-41742-63 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are employed by or associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

Wikipedia does not host social-media style profiles; this is an encyclopedia composed of articles.

Your draft has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the line for that topic at this time. Your draft is almost exclusively sourced to press releases, which are not independent sources. As the reviewer told you, showing notability of a company is difficult. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Yogi Hendlin — question about WP:NPROF C8 and C1

Declared COI: I am the subject of Draft:Yogi Hendlin, which was recently declined under WP:NPROF with the standard notice. Rather than resubmit, I would like to ask experienced editors whether either of two specific criteria applies, and to accept the answer either way.

C8. I have been editor-in-chief of Biosemiotics (ISSN 1875-1342) since 2021. The journal is published by Springer, launched in 2008, and is the official journal of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies, which has an article here. It is indexed in Scopus and in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index of the Web of Science Core Collection. My question: does editorship of the official journal of an international scholarly society satisfy "major, well-established academic journal," or is a specialty journal in a small field outside what C8 contemplates?

C1. My appointment is in a philosophy department (Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam), so I would take philosophy as the relevant comparison class rather than public health, where I also publish. Google Scholar shows an h-index of 23, i10-index of 36, and roughly 1,765 total citations. My most-cited sole-authored work, "From Terra Nullius to Terra Communis" (Environmental Philosophy, 2014), has about 99 citations and was discussed independently in JSTOR Daily. My question: is that record sufficient for C1 in philosophy, given lower citation densities than in the sciences?

I am not asking anyone to accept the draft, only whether these arguments are worth making at all. If the answer is no, I will leave it. Prateados (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Please review the autobiography policy. Writing about yourself is not forbidden, especially in a draft, but it is discouraged and not often successful. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

15:38, 26 July 2026 review of submission by GlammySammy

• GlammySammy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Animal Toonz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i Have a Question: Can i Approve Drafts Myself?, also, PLEASE DON'T Reject Pages Ever Again! GlammySammy (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@GlammySammy: technically, you can. But when a draft has been rejected, not just declined, that means it isn't suitable for publication. If you force the issue and publish it regardless, it will almost certainly be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: In Very Rare Cases. pages not Suitable for Publication will stay on the site for Very Long. GlammySammy (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Possibly... but your draft as it stands has zero chance of acceptance and would be speedily deleted if you moved it to main space. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@GlammySammy: How many of those articles predate 2011? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

15:57, 26 July 2026 review of submission by Devdemona

• Devdemona (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tegene Kunbi (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.

Subject: Appeal regarding the declined draft for artist Tegene Kunbi Dear Wikipedia Editorial/Review Team, I am writing to respectfully request a re-evaluation of the recently declined biography draft for the contemporary abstract painter, Tegene Kunbi. While I understand and respect Wikipedia’s strict policies on notability and independent sourcing, I believe the subject clearly meets the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for Artists (CREATIVE) due to the profound global impact of his recent career milestones. Specifically, Tegene Kunbi has achieved significant international recognition that transcends routine gallery representation: 1 Major International Award: He was awarded the Grand Prix Léopold Sédar Senghor at the Dak'Art Biennale (2022), which is widely recognized as the highest honor in contemporary African art. 2 National Representation: He was selected to represent the Ethiopian National Pavilion with a solo exhibition ("Shapes of Silence") at the 61st Venice Biennale. These achievements have been extensively documented by independent, third-party publications, including Art Africa Magazine, Contemporary And (C&), and official institutional documentation from La Biennale di Venezia. I have thoroughly revised the draft to ensure a strictly neutral, encyclopedic tone, removing any language that could be perceived as promotional. All biographical and historical claims have also been anchored with direct inline citations. Given his established footprint in contemporary art history, I kindly ask for your guidance on any remaining adjustments needed to successfully publish this profile. Thank you for your time, dedication, and volunteer work in maintaining the integrity of the platform.

Sincerely Devdemona (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Devdemona What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

The main issue is not notability, but the lack of in line citations. Please see the message left by the reviewer carefully. If you need help with references, see Referencing for beginners.

If you're using an AI to write, please don't. We'd prefer to hear from you directly, even if your English is not perfect. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Fire your LLM. You don't properly cite any of your sources, which is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia. And of your sources, only two are usable - https://dela.art/en/tegene-kunbi-the-ethiopian-pavilion-at-the-61st-international-art-exhibition-of-la-biennale-di-venezia/ and https://artafricamagazine.org/ethiopia-returns-to-venice-with-tegene-kunbis-shapes-of-silence/ . The rest are various degrees of unusable and/or useless for eligibility. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

16:29, 26 July 2026 review of submission by Albert Cooper Photographer

• Albert Cooper Photographer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Albert Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Albert Cooper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello, i need help creating a wiki page for my grandfather, i think i set it up wrong and it has been rejected. thanks, matthew. Albert Cooper Photographer (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As you are not your grandfather, you must change your username, please go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. You need not use your real name. Please also see conflict of interest.

Social media is not an acceptable source, and the reliability of the Daily Mirror is unclear. Interviews are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

How is the reliability unclear? He’s had multiple articles written about him and decades of being at the top of sport photography? Albert Cooper Photographer (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Daily Mirror itself, not its specific coverage. Please click on WP:DAILYMIRROR. It might be okay as a source, but others would be better. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror would be a primary source in this instance, so no use for establishing any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay I have now added links for The Times article, the guardian article and the Irish examiner Albert Cooper Photographer (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither of these sources discuss the subject or show coverage, they just have pictures that he took in them. This doesn't establish notability. Further, you still have not removed the instagram sources from the article as requested by another reviewer. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The times article goes into great detail about Albert and yes I have removed the Instagram links I did that yesterday. Albert Cooper Photographer (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

17:42, 26 July 2026 review of submission by Yashsurya21

• Yashsurya21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shrikant Vad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to ask you that what is secondary source? Only thos news paper are valid who have URL? because i have news articles which are written on SHRIKANT VAD [ which is my article topic] but those articles do not have URL as those articles are old. So how can i add those old news articles as i have them, but its not online. Yashsurya21 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yashsurya21 I've fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to the Wikipedia article about Wikipedia.

Sources don't need to be online. You just need to provide enough information for someone to theoretically locate them(title, author, publication date, publisher, page numbers). Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yashsurya21: We have a bespoke template for citing offline newspapers. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

can we use that? and what are the information we need to feed in that? like newspaper name, date, news name? Yashsurya21 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

If you click the link "bespoke template" it walks you through it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

18:59, 26 July 2026 review of submission by Werdmerk

• Werdmerk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tiny Alice (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An early version of my draft article [2 May 2026] was reviewed in error because it lacked the submission template {{AfC submission|||ts=20260726185954|u=Werdmerk|ns=4}}.

The correct version from 10 June 2026, which includes the proper submission tag, is being rejected as a duplicate.

I am requesting an active reviewer please advise how to clear the old template or remove the duplicate status so that the 10 June version can be properly reviewed.

Thank you, werdmerk Werdmerk (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to your sandbox, User:Werdmerk/sandbox. If you want the sandbox content to be the draft, just copy and paste the text into Draft:Tiny Alice (band) while leaving the submission template. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The current sandbox version of the draft [10-June-2026] is the correct version and was the only version submitted with the submission template. This is the version that was rejected as a "duplicate" of the 2-May version. But the 2-May version was reviewed in error, I never submitted it for review and it did not have the submission template. I need a definitive way to have the 10-June version reviewed because all of the warnings allude to possible deletion if I don't have this situation corrected properly. Can you do the substitution and initiate review action? Werdmerk (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I am going to copy over the content currently on your sandbox to the draft page as you are the only editor (other than reviewers) who has edited each page. You should be able to freely submit for review again. That being said, I would advise aganist submitting right now as the page looks like it needs quite a bit of cleanup. I would advise picking a few famous bands currently on wikipedia and look to see how their pages are formatted. The info you have the top is typically in a infoxbox, and the rest of the article is not stylistically in line with WP:MOS. If you need help with these things I would visit the WP:TEAHOUSE Sulfurboy (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Who is warning you about deletion? 331dot (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Request to move Draft:Milet Mihemed to Millat Mohammed

please move Draft:Milet Mihemed to Millat Mohammed in mainspace. Thank you. ~2026-41506-78 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted the draft and it is pending. Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process. There are thousands of drafts awaiting review, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @331dot, thanks for letting me know.

I don't want to stay in draft forever if it's ready. If you think the draft is good enough, could you please move it to mainspace as Millat Mohammed? The current title Milet Mihemed is just a spelling mistake.

If it's not ready yet, it's okay to wait, but please keep in mind the correct name is Millat Mohammed.

Thanks again. ~2026-41506-78 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

A reviewer will assess the draft when we get to it. We have the largest backlog I have ever seen. It can take up to three months until we can review your draft. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a particular need for the speedy placement of the draft in the encyclopedia? Why should yours be reviewed over the thousands of other people who all would like a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, thank you for asking. I don't have a need for speedy placement over others and I respect the huge backlog you all handle.

I only mentioned it because the current title Draft:Milet Mihemed is a typo. The correct spelling is Millat Mohammed, and with the typo no one can find it in search. I wanted to make sure that when it is reviewed, it can be moved to the correct name Millat Mohammed. I am happy to wait for my turn in the queue. Thank you for your work. ~2026-41811-63 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I moved the draft to the correct name for you. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying; the spelling of the title of a draft is not particularly important; the accepting reviewer would have placed it at the proper title, though a note on the talk page would help, even more so than one here since the reviewer will not know to come here. But it's been renamed so its all good. 331dot (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41506-78/@~2026-41811-63/@Kurd26 I rejected this article on June 25. You then inappropriately removed that rejection, so I restored it; and you have once again removed my rejection to resubmit your draft.

Rejection means stop. It means you cannot resubmit the draft without first appealing to the rejecting reviewer (me, in this case) to lift the rejection. Do not remove the rejection notice and do not resubmit the draft. Athanelar (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is an LTA evading their block and GLOCK. I've blocked the TAs I could find, but no doubt they'll be back soon with more.

Part of the MO is using different renderings of the name, there's at least Millet Miḧemed, Milet Mihemed, Mllat Mohammed, Millat Muhammed, and probably others. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

22:28, 26 July 2026 review of submission by StorageSystemsLab

• StorageSystemsLab (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roger Wood (engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was declined on 24 July 2026. I revised the draft in response to the review comments and saved my revisions. The decline notice states: "When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button." However, no Resubmit button appears anywhere on the draft page. Could you please advise how to resubmit this draft under the current AfC interface? I may be overlooking something, but I cannot find the Resubmit button on either the draft page or my user talk page. Thank you very much. StorageSystemsLab (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You removed the declined request, which contains the resubmit button. Declined requests need to remain on the draft until it is accepted. I've restored it so you can resubmit. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

22:59, 26 July 2026 review of submission by DuckWrangler97

• DuckWrangler97 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ecce Homo (Van Dyck) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there, I am performing my first ever AFC review, and the article has close paraphrasing from this webpage, which is not cited. I declined as a potential copyright violation, but I'm not sure about next steps.

It's not copy-pasted, but largely the entire article would be considered plagiarism in an academic setting - in a situation like this, should one recommend for speedy deletion or remove the closely paraphrased material, even if it is a substantial portion of the article?

Thanks very much for your help! DuckWrangler97 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind - I figured it all out. Just completed the the copyright clean-up checklist, but will leave this post up for transparency's sake. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

CSD doesn't seem appropriate as from my reading it's not technically a copyright vio. As per the VADS site that the text is paraphrased from: "The content presented on this website can be used for non-commercial educational and research purposes, as well as certain very specific uses that are permitted under the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988), as amended and revised." That being said, certainly not ideal that an editor is paraphrasing that much. I personally would've declined on that and shoot them a friendly warning on their talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. I read that as well, and decided on copyright vio due to 1) the specification of non-commercial use in their copyright statement, making the license something akin to CC-BY-NC, which we can't use on Wikipedia and 2) the source in question not being cited on the page.

That said, yes -- in the future I think I'll just decline and warn as you recommend in a similar edge case. Thanks again! DuckWrangler97 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

23:33, 26 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41698-75

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

More lists of mascots in need of separation. ~2026-41698-75 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is? Sulfurboy (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

July 27

00:03, 27 July 2026 review of submission by Ohok12

• Ohok12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:American Airlines Flight 1400 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was rejected for being considered unnotable from this deletion. I did explain the reason why it should not be rejected, but the reviewer seems not really pleased of my reason, so I would like to have some advice / assistance here. Thank you! Ohok12 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I seem not really pleased? I feel like I gave the time to give you a proper explanation here and a solid recommendation to gain consensus from WP:AV, advice that you seemed to take with your post here. I would advise continuing to wait to get consensus, if you don't get it, then that answers your question. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for make you misunderstood, I mean you’re not kinda pleased to feel it should be un-rejected. Thanks for advice. Ohok12 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

01:05, 27 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41698-75

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

Done more sourcing. ~2026-41698-75 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41698-75 Your problem isn't a shortage of sources, it's a shortage of the right sources. Lists on Wikipedia need to demonstrate that they are notable as a list, i.e., that outside sources have already discussed, in this case "liquor advertising characters" as a category.

We can't just cobble together lists out of groups of whatever we find interesting, otherwise there'd be an infinite number of random lists on Wikipedia.

You first need to demonstrate that, and then you can find individual sources to add more characters to the list. See WP:NLIST. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, Athanelar (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It's demonstrated as alcohol known as beer, wine, rum, etc. ~2026-41698-75 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion on Draft:Nicole's Fairy Tree

Hello! I would appreciate a second opinion regarding the sourcing for Draft:Nicole's Fairy Tree. The draft was recently declined by Sulfurboy due to concerns about whether the references satisfy WP:GNG.

The draft currently includes coverage from the following independent secondary sources: 1. WFAA Channel 8 (State TV news feature on the physical memorial) 2. North Texas Sun (Regional print and digital news profile) 3. Denton Record-Chronicle (Regional print newspaper) 4. Cross Timbers Gazette (Local news coverage) 5. Texas Pictures Documentaries / PBS (PBS Documentary TV episode)

Could an experienced reviewer please take a look and clarify if these secondary news outlets provide sufficient independent coverage for a local memorial landmark, or if broader statewide/national sources are strictly required before resubmitting? Thank you so much for all you do! Texamedic4 (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Your sources:

1) WFAA - The closest thing to a solid secondary source, but this is just one local report of it which wouldn't indicate lasting notability.

2) North Texas Sun - Essentially a blog site with no editorial oversight, only mentions the subject briefly in one sentence.

3) Only mentions the tree in regards to that's where people are meeting up, no depth.

4) You linked to a youtube video which is wholly unreliable.

5) Cross Timbers, mentions the tree in one sentence.

I'm sorry you feel I'm not an experienced reviewer (I've reviewed over 5,000 drafts), but as I live in the area I'm actually very familiar with all of these sources and this subject and it's simply not notable from the sources you've presented, as at the end of the day we're WP:NOTNEWS. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm not an experienced reviewer Don't take it personally. The chatbot they've hooked their higher cognitive functions into suggested that was an appropriate way to circumvent your decline. See WP:AIREVIEW. Athanelar (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh no, I did not mean to imply that at all! <banging my head on the desk, embarrassed as heck> I sincerely apologize to you—I am brand new to editing Wikipedia and used standard phrasing suggested to me to request a second look. I entirely respect your experience and sincerely appreciate you taking the time to explain the rationale behind local source evaluations... I'm so sorry.

I wanted to share that I just updated the draft to include a major regional source: The Dallas Morning News (reporting on the regional advocacy work and memorial initiatives). I don't know if this would fulfill the requirements. I had totally forgot about it.

Thank you again for your patience in me, for responding back, and for guiding a new editor through all these policy requirements. I greatly appreciate you! I hope you don't have bad insomnia like me, lol.Texamedic4 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Fire your chatbot. I promise, your AI is not going to give you helpful advice about Wikipedia's processes, policies, guidelines, or indeed how to respond to things like your draft being declined. I can see now that you're speaking to us in your own words, which is good. And don't feel the need to apologise too much; we know that AI makes people say things that make them look foolish, that's why we tell people not to use it. Athanelar (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I just wanted to try to do a good thing by initiating this Wikipedia for our community, I've never done this before and I'm learning. I do appreciate all the quick response from you three tonight. I just want to do this right and understand. Thanks! Texamedic4 (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the coverage in the Dallas Morning News link. It doesn't actually provide any information about the subject of the article. We're looking for significant coverage, not just passing mentions of the subject or people involved with the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand. The WFAA TV feature that aired, you're not considering that coverage about the subject of the article, and you need more televised sources than just that one? Texamedic4 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 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. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

   These four points need to be an easily linked essay. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

   @Sulfurboy The whole thing is at User:Athanelar/AFCHD so that it can be easily transcluded as a template. Athanelar (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

06:48, 27 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41808-89

• ~2026-41808-89 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gowri Shankar SRG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm seeking advice about Draft:Gowri Shankar SRG. The subject has appeared in three lead roles in feature films and has received one award and one nomination. Based on WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, I believe the subject may be notable. Could someone explain why the draft may still not be ready for publication and what improvements are needed? ~2026-41808-89 (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

You would need to ask CNMall41 directly, but there is no discussion of critical analysis and commentary about this actor's work. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

CNMall41 suggested that I seek advice here. Based on my reading of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR, I believe this draft may meet the notability requirements. If not, could you please point out the specific issues that still need to be addressed? Here is (Official Filmfare) References - Media coverage Highly Recommend news 1 2 other language reliable sources 3 4 5 ~2026-41808-89 (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The New Indian Express - Journalists (A Shraddha) ~2026-41808-89 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What is your involvement with this draft – are you the editor who created it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why I am entertaining the LOUTSOCKing but I will just say that any editor who is not UPE or SPI is free to update and submit to AfC. I am not the one who moved it from main space to draft, I only rejected it after this IP range removed the COI/UPE tag and submitted to AfC without improvement. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts

Morning folks @DoubleGrazing:, @331dot:. Do you happen to know what to do with duplicate drafts specifically re: Draft:European Correspondent and Draft:The European Correspondent. A mentee has me for help and I've never came across this before. I know anybody can edit these drafts but don't want to step on the toes of the editor who created the wee article. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really have an answer, but can offer some random musings:

• If the drafts are identical, and by the same user, I decline the newer one as duplicate, and ask the user not to submit multiple drafts on the same subject.
• If they're identical and by different users, I decline, and ask the creator of the newer one why they've copied someone else's draft.
• If they're substantially different, and by the same user, I ask which one they want to run with, and reject the other.
• If they're different, and by different users, I add a comment to each pointing to the other draft (so they don't inadvertently get both accepted), and then somewhat play it by ear. If both are bona fide work, the first one to reach acceptable state should be published, in my view at least.

In this case, Draft:European Correspondent is about to go stale, since it hasn't been edited after it was declined in February, so looks like Draft:The European Correspondent is currently the front runner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: They are different and assuming different editors by the response. Both editors were temp accounts. Could I assume that one of the draft articles is notable, perhaps the second one and that begs the question, could I promote the first and the do a merge from the second one. That is assuming they are notable as a combined entity. I do not have any experience with notability of newspapers though. I wouldn't even know where start. Is this one notable Draft:The European Correspondent. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I'd say, based on a superficial scan rather than any in-depth analysis, that the sources cited in Draft:The European Correspondent probably do establish notability, yes. And you are, of course, free to edit either draft, just like anyone else; besides, if you get this to an acceptable state and into the 'pedia, I can't see its previous contributors taking issue with that (although conceivably the contributors of the other draft might, but hey ho). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @DoubleGrazing:. That gives me a way forward and some help with the mentee. scope_creep^Talk 17:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

11:11, 27 July 2026 review of submission by Luvlifetomax1

• Luvlifetomax1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Renu B.P. Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I dont understand why it has been rejected this is a biography about myself. Luvlifetomax1 (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Abandon all use of an AI/LLM, and please use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and what is being looked for in article content. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Please also read the autobiography policy. Writing about yourself is ill advised. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

12:18, 27 July 2026 review of submission by CleaRashamba

• CleaRashamba (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ahad Ha'am Middle School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I try to submit and add more to the page but I just get told "it's not notable". Take the High School's page for example. The English page is barely 9 lines long, and is barren of subject compared to this page. And the Hebrew isn't even talking about the same thing! The Hebrew part is talking about the Six Year program, and most of it is just who's the principal and when it was founded. So I'm just asking for more details why my page is denied while the high school's page is less notable and still up. CleaRashamba (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Ahad HaAm High School should probably be deleted as not notable, see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahad HaAm High School. Just because we have other substandard articles on Wikipedia isn't a reason to compound the problem by adding more. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

13:49, 27 July 2026 review of submission by BrentL1976

• BrentL1976 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Holosonics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a conflict of interest as the marketing agency representing Holosonics (Holosonic Research Labs, Inc.), a Massachusetts-based directional speaker manufacturer. I have assembled significant independent sourcing for an article but am unable to write it myself due to COI and Wikipedia's LLM content policy.

The draft exists at Draft:Holosonics but has been declined twice. Independent sources include:

- Campaign magazine (BBC Radio 3 campaign, 2009) - NPR/Connecticut Public Radio Audacious interview (2021) - AudioTechnology Magazine independent product review - AV Magazine feature by Phil Ward (2025) - Systems Contractor News feature by Wayne Cavadi (2026) - SRF Einstein Swiss national TV segment (2013) - AV Interactive Mob Museum installation report (2018) - NewsWest9 NBC affiliate local news report

Would an independent editor be willing to write or substantially rewrite Draft:Holosonics using these sources? BrentL1976 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You have to be your own biggest advocate. No one cares about your topic more than you, not even your mom. Yes you can ask if anyone else would be willing to write it, but a hundred(ish) editors ask that same question about other drafts every single day across Wikipedia. guninvalid (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Not only that, it's pretty disrespectful for a paid editor to be asking for volunteers to donate their time so that he can get paid. Paid editors are expected to know the rules and do competent work on Wikipedia without requiring volunteer-donated time, which is collectively far more valuable than his own. The self-absorbed sense of entitlement I see from paid editors never ceases to amaze me. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for independent editor to write article on Holosonics (directional speaker manufacturer)

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

---

I represent the marketing agency (Leland Creative) for Holosonics (Holosonic Research Labs, Inc.), a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of directional loudspeaker systems. I have a conflict of interest and am unable to write the article myself under Wikipedia policy.

A draft exists at Draft:Holosonics but has been declined twice — first for promotional tone, then for containing LLM-generated content. The sourcing is solid and I am not asking anyone to write promotional content — only a neutral, encyclopedic article summarizing what independent sources say about the company.

Independent sources available include:

• Campaign magazine — BBC Radio 3 used Audio Spotlight speakers

 in a nationally televised campaign (April 2009, bylined Ben Bold)

• Connecticut Public Radio Audacious — interview with founder

 Dr. F. Joseph Pompei (October 2021)

• AudioTechnology magazine — independent hands-on product review

 with frequency response and SPL measurements (issue 34)

• AV Magazine — feature by Phil Ward on museum audio technology

 referencing Holosonics installations (August 2025)

• Systems Contractor News — installation feature by Wayne Cavadi

 (January 2026)

• SRF Einstein — Swiss national public television science segment

 on the technology (2013, in German)

• AV Interactive — news report on Mob Museum Las Vegas installation

 (August 2018)

• NewsWest9 (NBC affiliate) — local TV news report on Museum of the

 Southwest installation

The technology also has academic roots — founder F. Joseph Pompei developed it at the MIT Media Lab and presented at the 105th AES Convention in 1998. The company is also referenced in the existing Wikipedia article Sound from ultrasound.

I am happy to provide all source URLs and answer any factual questions. Thank you for considering this request. BrentL1976 (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place to solicit others to edit for you. You are permitted to edit the draft yourself, but your chances of success are very low. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

my apologies. thanks for the heads up BrentL1976 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Your draft has been declined twice, so now you're looking for a volunteer to do your job for you, which you are being paid for, so you can do none of the work and collect your fee! Shameless. Athanelar (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Laughable! Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

And, insult to injury, you say here that I have a conflict of interest and am unable to write the article myself under Wikipedia policy. which is not true, you are perfectly able to write and submit drafts if you have a conflict of interest. Even if it were true, you already tried to write the article yourself, that's how it got declined twice! You've invented a rule and then broken it, all because you didn't take even a moment of effort to check whether the chatbot you've outsourced your higher cognitive functions to actually said something that makes any sense. Not only do you come here to make this incredibly insulting request asking for somebody else to earn your paycheck for you, but you do so by copying some AI generated nonsense that obviously makes zero sense if you apply even half a second of scrutiny to it. Paid editors are bulls-in-china-shops at the best of times on Wikipedia, but the sheer simultaneous level of gall and incompetence on display here is astounding. Athanelar (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@BrentL1976 If you're embarrassed or ashamed or regretful of this request (which you should be), the appropriate thing to do would be to apologise and look for some advice on how to move forward in a productive manner, not silently try to scrub the record by "withdrawing" your request. Athanelar (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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

16:52, 27 July 2026 review of submission by Agyei Asare Dickson

• Agyei Asare Dickson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dickson Agyei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I (Dickson Agyei) am known for co-founding and being CEO of Alle-AI. Most of the coverage about me, including the one from Forbes Africa will definitely be about my company, Alle-AI as well. it's getting a bit frustrating and tiring to get this through. I need you guys to help me out. Agyei Asare Dickson (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It is inadvisable to write about yourself at all, please read the autobiography policy. In my 14ish years as an admin I have never personally seen someone succeed at writing an autobiography, though it may have happened. The point is that it is very rare. Are you one of the rare people on this planet who can succeed where almost all fail? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it.

You are telling us what you want the world to know about you. That is the wrong approach. You need to set aside everything that you know about yourself and all materials you have put out(including interviews or the mere reporting of your activities), and limit yourself to summarizing what others have chosen on their own to say about you and what makes you a notable person.

Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Awards). A good portion of what you write about is actually about the platform you created, not you personally. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a rhetorical question: Exactly why do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Vanity? Publicity? SEO? None of those are valid reasons.

If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write an article about you. Whether that happens next month or 100 years from now shouldn't matter to you in the least. Why would it matter to you? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

18:12, 27 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41536-16

• ~2026-41536-16 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eze Vidra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am Eze Vidra, the subject of Draft:Eze Vidra, so I have a conflict of interest. The declined version was prepared using AI-generated text. I understand that this does not comply with Wikipedia’s guideline on LLM-generated article content, and I will not resubmit that version or attempt to disguise its origin. I would like to proceed transparently and appropriately. Should I replace the existing draft with a new version that I write myself directly from verified independent sources, or would it be preferable to wait for an uninvolved editor to develop the article? I would also appreciate guidance on whether the existing independent sources appear sufficient to establish notability before any further work is undertaken. I will retain the decline notice and disclose my connection to the subject on the draft’s Talk page. Thank you for your guidance.

~2026-41536-16 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41536-16 Your account @Vccafe1 has been blocked. That means you, the editor behind the account, are blocked from editing until you submit an unblock request on your account and get it accepted. Please log into your account and submit an unblock request according to the instructions on your talk page. Athanelar (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

21:30, 27 July 2026 review of submission by Petuniabaa

• Petuniabaa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I apologize if this is an inappropriate request. The Clark Unitive Effect draft is being denied review for inclusion (“This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources…)  Try as I may, I can’t seem to understand what edits need to be done.I had added just a few of the papers citing/supporting/referencing the theory that I understand meets the "criteria for inclusion.”

Your edits of the draft, or counsel to me would be so helpful.  This theory is important to researchers, policy-makers, civic leaders, educators and so many others. The theory, in ways that can be understood, identifies how to understand and overcome errors in thinking, decision-making, and understanding, and actions to take.

Thank you for any help you can provide. 

With humility and deep appreciation, Petuniabaa Petuniabaa (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Petuniabaa I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Subject: Need Your Help - Draft denied review for” inclusion". 331dot (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Petuniabaa (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The draft reads as an essay and not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. Much of ths draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful. Petuniabaa (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

July 28

01:18, 28 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-33086-33

• ~2026-33086-33 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Norman Arnold (composer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a second review of Draft:Norman Arnold (composer), declined by reviewer Sulfurboy citing insufficient notability. I would note:

A 2002 Variety article profiles Arnold alongside Hans Zimmer and Jonathan Wolff, quotes him directly, and names his company — editorial coverage in a major trade publication. A June 2004 ASCAP Playback profile (p. 68) is a dedicated named feature on Arnold discussing his musical style, projects, and career in detail.

Arnold also scored five award-winning documentaries (Tribeca Best Documentary Feature, IDA Award, GLAAD Award, DuPont-Columbia Award, New England Emmy), working repeatedly with Oscar-nominated filmmaker Steve James at Kartemquin Films.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page. I am seeking a fair second assessment. Thank you. ~2026-33086-33 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's already been reviewed, and you have not made a single effort to address the concerns. You may ask Sulfurboy to elaborate if you want, but please don't engage in "reviewer shopping". It will not be re-reviewed until you improve it and re-submit it for review.

Trade publications exist to promote entities in the trade, and do not count toward notability. Neither do interviews. Also, notability is not inherited by virtue of the subject being associated with other notable people.

It would help if you explained which inclusion criteria in WP:COMPOSER does Norman Arnold meet. And explain which three sources meet all of the WP:Golden Rule criteria. You cite sources that don't even mention Arnold, or give at most a trivial mention.

What is the nature of your conflict of interest? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

User claims to be the subject on their user talk page(though they need to log in). 331dot (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

04:37, 28 July 2026 review of submission by DangTungDuong

• DangTungDuong (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Prep Edu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I've used all the references links that meet the independent criteria: no press release, no promotion article; and written by reputable editorial. In addition, I can easily add from the internet various other sources on their awards and certificates. Please explain why my new references links are not accepted?

In case, please show me an example? I have 19 years here in Wikipedia, it seems that some rules are not reliable in my pov. Sincerely, DangTungDuong (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@DangTungDuong Have you read the criteria for inclusion for corporations and organisations? Athanelar (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you read what I've asked for? Your reply doesn't have any helpful meanings. DangTungDuong (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You asked us to Please explain why my new references links are not accepted? I'm asking if you're familiar with the relevant criteria for inclusion considering the decline notice at the top of your draft clearly states that the draft was declined for not meeting those same criteria. So if you haven't yet familiarised yourself with the criteria, that would probably be a sensible place to start if you want to understand why the draft was declined. Athanelar (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Your logs say you have over 17 years here, but the time elapsed since you created your account is irrelevant; what matters more is experience. With less than 400 edits, it seems you still have things to learn. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS may be good starting points to read about. Your question has been answered, by pointing you to the relevant policies and guidelines that all editors should be familiar with. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

04:43, 28 July 2026 review of submission by AdrianMusolino83

• AdrianMusolino83 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adelaide Rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why does this keep getting rejected? It meets all the criteria. AdrianMusolino83 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Which criteria do you believe it meets? Athanelar (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

04:49, 28 July 2026 review of submission by FuzzyPanda88

• FuzzyPanda88 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Andrew Drummond (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abuse from new reviewers immediately rejecting the article, who may be coordinating a campaign against Drummond based on his recent exposure of organized crime groups. Request for senior editors to review this page for acceptance into Wikipedia.

FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

And no I'm not paid, by who? Drummond? He is near 80 years old and lives in poverty. FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiple reviewers volunteered their time to try to help you get that article sorted. You returned the favor by resubmitting a fifth time without making a single change. This wastes the time of editors and can be broadly construed as attempting to WP:GAME the system. Also, accusing multiples reviewers of being part of some grand cabal probably isn't going to get you very far either. Your actions and reactions also very much show a close connection with the subject. See WP:DUCK Sulfurboy (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I did make a change I put 6 new sources in the article I found with help from Gemini and then someone rejected it saying I didn't make any changes which is incorrect, I did add 6 new sources? After they trolled me accusing me of being paid on the Talk page for my profile and the goal posts keep moving, that does not seem fair. FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have never met Drummond, never been paid by Drummond. What I know is he lives in poverty in the UK, join any Facebook group in Pattaya (Thailand) and everyone knows about him. FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@FuzzyPanda88 Yes, then after you did that it was once again declined by Avgeekamfot, after which you resubmitted it without any changes whatsoever.

If you make no effort to understand the requirements then they will naturally be quite confusing to you. There is a wealth of information available in the decline notices as well as the comments underneath them.

Furthermore, what's your connection to the account @Bmpwoan58 who has also been working on the same draft? I presume you are the same person? Athanelar (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you here to spread conspiracy theories, or judge the article on merit? FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I resubmitted again because the accusation was false, he said I made no changes and that was incorrect because I added already 6 more sources, then he moved the goal posts and accused me of being paid, and now we are having petty internet debates instead of analyzing the article on merits. FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you here to get your draft published or to throw tantrums and cast aspersions when the task you blindly embarked on with no effort to educate yourself on the requirements goes wrong?

Article creation is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia. Trying to get an article published here with no experience and no time spent learning the ropes is like trying to submit an article to an academic journal with no background in the field and no understanding of how peer review works, then accusing the journal of a conspiracy when they won't publish your paper. Athanelar (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Accusing reviewers of a off-wiki conspiracy against Mr. Drummond is a serious accusation; serious accusations require serious evidence; please send your evidence as WP:REPORTPAID instructs, or withdraw the accusation. 331dot (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel the same thing, I mean don't accuse me of being "paid" without evidence (not you but them). And blocking the article based on such unrelated conspiracy theories. The info can be judged on merit. FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I see some red flags that suggest paid editing. If you're not, all you need to say is "I'm not a paid editor", not make counter-accusations without evidence.

It's unusual for a new user to ask that a draft be recreated. How did you come to find it? 331dot (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry but it was offensive as I'm thinking I'm documenting a journalist near the end of his life and suddenly my inbox has 4 users accusing me of being "paid". I used Wikipedia years ago when you had to edit articles using code and I used Gemini to add more sources and re-submit, I found this page on Wikitia. If Drummond is not notable for Wikipedia so be it, but he is significant in Thailand, one of the most well known journalists here. Cheers. FuzzyPanda88 (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to write about journalists here, because journalists rarely write about other journalists, unless they are on the level of Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw. Doing so without any prior editing experience is, as noted, very difficult. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FuzzyPanda88.

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.

It follows that if there are few or no such sources (see WP:42) then, however well-known or popular the subject may be there is essentially nothing which can be included in an article, and no article is possible.

This is not a reflection on the subject: as @331dot said above, journalists are one of the categories of people who tend not to get written about much at the depth that is required. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

08:17, 28 July 2026 review of submission by Kerastari

• Kerastari (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Steven Antony Krilis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The submission of my article was rejected by Sulfur boy and claims that there is use of LLM and that there are unverifiable resources in the article I had replied that I wrote all the article and used verifiable sources but submitted it to ChatGPT to edit and convert it to Wiki code. I had asked if I could be advised of the specific issues that were identified so I could edit it and remove the offending parts of the article I have not received a reply to my email Kerastari (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you use a LLM or not? Yes or no. guninvalid (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, you did. @Kerastari, writing articles using large language models is prohibited on Wikipedia. We can understand when humans make mistakes and we're okay with cleaning up human errors. We're not interested in cleaning up slop. Please rewrite this article from scratch using your own words. No, we aren't expecting it to be perfect, and that's okay. guninvalid (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kerastari. As 331dot said to another aspirant further up the page, Trying to remove the influence of an LLM from a draft is like trying to remove rat poison from soup. Best to just start fresh and do the work yourself. ColinFine (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

08:48, 28 July 2026 review of submission by IanDWithers

• IanDWithers (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ian Douglas Withers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Where can I get a list of approved editors to help me? IanDWithers (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see the autobiography policy; it's generally discouraged, though not forbidden, for people to write about themselves. It's usually very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and summarize what independent reliable sources say about them.

There is no "list of approved editors" nor any process to approve an editor. Anyone anywhere in the world may participate here. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

11:36, 28 July 2026 review of submission by Archive-runner

• Archive-runner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Secrecy Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not quite understand how to navigate a reviewer who seems set against my page - first rejecting it for AI use (falsely) then for content that is not deemed right for Wikipedia. There is tons of content on academic areas of study on wikipedia. This editor/reviewer seems fixated on taking this content down. How can I seek a third opinion? Archive-runner (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, looks like the two reviewers' concerns was of AI use. Did you use Grammarly, ChatGPT, Claude, or other similar AI technology in any way (e.g. generation, copyediting, formatting, research) in creating this article? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No I did not. I don't think they liked the fact that I used lists of threes and bullet-pointed lists which are now mistaken for AI because they are commonly used! Honestly, this is my first time creating a page and I am so put off by this whole experience. I don't think the wikipedia community is a community or for me... Archive-runner (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've read over your article, and I do disagree with the other two editors that the article is AI-generated. Let me know if you wish to re-submit it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Because you blanked the page, it has been deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G7, and that kind of deletion can be restored with a request at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

13:49, 28 July 2026 review of submission by Mirza234

• Mirza234 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Malaysia men's national volleyball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i need this for community Mirza234 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much you "need" an article. What matters is whether Wikipedia needs it. If you cannot demonstrate notability by finding at least three sources meeting all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule, we cannot have an article about it. You wrote the draft WP:BACKWARD. You need to find adequate sources first, before you write a single word. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

13:55, 28 July 2026 review of submission by Dougmcilhagga

• Dougmcilhagga (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ted Leland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The previous rejection said it lacked inline sourcing. I have 26 footnotes - newspapers, magazines, websites. I used the bios of former Ohio State AD Gene Smith and former Duke AD Kevin White as the template for this draft. They have less resources than my draft. The athletic accomplishments are indisputable, they're in record books. The facilities he built are standing. I do not understand. Dougmcilhagga (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I looked at the first paragraph and it has three inline URLs to organizations (that looks promotional) and the only claim to fame is about some Halls of Fame, which really is not a good claim to make, especially not with a reference that says " Pacifictigers.com, Aug. 22, 2017 "--that's a very incomplete citation, and "Pacifictigers.com" does NOT sound like a reputable news organization or secondary source. The whole "Community Involvement" thing is puffery with, again, inline primary links that are NOT acceptable citations. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • So what you're telling me is that established institutions of higher education are not reliable sources? The universities where he created these records and accomplishments and the successes are documented are not legitimate? MLB just inducted three new members to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown? You would consider that puffery? Dougmcilhagga (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
    • As a Hall of Fame that is notable, and has an article on Wikipedia because of that notability, the Baseball Hall of Fame has the ability to establish notability for its members. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Listing someone as a Hall of Famer without explaining what he actually was supposed to have done is puffery, yes. An "established institution of higher education" in itself is not a "reliable source" (it's an institution and that's a different thing), and pages on the website of such institutions could be accepted but it depends on the circumstances. One of your first links is this, and there is no way that that is an acceptable source for neutral BLP information. If a baseball player gets elected into the Hall of Fame, the chances of them already having been notable, and proven to be notable, are about 100%. The Chabot College Hall of Fame works quite differently. As for the secondary sources you claim, yeah I see them in the article, but they are so poorly formatted/cited that it's hard to figure what the value of each of them is. That is what you've been asked to do, cite properly, and User:Theroadislong just asked you again to do that. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You have ignored previous advice to improve referencing by reading WP:REFB. Your draft has zero chance of acceptance unless you do, you have written a fine CV but there is very little indication that they are a notable person in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not ignored advice. I discovered more sources, added the demanded inline references. I'm doing this for the first time, and it's incredibly frustrating. This gentleman is one of the giants of his profession. Telling me a source doesn't "sound like" a reliable source tells me you are unfamiliar with intercollegiate athletics and historical references Dougmcilhagga (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The universities where he created these "records and accomplishments" are NOT independent sources, they are primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

and you have clearly not read WP:REFB you have added external links not citations as required. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have 16 secondary sources in the draft. I will edit to eliminate primary sources. Dougmcilhagga (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have added three examples of referencing and wiki-linking for you, please learn how to do this before re-submitting. Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

14:49, 28 July 2026 review of submission by Mangoware

• Mangoware (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Red Autumn Calville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Red Autumn Calville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the original German version of the Wikipedia page there is an info-box, however there is some sort of issue with the code and because of that I am unable to transfer it across to the English translation. How would I transfer the info-box or recreate the info-box? Mangoware (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mangoware: infobox (and other) templates are language-specific, the de.wiki article de:Roter Herbstkalvill uses 'Infobox Apfelsorte' and we have no such template. Here we use the en.wiki's {{Infobox cultivar}} template instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mangoware.

Please note that the presence or absence of an infobox will not affect whether a draft is accepted or not.

What will crucially affect it is the quality (even more than the quantity) of sources.

Your draft currently cites no sources at all, and is therefore not acceptable as an article.

de:Roter Herbstkalvill cites only one source, and that is a database, and so does not contribute to establishing notability by the standards of English Wikipedia (which are often stricter than other language versions).

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.

So you need to begin by finding several sources which each meet all the requirements in WP:42, and only if you can find several (usually, at least three) do you have any chance of creating a draft acceptable to English Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

16:45, 28 July 2026 review of submission by Socialdev2

Hello there,

I am working on the page about Prof. Restrepo and a related topic on automation vs employement. The page as not been approved because "It lacks in line citations". Just to clarify, I think I have quite some references and mentioned articles, but the references are only 5. Does it mean that this is too little, and any statement should have a "reference like those 5"? The followup question is related to what is a reliable source. I know the link where you explain this but this is rather a bit abstract. Is a link to NewYorkTimes a reliable source? What about an academic article published on a high impact journal? And a preprint or a white paper? Thanks. Socialdev2 (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Socialdev2.

It's not the number of the references, it's their quality.

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.

It follows that the majority of the sources must meet all the criteria in WP:42, or there can be no article.

Of the five sources cited in Draft:Pascual Restrepo, three are not independent: Restrepo is an author, co-author, or interviewee.

The other two appear to have the same title, though they have different URLs - the first one gives me 404, and the last is under a paywall so I can't look at it. But as they don't mention him in the title, I'm dubious whether they will help, though they might do. Unless the article(s) contain significant commentary about Restrepo personally, by people wholly unconnected with him, and with no direct input on his behalf, then they won't help.

You need to begin by finding several sources which each meet all the criteria in WP:42, or you cannot create an acceptable draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

19:25, 28 July 2026 review of submission by RayGranger21

• RayGranger21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zoroastrian Association of Québec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greeting, Can you guide me how to make this page acceptable? RayGranger21 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Formally, you will need to make changes to the draft and then contact the editor who rejected the draft to demonstrate that you have met the repeated declines for essentially the same reason. Namely that your sources are primary and / or non-independent. You need to be guided by WP:NORG, which requires sources that are secondary and independent. Or to put it very simply, the WP:GOLDENRULE. So go through the decline reasons, find secondary sources, go back to the editor who rejected the article after making the appropriate changes to the draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

20:15, 28 July 2026 review of submission by Goodnightfred33

• Goodnightfred33 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Scared (Dangerous Toys song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to add sources Goodnightfred33 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

20:20, 28 July 2026 review of submission by JenPrevost

• JenPrevost (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Li'l Andy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"My draft Draft:Li'l Andy was declined on July 17 for insufficient independent secondary sourcing. I've since added coverage from The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, Le Devoir, CBC News, and Journal de Québec, plus several music-press reviews. Before resubmitting, I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether this sourcing now meets WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO, and whether the current structure/tone looks acceptable. Thank you." JenPrevost (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your header, its built to provide a link to the draft, it shouldn't be wikilinked in the header.

We don't do pre-review reviews, as that just duplicates what the reviewer will do. If you feel you addressed the concerns, please resubmit. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi JenPrevost, please don't use an AI or LLM to create articles, or to communicate with us. All contributions to Wikipedia should be written by yourself. In solidarity, nil ^nz 21:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

21:56, 28 July 2026 review of submission by AWijesinghe

• AWijesinghe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:I-care Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been revising this draft for resubmission and would appreciate a quick sanity check from editors with more experience.

1) Are the citations generally formatted correctly? I originally used AI to help convert the references into wikitext, but I've since manually reviewed every citation, verified the metadata (authors, publishers, publication names, etc.), and corrected them where needed. Is there anything obvious I'm still missing from a citation-formatting perspective? 2) Aside from questions of notability or sourcing, is there anything in the article itself that stands out as a significant issue before I resubmit it for AfC review?

Thanks in advance for any feedback! AWijesinghe (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell us the WP:THREE sources you think best establish notability for this company WP:NCORP? Sulfurboy (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the three strongest independent sources are:

L'Echo – "I-care est l'entreprise de l'année 2020" (December 2020), by Simon Souris. This is an in-depth profile published by Belgium's leading French-language financial newspaper, covering the company's growth, business model, and selection as Enterprise of the Year.

L'Echo – "I-care, le Dr House des machines industrielles" (2019), by Isabelle de Laminne. This provides substantial editorial coverage of the company, its technology, and its position within the industrial maintenance sector.

La Libre – "Avec I-care, la Wallonie tient un futur champion mondial de la maintenance industrielle" (2020), by Pierre-François Lovens. This is an independent feature discussing the company's development, market position, and broader significance.

In addition to those, I cited independent coverage from De Tijd, Le Soir, RTBF, Trends-Tendances, and Forbes Belgique. Much of the more recent reporting focuses on subsequent developments (such as the company's valuation exceeding €1 billion, its unicorn status, and its IPO postponement), which I viewed as evidence of continued independent coverage rather than the primary sources establishing notability. AWijesinghe (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

July 29

01:16, 29 July 2026 review of submission by JaredMcKenzie

• JaredMcKenzie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Skindiving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Skindiving (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, would like to request if Skindiving is a concept distinct enough to potentially have its own article. Currently Wikipedia claims it's the same as freediving. But it's arguably not. There are authoritive training organizations like PADI who explains that freediving is "very different" to skin diving.[1] When they describe different types of freediving, they explain it's a discipline that has intent and training focused on maximizing depth and time underwater.[2]; Skin diving isn't that at all as it is mostly surface swimming with the occasional descents that are way more shallow and more brief. Understandably, those who actually participate in skin diving and scuba, feel the need to have the public not conflate free diving with skin diving as they today refer to very different things.[3] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If you can reasonably demonstrate that it is a distinct thing, and then provide sources to show it is notable by the standards of WP:GNG then go for it. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's no issue. But rather not waste time slowly building the draft article only for it to be shot down on a mere technicality. So hoping for a definitive pre-review on distinction alone before I go ahead.

The distinction is definitely in the breath holds. Freediving is widely understood to be hardcore and aims for holds of 3 to 10+ minutes, risking blackouts. Skindiving isn't that at all and it's mostly just normal snorkeling but with the occasional descent of typically less than 30 seconds.[4] Most people can handle that and risk of painful shallow water blackouts is far less likely with skin diving. I not only have PADI but also DeeperBlue, a reputable magazine in the field of diving, who support my above explanation.

They write; difference is that skin diving involves diving down with the purpose of having a closer look at coral or marine life and staying down to explore. These depths can be anywhere from 5-10m (16-32ft) and bottom time is usually less than 30 second....Freediving is completely different from snorkeling and skin diving. Freediving as a competitive sport (with athletes reaching depths of up to 130m/426ft) can be used to challenge yourself..[5] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:GOLDENRULE, I'm not sure all the sources you mentioned pass that standard, and we need multiple that do to denote notability. If you're nervous that you building the draft might be a waste of time when if/when it's determined to be not notable, then I'd probably hold off on creating the draft until you feel more confident. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't overthink it and give it a crack. I am aware that experts and many experienced divers will intuitively understand the difference in terms. It's one of those things that are necessary obvious usage among divers but is lesser understood by newbies/general public who probably never even heard of the terms. But it's one of the safe fun activities that differ from snorkeling and scuba, but is definitely not in the same category of a performance-oriented breath-hold diving discipline/freediving. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I never imagined that there would be any controversy about these terms or that Wikipedia would get it wrong. As a certified scuba diver for the past 40 years, I have always understood the point of free diving to be going as deep as possible for as long as possible without any breathing aids, and skin diving was basically snorkeling but sometimes without the snorkel, just a mask. Finding sources to corroborate common knowledge might be harder than it sounds, though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your understanding. Do you think any of these 7 sources are sufficient for wiki to corroborate that they're different things? They are all I can practically find. Some are training certification agencies[6][7][8]; rest are written by experts.[9][10][11][12]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The PADI source and others written by certification agencies are good for clarifying the definitions. Of those other four sources, thequeensescape.com is flagged as a trojan site by MalwareBytes and refuses to go there, so that shouldn't be included, and the last one petebollard.com looks like someone's self-published page. Those two aren't useful. The rest are useful ("mermaiding" is a new one for me), but they're essentially trade publications so I'm not sure if they would count toward notability for a standalone article on skin diving.

What I would do for now is expand the disambiguation page with an introductory paragraph defining what skin diving actually means to practitioners of the different forms of diving, and noting that the term is also used more generally and imprecisely to refer to the other terms. I would also make skin diving be the page per WP:COMMONNAME (it's the more common term according to ngram viewer) rather than the single word "skindiving". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Gotta respect the mermaiding arts as what they do is pretty difficult in aquariums. :) Thank you for the honest insight. I will try figure out a way. It is clear that whether or not freediving and skin diving is the same - it is something that's not universally agreed upon. Modern diving training agencies still separate them by intent and depth though dictionary definitions broadly treat them as synonyms, probably because early on they used to describe the same basic thing before freediving evolved into a very competitive sport. Really cannot continue to imply in lede for freediving that they mean the same thing and simultaneously say that freediving is drastically different to skin diving in terms of depth and breath-hold time. That would just be problematic. I think maybe I should start in adjusting the article to reflect there is no universal agreement on modern terms. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am reminded of the usage of the word "theory", which means something specific in science (a thoroughly tested explanatory framework), but something very different in general non-science usage (an untested conjecture or hypothesis). The lead section of theory takes some pains to explain the difference. There is no reason why the distinctions between skin diving, snorkeling, and free diving couldn't also be described in a short lead section on the disambiguation page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

02:50, 29 July 2026 review of submission by Lally MM

• Lally MM (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Husam N. Alshareef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello!

This draft [Husam N. Alshareef] was substantially revised based on input from experienced Wikipedia editors, who helped provide code on the back end in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. It's been more than two months since I've heard back. I do understand that it takes time to receive a review. I'm hoping for a status update. Many thanks!

Lally MM Lally MM (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lally MM Firstly, as the notice at the top of your draft says; this may take 4 months or more.

Secondly, I'm curious about your latest edit summary. It says This is a draft replacement for the profile, written to address the issues raised by the Wikipedia reviewers. Copy Who wrote this instruction? It seems to be that you mistakenly left in the start of an instruction telling you to copy the draft and paste it into Wikipedia or some such. Athanelar (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I did not know that I did that and wish to remove it. I am a writer but not versed in code so collaborated with a colleague to help get the structure correct per Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Do you know if I can amend that while it is in the review process? Lally MM (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lally MM: by "colleague" do you perhaps mean AI?

No, there is no way of amending an edit summary once it has been posted, if that's what you're asking.

I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Not AI but a real colleague and Wikipedia editor with expertise in academic subjects. I don't use AI. I am a writer and don't need it for one, and opt against it, besides. On what basis is this assumed? However, I cannot speak to what my colleague did on the back end with the code. I am a new Wikipedia user so he was offering guidance with the template and some phrasing. I've reached out to inquire about LLMs and will respond to the conflict-of-interest query when I have more information. If need be I'll start anew or salvage what works and proceed without the back-end assistance. Helpful feedback that's good for me to know. Lally MM (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

03:00, 29 July 2026 review of submission by TheKyleHuang

• TheKyleHuang (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Astro (web framework) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was this article rejected? There are sources from The New Stack, Smashing Magazine, and Info World. (Non affiliated with Astro.js) TheKyleHuang (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you read about the criteria for inclusion? Athanelar (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that 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. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TheKyleHuang.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

The first The New Stack piece is basically quoting a developer - it's an interview in all but name.

The Smashing piece, as far as I can tell (I haven't listened) is an interview with a developer.

Neither of these is independent of Astro, and do not contribute to establishing notability.

You need several sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

07:45, 29 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41877-18

• ~2026-41877-18 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hanuman Ansh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

My draft Draft:Hanuman Ansh has been pending in Articles for Creation since 6 June 2026. It has received several improvements from experienced editors and citation bots, but it has not yet been reviewed.

I understand there is a backlog, but I was wondering whether the draft appears ready for review or if there are any remaining issues that I should address before it can be accepted.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. ~2026-41877-18 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The backlog is taking up to four months. Please be patient. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response. I sincerely appreciate your time, guidance, and valuable suggestions. Your help means a lot, and I'll wait and improving the draft accordingly. Thanks again! Masterstrock3 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are Masterstrock3, remember to log in when posting. You disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft itself, please also do this on your user page for better visibility.(User:Masterstrock3). If the conflict of interest is that you are employed in relation to this film, the Terms of Use require you to disclose as a paid editor, see WP:PAID.

Asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process. You are welcome to continue editing the draft while it is awaiting review.

I think that the copyright of the movie poster is deeply incorrect. Most imagery released on social media is not compatible with Wikipedia, and movie posters are not automatically public domain in the US. I suggest that you just remove the image; images are not relevant to the draft process. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and for your helpful guidance.

You're absolutely right. I accidentally posted my previous message while I was not logged in to my account. I normally edit as User:Masterstrock3, and I'll make sure I'm logged in before posting in the future.

I have already updated my user page with the appropriate conflict of interest disclosure, and I'll review it again to ensure it complies with the relevant guidelines. If any additional disclosure is required, I'll be happy to add it.

Thank you as well for pointing out the issue with the movie poster. I understand your concern regarding copyright and Wikipedia's image policies. I'll remove the current image and, if appropriate, replace it later with a properly licensed version that complies with Wikipedia's requirements.

I also understand that requesting a review does not speed up the AfC process, and I appreciate the time and effort of the volunteer reviewers. In the meantime, I'll continue improving the draft while it awaits review.

Thank you again for your valuable advice and for helping me improve the article. Masterstrock3 (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Your paid disclosure is insufficient; you need to specifically name what articles or topics you are paid to edit about and who is paying you. If you are editing about anything to do with your employer, even if not specifically tasked to do so, you are a paid editor due to your general salary. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I have updated my user page to include a specific paid editing disclosure. It now identifies Swambhu Media Network as the organization that compensates me and specifies that my paid editing relates to Draft:Hanuman Ansh and directly related topics. I appreciate your help in ensuring my disclosure complies with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Masterstrock3 (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Masterstrock3, it sounds like you may be using an AI/LLM to help generate your messages. Please be aware that editors wish to speak to you, not to a machine, even if your English isn't perfect. You should also know that using an AI/LLM to create your draft is forbidden, except for a few very narrow ways - please see WP:NOLLM for more information. Meadowlark (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted with thanks, I will use my own words and I am not using any AI for messages. Thanks again Masterstrock3 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

07:51, 29 July 2026 review of submission by SariEdital

• SariEdital (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:BioTechUSA Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am asking for advice regarding Draft:BioTechUSA Group. I have a disclosed conflict of interest, and the draft has been declined for reading like an advertisement and not being neutral.

I have already shortened several sections and tried to rewrite the draft in a more neutral, encyclopedic style. The company is Hungarian, so many of the available sources are in Hungarian, although not all of them. I understand that non-English sources may be used on English Wikipedia.

I also understand that paid or sponsored articles should not be used to establish notability. Some of the available media coverage is paid or sponsored, as this is common in corporate communications, so I would like to make sure that I rely only on appropriate independent editorial sources where required.

Could someone please advise what the main remaining issue is before I resubmit: the wording, the use of company/primary sources, the use of paid or sponsored coverage, or the lack of independent sources establishing notability? I would appreciate specific guidance on which parts should be removed or rewritten.

Thank you in advance. Regards, Sara SariEdital (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@SariEdital: close primary sources, sponsored content / churnalism, routine business reporting, etc. all share the same problem – they are the subject talking, telling the world what it wants to tell the world. We have no interest in that, you can save that for your marcomms channels. For Wikipedia, we want you to summarise what reliable and entirely independent secondary sources have on their own initiative said about this company and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Based on a quick scan of your sources, none of them meets this standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source that is concerned with what secondary sources have to say about a subject. From my eyes, your article basically just looks like a one sheet advert for the company. There's little to no secondary contextualization or balance in views on the company. Lots of mentions of non-notable awards, WP:ROUTINE company happenings, etc. Most if not all of the sourcing is either WP:CHURN or WP:ORGTRIV.

Writing a neutral article that you are being paid to write about for a company you work for makes staying in line with WP:NPOV near impossible. I would advise maybe giving WP:BOSS a read. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Your editing reflects a fundamental, if common, error in your process, in that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company. That is the wrong approach. Instead, you should gather and summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company. This means critical analysis and commentary from sources wholly independent of your company.

Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Awards).

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. You're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior editing experience. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I would add that, as a paid editor, you are expected (and being paid) to know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough to write an article that passes review without help from the volunteer community, whose donated time is collectively far more valuable than yours. Read the information in the links you have been given. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Very kind, thank you for your help. SariEdital (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

10:28, 29 July 2026 review of submission by Jianye Xu

• Jianye Xu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bassam Alrifaee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Help Desk,

The draft Draft:Bassam_Alrifaee has been declined twice, in May and July 2026, with the same general comments: that the references do not establish notability or through multiple independent, reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage.

After the first decline, I revised the draft as thoroughly as I could. Since the second decline repeats the same general comments, I am unsure what issues still need to be addressed. Could someone please provide a more specific assessment? I do not want to resubmit the draft until I have properly resolved the remaining issues.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, Jianye Xu Jianye Xu (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Jianye Xu What is your connection to this man? You took a picture of him where he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. He is my academic supervisor. Jianye Xu (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

That should be disclosed as a conflict of interest, please see WP:COI. If, as your supervisor, he gives you a grade in whole or part based on your editing, you need to disclose as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. He did not ask me to create or edit the draft. I created the draft entirely on my own initiative because of my personal interest. I understand that it is nevertheless a conflict of interest, and I will disclose it in the revision.

Do you by chance have any other comments, apart from this conflict of interest, that might help me identify aspects of the manuscript that could be improved to increase its chances of acceptance? I would highly appreciate it. Jianye Xu (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps if we try the other way around, @Jianye Xu - which criteria of WP:NPROF are you relying on, and which sources verify that? Meadowlark (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Meadowlark. I am relying specifically on criterion 1: that the person’s research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline.

The evidence I intended to use for criterion 1 is:

• He is the founder of the Cyber-Physical Mobility Lab (CPM Lab), which RWTH Aachen University characterized as one of the first small-scale testbeds for connected and automated vehicles.
• The ScienceWriters article “Small robot vehicles drive research and education innovation” gives substantial coverage to the CPM Lab and his role in founding it.
• His Google Scholar profile reports more than 1,500 citations and an h-index of 23.

Would you consider this sufficient evidence to satisfy Criterion 1?

Thank you for you help. Jianye Xu (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Whilst waiting for Meadowlar to respond, I would say none of those are sufficient to satisfy C1, at least not in any obvious way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I agree with DoubleGrazing - academics are not my usual area, but as I understand the criteria this isn't enough. Meadowlark (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion @DoubleGrazing @Meadowlark. I will reconsider how to revise the draft. Jianye Xu (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Dinu-Florin Albu – guidance requested on academic notability

Hello. I am revising Draft:Dinu-Florin Albu following an AfC decline concerning academic notability.

The draft has been substantially shortened and rewritten in neutral English. It now documents a long academic and clinical career in maternal–fetal medicine, prenatal diagnosis, medical genetics, and obstetric ultrasonography. The institutional record lists 30 specialist books and book chapters, 50 full-length journal articles and studies, participation in national and European research projects, leadership or coordination roles in research concerning genetic pathology, congenital malformations and HPV genotyping, postgraduate teaching, invited presentations, contributions to several ISUOG World Congresses, and repeated service on organising committees of Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons meetings.

I understand that an institutional CV, conference programmes, and the subject's own publications primarily verify achievements and may not independently establish notability. The draft also includes independent media coverage and a substantial biographical Medika TV programme, although the latter is interview-based.

Before resubmitting, could an experienced editor please advise whether the documented academic record could plausibly satisfy any specific criterion of WP:NACADEMIC, or whether additional independent secondary sources providing substantial coverage would still be required?

Thank you. ~~~~ Stefan281 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Stefan281: what you're asking us to do is to review the article, but we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk; you'll get one when you resubmit the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

11:25, 29 July 2026 review of submission by ElizabethBarber9

• ElizabethBarber9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Francis Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Francis Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am going to be making several amendments, maybe too many to do in one session. Please let me know how I can save my amendments, without 'submitting' them yet as my fully revised draft. ElizabethBarber9 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The draft is only resubmitted if you click "resubmit". Just click "edit" to edit the draft without resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

11:27, 29 July 2026 review of submission by Afzalimam12

• Afzalimam12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • AFZAL Imam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sir mai bahut pareshan hoo sir mai jab bhi ki source ad karaha hun nahi horaha aid keya resion hai batao details Afzalimam12 (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

nnn Afzalimam12 (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Afzalimam12, please use English in your messages. It's difficult to understand what you want, because translation software is not very good at translating between English and Hindi. If you don't read and write English fluently enough to communicate in English, you may prefer to work on the Hindi Wikipedia.

(Google translation:) Kripya apne message mein english ka istemaal karen. aap jo chahte hain use samajhna mushkil hai, kyonki translation software english aur hindi ke beech translate karne mein bahut acha nahin hai. agar aap english mein baat karne ke liye acchi tarah se english nahin padh aur likh sakte han, to aap is par kaam karna pasand kar sakte han Hindi Wikipedia. Meadowlark (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

11:37, 29 July 2026 review of submission by Afzalimam12

• Afzalimam12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AFZAL IMAM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I am having difficulty understanding why my draft was declined. Could someone please explain what changes I need to make for my draft to meet Wikipedia's requirements? I would really appreciate any guidance. Thank you for your time and help. Ya ek chhota version: Hello! I am a new Wikipedia editor. I don't understand what changes are needed in my draft. Could someone please guide me on how to improve it so it can be reviewed again? Thank you! Afzalimam12 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Your draft was wholly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If English is not your primary language, you may wish to edit the Wikipedia of your primary language instead. Please do not use an LLM to communicate with us. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing my draft. I am new to Wikipedia and still learning. I don't fully understand how to add reliable sources and inline citations. Could you please guide me on what specific changes are needed for my draft to meet Wikipedia's requirements? Thank you very much for your help. Afzalimam12 (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Afzalimam12 Kya aap angreji samjh sakte ho? Wikipedia pe AI use allowed nahi hota hai, including translation ke liye unless aap dono languages me fluent hai. Agar aap angreji likh aur samjh nahi sakte ho, fir shaayad Hindi Wikipedia ko jaao. Athanelar (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

11:43, 29 July 2026 review of submission by PhillipEdits

• PhillipEdits (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Anne Mortimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Anne Mortimer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a declined AfC draft about British illustrator Anne Mortimer. The reviewer said that the references do not demonstrate significant, reliable and independent secondary coverage. I have several print features that I possess as scans, including Western Morning News, Devon Today, Exmoor Magazine and Your Cat. Could an experienced editor advise me whether these sources appear to meet the significant-coverage requirement, and whether the draft needs additional independent sources before I resubmit? PhillipEdits (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I have several print features that I possess as scans Have you referenced them within your draft? Otherwise, it would be rather difficult for anyone to advise you whether they're useful for establishing notability. Athanelar (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

11:45, 29 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42246-27

• ~2026-42246-27 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Julius Adeyinka Adegoke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need all articles online about Julius Adegoke ~2026-42246-27 (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What is fhe nature of your conflict of interest?

We can't do your work for you. You need to locate and summarize any sources. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-42246-27.

Your draft begins Julius Adegoke is a vocal powerhouse and a prolific song writer and arranger.

That is a sentence from a promotional brochure, not an encyclopaedia.

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.

And it is even more difficult if you have a conflict of interest, because you will essentially need to forget every single thing you know about the subject, and write only a summary of what the independent sources say about him. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

13:15, 29 July 2026 review of submission by Sam wetman

• Sam wetman (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kyobe Ndawula Colline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. My draft was declined citing WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:LLM. I would like guidance on what specific types of independent secondary sources are needed to establish notability for an independent artist.

Could a reviewer please clarify if coverage in regional newspapers (such as national Ugandan dailies) or music journalism outlets qualifies, and what level of detail in those sources is required before I consider resubmitting or rewriting the draft? Thank you for your time and feedback. Sam wetman (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What is your connection to him? He posed for a picture you took of him.

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further at this time. You have not shown that he meets the definition of a notable musician. The artistry section is entirely unsourced, there are no cited critical reviews of his work by professional critics. Your sources seem to just document the availability of his music. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

18:12, 29 July 2026 review of submission by Proton anti-proton

• Proton anti-proton (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Chloronium ion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Chloronium ion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I add citations? Mine have none because I didn’t knew how to add, so I used links instead of citations Proton anti-proton (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:REFB and WP:INLINE Sulfurboy (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

18:59, 29 July 2026 review of submission by MacedonianHandballfan

• MacedonianHandballfan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:RK Struga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why is my draft that im am trying to post contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. MacedonianHandballfan (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The rejection note explained that the English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material. It is clear from AbuseLog/44754751 that this is AI-generated material. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The draft was deleted, and then recreated again. I restored the prior revision history, although the current version has been rewritten with zero sources, and GPTzero says 35% probability of AI now. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

20:19, 29 July 2026 review of submission by Chamarelle

• Chamarelle (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Peigh Asante (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have amended and submitted this draft many times. I have resubmitted in September and was asked to add more research and resources, which I had done. All words and research in the article are my own and I feel disappointed at the latest review, accusing me of using a LLM. I have not used any software to write my article. How do I move forward with this? I have submitted as many resources as I can and all writing and research is my own . Can someone help me with this? I want to resubmit however I fear that the same may happen. Chamarelle (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Chamarelle Did you use an LLM or any sort of tool(Grammarly) on the draft for any reason? 331dot (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Chamarelle.

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.

Many of your citations are inadequate: some don't even mention him ("Charlton"), some are not reliable sources (eg LinkedIn), some are effectively interviews, so they are his words: Wikipedia is basically not interested in what he or his associates say or want to say about him.

The language is also not neutral. "gained widespread recognition": who said so, where? "Building on his creative and cultural background" is appropriate to a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia.

I suggest the following steps:

1. Check every one of your sources against all the criteria in WP:42. If they aren't reliable, discard them. If they are not independent, or not in-depth, put them aside - you may be able to use them later to verify specific information, but they are no use for establishing notability.
2. If you end up with less than three sources which meet all the criteria, then you need to find more sources which meet them. If you can't find three or more, then this article is not possible, and you should stop trying.
3. If you have three or more reliable substantial secondary independent sources, then you need to set aside everything that you know about Asante, and write a summary of what those sources say. This probably means deleting all your text and starting again.

ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

July 30

05:08, 30 July 2026 review of submission by LADIOJIKUTU

• LADIOJIKUTU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdur Rasheed Kola Ojikutu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

yes, I used CHATGPT to create the document. Is there any other direct way to do it without the use of machines

LADIOJIKUTU (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

... you can try writing it yourself using your own words. People have done it for thousands of years. Yes, it takes work, no, it won't be perfect. But it's also yours. guninvalid (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

how do I resubmit LADIOJIKUTU (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Evidently someone (possibly you, editing logged out, in which case please don't) managed to resubmit, as the draft is now awaiting review.

Please don't remove the earlier declines, though, they must remain there until the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

it wasn't removed.The new draft was pasted on the old draft and resubmitted ~2026-42267-19 (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, my bad, I didn't notice that the old templates, and the old draft content as well, are still there, at the bottom of the page.

You should develop the declined draft content further, not leave it as it were, and add new content developed offline (or by LLM, or however you do it) above it. If you keep doing that, this will eventually become impossible to work with. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

My intention is to resubmit. If that is not a resubmission then what should I do to be able to resubmit

the reworked draft ~2026-42267-19 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

07:45, 30 July 2026 review of submission by Atmatkf

• Atmatkf (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bara Badhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because of not good writing skill please help rewrite the article Atmatkf (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Atmatkf: we don't (re-)write articles here at the help desk; if you have specific questions in mind, you may ask those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

09:10, 30 July 2026 review of submission by AnthonyWarren23

• AnthonyWarren23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:AnthonyWarren23/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted a draft about a very very unknown artist, with only around 100 monthly listeners and less than 500 followers combined on all platforms, there's very little information about them so I had to ask around with her collaborators and scraps on the internet, as I never got a response when asking them directly through social medias, there's no real links to use for citations, is there anyway I could still have this draft approved? AnthonyWarren23 (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@AnthonyWarren23: basically, no. Everything in a Wikipedia article must come from reliable published sources. Since you've given no indication of where this information has come from, we can't determine whether it is reliable and accurate.

Moreover, if there is no published information available about this person, then they are almost certainly not notable enough to justify an article anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Preliminary feedback requested for Draft:András Lénárd

Hello,

I have submitted Draft:András Lénárd for Articles for Creation review.

The draft is a full English translation of the reviewed Hungarian article: hu:Lénárd András

A Romanian-language version has also been published: ro:András Lénárd

Could an experienced editor please check whether there are any obvious issues with the draft’s sources, notability, neutrality or formatting that I should correct while it is waiting for formal review?

I understand that the existence of articles in other language editions does not by itself establish notability on the English Wikipedia. I am not requesting priority review; I would only appreciate preliminary guidance on any clear problems.

Thank you. Gráncsa Zsolt (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to communicate with us. Athanelar (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

16:27, 30 July 2026 review of submission by Oyinbabyo

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

I have tried to work very thoroughly on backing up the article with reliable sources but it seems there are still sources that are considered as unreliable included. Is it somehow possible to get further information on which of the cited sources in the article are considered unreliable so I can review and replace them or remove the respective sections? Thanks in advance Oyinbabyo (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

(cracks foreclaw knuckles)

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• We can't use https://www.pulse.ng/story/oyin-biography-age-early-life-family-education-career-and-net-worth-2024072508433752034 (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources with no or a role byline because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news, and Nigeria is notorious for brown envelope journalism, which in turn leads to the aforementioned literal fake news.)
• We can't use https://thetrumpet.ng/why-oyin-has-everything/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• We can't use https://trendybeatz.com/legal-download/19316/oyin-ife-ft-qdot (streaming website). On that same note, we can't use Spotify (streaming website), Boomplay (streaming website), Audiomack (streaming website), Tidal (streaming website), or Apple Music/iTunes (streaming website/online storefront).
• We can't use https://www.women4africa.com/women4africa-2022-goldlist/ (too sparse). Lists of names with minimal content.
• We can't use https://www.bellanaija.com/2022/02/hannah-oyin-fakoya/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/oyin-soars-in-ijapa-and-fairy-tales/ seems okay.
• We can't use TikTok (too sparse, no editorial oversight).
• https://punchng.com/african-excellence-takes-centre-stage-as-ireke-debuts/ is a non-sequitur.
• We can't use https://nollywood.com/movies/this-is-not-a-nollywood-movie (too sparse). Content-free movie profile.
• We can't use Instagram or any other social media website (no editorial oversight).
• We can't link to, let alone cite, lyrics on Genius (copyright violation).
• We can't use https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ireke_rise_of_the_maroons (too sparse). Review aggregator, content-free profile. (RT is good as a source specifically for the film's review aggregate, but is worthless for a biography.)
• We can't use https://nollywire.com/titles/this-is-not-a-nollywood-movie/ (too sparse). Content-free film profile.

Practically all of your sources are unusable, save for one. That isn't enough for an article on any subject, let alone a biography of a still-living person which has stricter sourcing standards. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so so much, that helps a lot! Oyinbabyo (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

16:42, 30 July 2026 review of submission by Badg3rbr0z94

• Badg3rbr0z94 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The skirmish at new bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It was denied and I don’t know how it can be better I had tried by best Badg3rbr0z94 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Badg3rbr0z94: Your print sources (refs 1-3) are incomplete. We require more metadata than just the name and publisher for an offline cite:

• For magazines and newspapers, we require the name of the publication, publication edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1926), article title, article byline, and page(s) the article is on.
• For books, we require title, publisher, author, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC number.

I would also suggest reading Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

LOOK ITS JIMOTHY Badg3rbr0z94 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

18:26, 30 July 2026 review of submission by FactuallyFine

• FactuallyFine (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ashwa Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was rejected on notability grounds (does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion). The subject is a student Formula Student engineering team, and most available coverage is short local news items about competition results or prototype launches, rather than in-depth coverage focused on the team itself.

I'd appreciate advice on:

1. Whether the existing sources (local newspaper coverage of competitions and launches) could ever add up to significant coverage under WP:NORG, even without a single dedicated feature piece.

2. Whether a substantially trimmed version, relying only on the strongest available independent sources, would be worth resubmitting, or if the underlying notability gap makes that not worthwhile.

I have a disclosed conflict of interest as a member of the team (see my user page). FactuallyFine (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@FactuallyFine: I haven't gone through your sources, so I'll answer in general terms only.

• Very local, minor sources aren't really useful for establishing notability, because their news threshold is usually very low. Someone's cat has kittens, they'll report it.
• Race coverage and results is just 'routine business reporting', and in any case usually not significant coverage of anything other than the event itself.
• You need to study the notability guideline for organisations, WP:ORG, and see if you can find multiple (3+) sources which satisfy that, then summarise what they have said about this team/stable, as described in WP:GOLDENRULE.

Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning it wouldn't typically be considered further, but if you can rewrite the draft based on sources that satisfy ORG, we can take another look. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's clear and helpful! I understand "rejected" means this needs fundamentally different sourcing and for pointing me to WP:ORG! FactuallyFine (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FactuallyFine.

I haven't looked at all the sources for the draft, but few if any meet the criteria of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the team (see WP:42).

Several of them are newspaper accounts of the team winning a competition, but given that none of those has a named author, it is very likely that they are simply regurgitated press releases, and so not independent. (The Times of India is so often noted for this that it is generally not regarded as a reliable source in Wikipedia). ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a really useful distinction! I hadn't considered that the unbylined pieces might be reprinted press releases rather than independent reporting. Appreciate you taking the time to look at this! FactuallyFine (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing and @ColinFine

Following your feedback, I went back and found some sources. Wanted to check whether these change your assessment before I put more work into a revision. Listing all five! I believe 1, 3, and 5 are new and weren't in the original draft. 2 and 4 may already be reflected there in some form, but including them for completeness:

1. The Hindu (2014)- dedicated article, multiple named student quotes:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/rv-engineering-college-students-launch-race-car-prototypes/article6174564.ece

2. Bangalore Mirror (2014)- dedicated, independently reported:

https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/ice-carsrv-college-of-engineering-formula-hybrid-frp-internal-combustion-engine-hybrid-cars/articleshow/37720903.cms

3. New Indian Express (2016)- dedicated, feature-length, multiple named sources including faculty and team members, technical detail:

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2016/May/16/city-team-wins-at-us-design-event-904213.html

4. Times of India (2021)- substantial coverage (four paragraphs, named quotes from team captain and faculty advisor), though shared with another college's separate project in the same article:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/bluru-engineering-students-bag-top-spots-in-design-competitions/articleshow/85545132.cms

5. Bangalore Mirror (2019)- dedicated, named byline, independently reported detail on a specific prototype:

https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/electric-car-made-by-city-students-to-take-on-the-global-circuit/articleshow/67921336.cms

Given these, would this combination meet WP:ORG for significant, independent coverage, or is there still a gap? FactuallyFine (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't look at the Bangalore Mirror items (not available in my region), @FactuallyFine, but none of the others appear to be independent - no bylines and quotes from the team.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a much clearer standard than I'd understood. That explains why none of these hold up. Appreciate you taking the time to walk through this! FactuallyFine (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

21:37, 30 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42179-97

• ~2026-42179-97 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2038 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It’s USA ~2026-42179-97 (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it looks more like a crystal ball is being abused. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

July 31

03:39, 31 July 2026 review of submission by LAsQuoteGirl

• LAsQuoteGirl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jesse Ridgway (McJuggerNuggets) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm looking for some guidance regarding my Article for creation draft that was recently rejected.

The rejection reason given was that the subject did not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. After I reached out to the reviewer for clarification, they explained that they believed the decline reason should have been related to verifiability/sources instead and referred me back to the previous reviewer comments.

I'm confused because I'm not sure which issue I'm actually supposed to address.

From my understanding, primary sources should not be used to establish notability, and I wasn't trying to use them for that purpose. My intention was to use primary sources only for straightforward factual statements that they directly support (such as announcements or statements made by the subject), while using independent reliable sources for the broader biography and career.

I'm trying to understand whether the main issue is insufficient independent coverage to establish notability, the way I've used primary sources, or another sourcing issue that I'm misunderstanding.

I'm not looking to dispute the reviewer's decision. I genuinely want to understand what policy I'm misunderstanding so I can learn from the feedback and improve my drafting in the future.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. LAsQuoteGirl (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:GOLDENRULE. guninvalid (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me toward WP:GOLDENRULE. I’ll review it. Just to clarify, is the main concern that claims about the subject need stronger sourcing/removal of unsupported statements, rather than the subject’s notability itself? I’m trying to understand the specific issue so I can improve the draft appropriately. LAsQuoteGirl (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use an AI to talk to us. It's impossible for us to gauge your understanding of the situation and whether it's improving if we're talking to a chatbot. Athanelar (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not a bot you’re speaking to. I’m a real person trying to understand and asking for help. I’m struggling and I’m confused. LAsQuoteGirl (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you are a real person; that's why I'm asking you, the real person, to talk to us directly and not with the help of any AI, which you were evidently using in your previous comments. Read the link you've been given to WP:GOLDENRULE and it will clarify what kind of sources we need. Athanelar (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I am talking to you directly. And I have read it. LAsQuoteGirl (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You did not read WP:GOLDENRULE as instructed. If you use an AI to write anything on Wikipedia again, it is likely that you will be blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Time for me to get to work eviscerating this sources list.

Bastard Helper From Hell source analysis

• We can't use the subject's own YouTube channel - or really just YT en generale (no editorial oversight, connexion to subject). This disqualifies references 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 44.
• https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/streamy-awards-2016-winners-list-1201878399/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name in a list. Nominations for awards don't help for eligibility by themselves; there would need to be a critical mass of them. This source is duplicated at Reference 41.
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/streamy-awards-2018-winners-list-1146664/ only helps insofar as the award is concerned and otherwise is of minimal use. This source is duplicated at Reference 43.
• https://dailydot.com/daddy-chill doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The source is about the meme, not the media it spawned from. It'd be like an article about "Megalovania" being cited in an article on The Hallowe'en Hack or Homestuck. This source is duplicated at Reference 29.
• https://www.tubefilter.com/2017/07/10/mcjuggernuggets-storyfire-app/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Article is about Storyfire and only discusses the media that inspired it in passing.
• Reference 9 is incomplete (missing page numbers).
• We can't use Apple TV/iTunes (online storefront, streaming service).
• https://thesicktimes.org/2024/10/14/filmmaker-jesse-ridgway-shares-experience-with-long-covid-with-millions-of-followers/ seems okay.
• We can't use https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/who-is-jesse-ridgway-and-what-is-his-net-worth-american-youtuber-facing-massive-backlash-amid-down-syndrome-debate/articleshow/131527653.cms?from=mdr (unknown provenance). Role byline, who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources with role/no bylines because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news, and India has an issue with brown-envelope journalism en generale.)
• https://westliberty.edu/wglz/interview-4-final-2/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interviews don't help regardless of outlet (The New York Times or backstage at a Chikara show) or interviewer (Larry King or Borat Sagdiyev) because they're the subject talking about themselves and thus not independent.
• https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/mcjuggernuggets-youtube-psycho-series-family-fake-documentary-1202018644/ seems okay, but I can see arguments that this is borderline.
• https://www.cbc.ca/comedy/meet-the-youtubers-in-season-two-of-my-90-year-old-roommate-1.5061770 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Barely discusses McJuggerNuggets.
• https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/10/24/jesse-ridgway-brian-spitz-mcjuggernuggets-leaving-youtube-storyfire-platform/ is borderline. While it discusses McJuggerNuggets' beef with YT, the article is more about Storyfire.
• https://www.tubefilter.com/2021/04/07/storyfire-jesse-ridgway-opensea-auction-nft/ doesn't help for eligibility beyond adding a contentious topic into the mix. (too sparse) The article is about the Storyfire Web3ification and sale, and any information about McJuggerNuggets is minimal. It could still be used to cite that he sold the platform, but as a source for eligibility it hardly touches on him.
• We can't use https://finance.yahoo.com/news/flashy-finance-acquires-storyfire-launches-155900840.html (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it's a non-sequitur. Story is attributed to Globe Newswire, which only ever publishes press releases, and the press release itself does not mention McJuggerNuggets under any identity.
• We can't use Amazon (online storefront).
• We can't use https://winners.webbyawards.com/2015/video/general-video/viral/159537/psycho-dad-shreds-video-games (too sparse). Content-free profile; "Honoree" suggests a nomination or a non-competitive award rather than a practical win.
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/streamys-2017-full-list-winners-1035493/ helps more for Psycho Family than for McJuggerNuggets as it won the award while McJuggerNuggets was only nominated.
• I can see an argument that https://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-jesse-ridgway-terminates-pregnancy-over-down-syndrome-sparks-debate-12035616 is borderline, either because the story doesn't really focus wholly on McJuggerNuggets or because it's a modern Newsweek article.
• https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/youtube-star-wife-horrifically-trolled-over-decision-to-abort-baby/news-story/448edf736bb986aa2d1a8decace71975 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Most of the article is direct quotes from McJuggerNugget.
• We can't use Xitter (no editorial oversight).

I'm not seeing a clear-cut argument for eligibility based off the sources presented. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time and breaking this down for me. This helps clarify things. Based on the sources you identified as usable or borderline, the next step would be to keep searching for additional independent coverage about Jesse Ridgway. Correct? LAsQuoteGirl (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

06:28, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Hargitaihi

• Hargitaihi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Erzsébet Illés (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What can I do to move things forward? The editors declined my submission, and in my opinion their opinion is ungrounded. I have changed the text and no review was made since 3 months although at the 1st submission several rewiewers declined it within days. Wikipedia is always a terrible experience, a black box where there is no clue what I did wrong and how can things move forward, Hargitaihi (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hargitaihi: I'm sorry to hear you're finding the experience frustrating, but we have 4,500+ other drafts also awaiting review, and we cannot always guarantee the quick turnaround that you may have received before. Reviewers are all volunteers, and do what they can, when they can, and drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. Yours has been waiting now for 8 weeks (not "since 3 months") and someone will get around to it eventually, please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Please turn off your caps lock when you comment; yelling at us will not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

IS THIS ALL YOU cOULD SAY AS "HELP"? ~2026-33091-83 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33091-83: again, please stop SHOUTING.

If you're Hargitaihi, please log into your account whenever editing.

I don't know why you're taking such an adversarial stance. It isn't even clear to me what sort of help you're asking for?

Unless you have a conflict of interest in this subject, you're of course free to move the draft into the main article space yourself, if you're happy to take the risk that it gets sent back, or worse, deleted. Then you don't have to deal with us here at AfC, since you clearly find this dissatisfactory. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hargitaihi: Just as a quick question, have you read WP:Notability (academics)#Criteria? Our notability criteria for academics is apples and oranges compared to the general notability guideline, focusing on documented impact in her field rather than the news coverage she'd get (since the latter would, as a general rule, be minimal). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hargitaihi What help were you seeking that you didn't get? Why should you get an expedited review over the literally thousands of other people who all would like speedy reviews? 331dot (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

My guess is they want a "silver bullet" that would fix all the draft's issues in one fell swoop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

07:07, 31 July 2026 review of submission by DeneVilla

• DeneVilla (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sampson Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have created and submitted a new page on Sampson Perry and I have received a response stating that my submission has been rejected as it appears to the reviewer that LLM (eg ChatGPT) has been used to create the text. The submission is all of my own work based upon many years of academic research on the topic and at NO time has any LLM or other AI tools been used. Can you suggest what I might do next in order to have my submission accepted for publication?

Thanks and regards. DeneVilla (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

DeneVilla I fixed your link in the header, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion.

Part of the issue may be that the referencing is not formatted in the proper manner, please see Referencing for beginners. Also, academic/researcher writing can sometimes come off as LLM generated. I would suggest asking the reviewer directly what their specific concerns were.

Did you use an LLM in any capacity, like checking spelling? 331dot (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will attend to the referencing.

LLM was not used in any capacity including the spell checking. The original draft was done using MS Word. DeneVilla (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The bigger issue you'll need to address before submitting for another review is that your draft isn't properly referenced. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to format your inline references. Athanelar (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will attend to the referencing. DeneVilla (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@DeneVilla: if the reviewer EatingCarBatteries is happy to accept your assurances, and unless they have evidence to the contrary, perhaps that decline can be retracted; it could simply be the manner of your writing that has triggered this.

However, I would then decline this on the basis of inadequate referencing (for one). Wikipedia articles are meant to summarise what reliable sources have previously published, with each source cited against the information it has provided, but much of the content in this draft is not referenced at all. Also, some of the sources cited, eg. #3 'Perry of Antigua on Internet', tell us nothing about the source and whether it is suitable for basing a draft on. Others, like #2 'Murrays Magazine p.485', hint at a title, and even provide a page number, but give no other bibliographic detail to enable us to reliably identify the source for verification purposes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will attend to the referencing. DeneVilla (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

07:53, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Andy Nakamura

• Andy Nakamura (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Andrii Sahach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Andrii Sahach. I've noticed the decline doesn't include a specific comment about which source(s) triggered the reliability concern — could you please point me to the particular reference(s) you have in mind? I'd like to address this precisely rather than guessing, since the draft cites a mix of established outlets (Ukrposhta, National Bank of Ukraine, Suspilne, DW Ukrainian) alongside some smaller regional ones (krivbass.city, informator.ua), and I want to fix the right thing.

Thanks for your time and for reviewing the draft.

Best regards, --Andy Nakamura (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to him beyond taking his picture? 331dot (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

08:00, 31 July 2026 review of submission by ShaunMS

• ShaunMS (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nuclear Donkey (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've submitted the article for review and have been declined 3 times. I've added additional sources as per the first reviewer. The second reviewer stated the billboard links do not work, yet I have verified that they do on two devices and multiple browsers. Reviewer also stated that discogs is not a reliable source, but due to the citations being there to link the band to the compilation albums, and that the albums are old and not available on streaming or to purchase physically, discogs is the best source. While the band is more of a novelty, they did play a role in Canadian pop culture, and their compilation albums have charted on the Billboard Top 10/20 Canadian Albums charts.

I explained this to the second reviewer, but the information was ignored, and response was lacklustre. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on this article if possible please. ShaunMS (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There's almost no information about the band in the article that's sourced. It's just linked to a bunch of compilation albums that the band had a song on. The declines are appropriate. The only thing that's even about the band is a block of primary-sourced text. Do you have any independent, reliable publications, online or offline, that actually discuss the band? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Replied below to Sulfur. Responds to your comments as well. :) ShaunMS (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If there's "very limited information on the act" then there isn't enough information to be on Wikipedia. If the band played an important role in Canadian pop culture, then there would be some sort of reporting, whether online or offline, by independent, published sources. If there isn't such material, then there isn't an article.

As for the albums themselves, there's a much better case for notability. But this band wouldn't have anything in the article for those albums other than the simple fact that they are in the listing unless there's supporting material for it. The movie Citizen Kane is notable, but that doesn't mean that it confers notability on every actor who appeared on-screen in the movie. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, Discogs can't be used as a source which means it needs to be removed and any information that uses it as a source needs to be removed. The Billboard link goes to a page that doesn't mention the band. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, so the band was more of a novelty act essentially created for marketing purposes. Because of this, there is very limited information on the act. That said, the members of the band were the hosts of the TV station at the time, and this played a role in Canadian pop culture. Additionally the page could be expanded to include the full discography of the compilation albums as well. But due to the albums not being available on streaming, nor can you still buy the album, I am confused as to how I would cite them without linking to an actual source like Discogs which includes the album track listing and images as proof. If I remove the discogs citations, am I removing the entire discography then? Additionally citations 19, 21, and 23, the billboard links, all link to an archived version of the Canadian Billboard top 20. For example, citation 19, at position 18 on the chart, lists the compilation album. ShaunMS (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You can only include information in the article that you can reliably source. Again Discogs CANNOT be used. It is not reliable. If you can't find another source then it needs to be removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Discogs citations have been removed. Billboard links continue to work, and the albums are listen on the top 10/20 charts the the pages lead to. ShaunMS (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@ShaunMS: I've deleted the 'biography', which had been lifted verbatim from their website. Please don't do that.

BTW, why is it titled "Fictional biography" – this wouldn't be a hoax, would it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by hoax? Essentially consider the band to be a parody band created by a TV network. The "fictional biography" pulled from their website is a made up back story of the band. It is not a true story, but a crafted story to market towards children. ShaunMS (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I see.

And have you any idea why searching the gold & platinum database for 'Nuclear Donkey' returns nothing? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Because they didn't go gold or platinum, a compilation CD that they had one song on did. Took me a second to suss it out. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. Yeah, that wouldn't make the individual songs notable, just because the compilation album they were on made gold/platinum, that would be (I'm pretty sure) a case of inheriting notability which is not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Would you recommend converting the article into a page for the compilation album then, similar to Punk Goes Pop, and having a section for the band? ShaunMS (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about 'recommend', but if the album is notable (which it would be based on the cert), then an article on it could be created. This song could then be mentioned in that article – preferably along with the others, not that it becomes a proxy article about just this song. How much you could then write about the band in that context, I don't know, but not a lot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so they are a band created by a TV station in Canada aimed at kids. The band creates original children songs, specifically to be released on a compilation album. Here's a quick video of the original lineup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcQVRA2SoMY

And yes, as mentioned, the compilation albums went platinum/gold. The band themselves never released a standalone cd, or physical single. ShaunMS (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ShaunMS.

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

Unless there are several sources that each meet all the requirements of WP:42, there is essentially nothing that can go into an article, and no article is possible. (That's mostly what notability is about). ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

08:10, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Dreamstudio.io

• Dreamstudio.io (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cecile Elstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there, I am requiring assistance with the criteria of inclusion. Please could someone go through it with me, as my drafts keep getting declined for this reason. Thanks Dreamstudio.io (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You need read all the links provided and put in some effort to come up with a more specific questions, especially since you're being paid by Cecile to do so (see WP:BOGO). You also need to disclose your paid editing. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

08:58, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Cms722

• Cms722 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Movenglish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I just resubmitted this article on Movenglish. I am not really sure why it was declined in the first place, but I just resubmitted it with further developed secondary sources. I see many Wikipedia articles that are far less developed. If you have any recommendations, I'd really appreciate them! Thank you. Cms722 (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cms722 The reason for rejection is well explained in the decline notice, and has still not been addressed. Two of your sources are not independent, and one is a review of a dance performance and does not provide significant coverage of the actual subject of your article.

Please review the general notability guideline. Athanelar (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Cms722.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

09:05, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Emmanbotan

• Emmanbotan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Flora of Samoa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can you check my page and see if theres anything wrong before i submit? Emmanbotan (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-review reviews. That would unnecessarily double our workload. If you think it's ready and you've addressed previous decline reasons then just submit. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry im just so nervous because i got declined on this one last time Emmanbotan (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

As long as you are putting in meaningful edits to better the draft, then there's nothing to worry about. We'll continue to give opportunities as long as we can see you're being constructive. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

15:31:49, 31 July 2026 review of submission by TGPearce

• TGPearce (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft Draft:Novata has been declined three times for notability under WP:NCORP and promotional tone. I am a paid editor and have disclosed this fully on my user page and the draft Talk page per WP:PAID.

Before resubmitting I wanted to ask whether the following independent sources are considered sufficient to establish notability:

• Wall Street Journal, 7 October 2021 — dedicated article on Novata's founding
• Bloomberg, 7 October 2021 — dedicated article on Novata's founding
• Bloomberg, 9 November 2021 — dedicated article on Novata's Series A funding
• Family Wealth Report, 11 October 2021 — dedicated editorial article on Novata's launch
• Citywire, 12 October 2022 — editorial profile covering the founding and background of Novata's co-CEO
• AlleyWatch, 12 November 2021 — dedicated interview-based article on Novata's Series A
• Funds Europe, 3 November 2023 — independent editorial coverage of Novata's partnership with Northern Trust
• ESG Today, multiple dedicated articles covering funding rounds, product launches, and the acquisition of Atlas Metrics (2025)

All sources are independent editorial articles, not press releases or sponsored content. The WSJ and Bloomberg articles are paywalled but the URLs are included in the draft references.

The draft has been revised to remove all promotional language following reviewer feedback. I would welcome any specific guidance on whether the notability case is sufficient before I resubmit, and if not, what additional sourcing would help.

TGPearce (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Most of these sound like WP:CORPTRIV to me, @TGPearce. ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response @ColinFine - I do see how some fall into that category. I'll look to update them.

TGPearce (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@TGPearce I would suggest primarily that you read WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Athanelar - I added the paid disclosure as I am an employee of Novata, however I'm drafting the article off of my own back as a first article on Wikipedia and it's not something that I'm being paid specifically to do. I just wanted to ensure that I follow all rules. I appreciate the advice.

TGPearce (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

16:17, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Anoopkn

• Anoopkn (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ramayana (2026 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ramayana (2026 film) is the biggest film project from India, first part of the 2 part film is set for release in November 2026. It is a disaster that this film is stuck in creation approval hell. Deleting the article when the project was just announced makes sense, but at this stage it's absence on English Wikipedia due to red tape is downright bizarre. The film meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for films, and the article is not written by AI/LLM. So I am resubmitting to publish this article, now that the trailer of the film was released on Youtube. Given that this is India's costliest production, and the film made a promotional appearance at SDCC, the article needs to be created on priority. Please fast track this. Anoopkn (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no "priority" or "fast track". Everybody thinks their draft is important and needs to be published as soon as possible. There is no rush and no special treatment for anybody. Athanelar (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anoopkn: Wikipedia does not respect external deadlines, and all the sourcing is either speculative wank or routine coverage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

17:10, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Use123454321

• Use123454321 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bridgend Town U-13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I started to write my draft about my team that I play for. I got told that is needs a strong sources but because the team isn't professional and is it under-13s team I cant provide it. If I need to show proof that I play for this team I can give you that on the app called Cyrmu football. I just want to write history of your club for the past 2 seasons fairly. Thank You. Use123454321 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Use123454321: We shouldn't have articles on U## squads full stop barring ironclad third-party sourcing that discusses the team. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

(ec) If no independent reliable sources choose on their own to write about your team, there can be no article about it here. If you just want to tell the world about your team, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

17:36, 31 July 2026 review of submission by Moonliner72

• Moonliner72 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Anemoia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Anemoia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have two issues. 1. I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I would like to see some feedback for the draft. 2. There is already an article named Anemoia for an album. Will/can it be moved to Anemoia (album) once approved? Moonliner72 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)