Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Feed, Category, SortingShowcaseApply
Participants, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

This help desk is for questions about draft articles submitted through Articles for Creation. We can help explain reviews, declines or rejections, sourcing and notability, resubmission, and the AfC process.

• Need general help editing Wikipedia? Visit the Teahouse.
• Need help understanding our policies and guidelines? See Everything you need to know.
• Want to create a new draft? Use the Article Wizard.
• Protect your privacy: do not post your email address, telephone number, or other contact details. Answers will be posted publicly on this page.
• Watch out for scams: If anyone asks you for money or any kind of payment to help you publish, protect, restore, or undelete a Wikipedia article or draft page, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Ask a new question Answers will be posted on this page, so please check back for replies.

September 27

03:20, 27 September 2026 review of submission by PappuTechWala

• PappuTechWala (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hemang Luthra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have edited the page now can i be approved ? PappuTechWala (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

FYI

 – Merged consecutive sections —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email)

• PappuTechWala (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hemang Luthra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have edited the page now can it be approved ? PappuTechWala (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Do not remove previous reviewers' comments. This draft was rejected for not meeting our notability criteria, so you will have to appeal directly to Helpful Raccoon who rejected it. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it will not be approved. If this draft is about you, Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

PLEASE APPPROOOVEE bro PLEASE PappuTechWala (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

PappuTechWala Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You've already been told why your draft was rejected. Whining won't change the outcome. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 09:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@PappuTechWala: Please stop creating new sections on this page. If you want to add something, just post in the existing thread. But there is no need for you to post another plea to accept the rejected draft – the answer to that won't change. --bonadea contributions talk 09:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

07:46, 27 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52064-13

• ~2026-52064-13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Renault 8 Gordini concept (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Make it to a article. ~2026-52064-13 (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are the draft creator, remember to log in when posting. The draft is submitted and pending. It will be reviewed in due course. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This is written like an essay rather than an article in an encyclopedia and is at least partially sourced from press releases. Also, I question whether Renault's images are your own work (assuming you're Matej CAR FAN) or whether it has a Wikipedia-compatible license. The second paragraph seems like you started with the Jalopnik paragraph and simply swapped out words with a thesaurus. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

10:40, 27 September 2026 review of submission by Ashfaq Karim

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

Could you tell me why you rejected this? Please,,,

Ashfaq Karim (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You do not meet our criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a social media website to promote your content. qcne (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ashfaq Karim: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not social media. If you want to tell the world about yourself, please find a different platform such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

14:52, 27 September 2026 review of submission by ABCtvcom

• ABCtvcom (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kate Lynn Lester (née Katya Larionova; born Ekaterina Larionova) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article is declined

But I Added 1. Independent biography coverage: Городские вести featuring skater 2. Documented competitive achievement: 2006 Toruń women’s singles gold medal. 3. Printed newspaper evidence April 18, 2006 Трубник Уральский clipping discussing the Toruń trip and identifying Ekaterina . ABCtvcom (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

18:15, 27 September 2026 review of submission by Fredveremeddeg

• Fredveremeddeg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Torbjorn Frost Widnes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What's wrong with the draft and the article? Fredveremeddeg (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

A draft on this topic already exists at Draft:Torbjørn Frost Widnes. If you are associated with this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

19:14, 27 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52039-27

• ~2026-52039-27 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jim Flannery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Wiki writeup on notability states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" Does what I've provided not suffice? ~2026-52039-27 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Johannes Maximilian (who declined the draft)

@~2026-52039-27 A bigger issue that I can see is that your draft seems to be at least partially AI generated, which is not allowed. Athanelar (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

At least 25 per cent of the sources you have used are generally unreliable. Now, what do you reckon: Does that suffice? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

19:46, 27 September 2026 review of submission by Bobo sunday

• Bobo sunday (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Uzopuo miracle ositadimma Sunday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did my article got declined Bobo sunday (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer left you the reason. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bobo sunday.

I suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

September 28

00:44, 28 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50986-73

• ~2026-50986-73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Albuquerquium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just made something but you are hating on it and that’s not fair stop right now! ~2026-50986-73 (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m just having a good time, but my things keep getting wrecked—could you lend a hand right now? ~2026-50986-73 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Your good time making up a goofy hoax is not something that our encyclopedia ought to be involved with. Between this and List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles, you are already very close to being blocked from English Wikipedia, and may already be there if an admin hasn't noticed your "work" yet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

07:05, 28 September 2026 review of submission by Dare2Leap

• Dare2Leap (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hermitcraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seeking independent evaluation of potential sources that can establish notability for Draft:Hermitcraft. The list of potential sources and my own evaluation of them is here.

Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 07:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

For another review, please resubmit the draft. We don't do pre-review reviews, as this duplicates what the reviewer will do. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I have resubmitted the draft. You can take a look if you want to. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 08:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

08:11, 28 September 2026 review of submission by Unhingen

• Unhingen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Gang Related (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Gang Related (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Am i aloud to use HipHopDX?. Is the website "Brownside" aloud? Unhingen (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Unhingen: I suppose you're allowed to use HipHopDX if you can still find their content now that the site seems to be defunct. You're also allowed to use the band's own website, but only for entirely non-contentious, factual statements, and bearing in mind that such a close primary source does not contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

What music sources can i use? Unhingen (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Sources that meet the criteria to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources, such as reviews written by critics in professional publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

11:48, 28 September 2026 review of submission by Unhingen

• Unhingen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Gang Related (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Gang Related (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is Rate Your Music a reliable source Unhingen (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid. Per WP:RATEYOURMUSIC, it is considered unreliable as its content is user-generated. We should look to avoid citing it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

12:00, 28 September 2026 review of submission by Turmberg-KA

• Turmberg-KA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chrono24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I'm not quite sure how to optimize the draft about Chrono24 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chrono24). I've already made changes after it was rejected the first time. Most importantly, I've corrected any vague wording and removed anything that might sound like “advertising.” I also believe I’ve followed the other Wikipedia rules. What else do you think I can do specifically? Thanks for your suggestions! Note: I’m an employee of Chrono24 and have always disclosed that fact. --Turmberg-KA (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If you believe you have resolved the issues identified in the first decline, along with any other improvements that help, then press the big Resubmit button. It isn't efficient to pre-review drafts for review, but we will always review those that are in the queue. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

12:31, 28 September 2026 review of submission by Paulgiaquinto

• Paulgiaquinto (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Andrea Angeli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Andrea Angeli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I submitted Draft:Andrea Angeli for review on 4 September 2026. I have a disclosed connection to the subject, who was a personal friend, and I've stated it on my user page. Andrea Angeli was an Italian UN, EU, OSCE and NATO official and spokesperson who died on 2 September 2026. The draft has 15+ citations, mostly from Italian news outlets (ANSA, Il Post, Cronache Maceratesi, Il Resto del Carlino, ONU Italia, Vatican News). It covers his career, honors, bibliography and death. The queue is long, so if an experienced reviewer has time to look at it, I'd be grateful. I'm happy to make any changes needed, including replacing weaker sources.

Thank you, Paul (Paulgiaquinto) Paulgiaquinto (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Paulgiaquinto. It's been submitted for review. The unreviewed pile is over 2,000 drafts at the moment and we're all volunteers. It'll get reviewed when a reviewer gets to it. qcne (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

18:57, 28 September 2026 review of submission by Jbjbsaja

• Jbjbsaja (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Callum- Naughton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don’t know what I’m doing wrong I don’t really know how to use wikepedia it’s my first time Jbjbsaja (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. It requires knowledge and experience. If you would not build a house without first learning about construction techniques and other aspects of homebuilding, you should not write a Wikipedia article until you have learned what is expected of one. The best way to do this is to spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and also use the new user tutorial. Not doing this is likely to make you disappointed and frustrated, which we do not want for you.

Your draft has no appropriate sources. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles, and Spotify and Apple are not independent sources and only serve to document the availability of music. A Wikipedia article about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the musician, showing how they meet at least one aspect of the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. "Significant coverage" means critical analysis and commentary, such as reviews of the person's work by professional critics. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

19:49, 28 September 2026 review of submission by RichterParkGolfer

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

Its a story or a legend that I want to post. - The weather seems to be great in this area at times when other parts of the state are not. Why can I not post this page?

RichterParkGolfer (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Because we don't host fictional legends that you yourself have made up. qcne (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

20:12, 28 September 2026 review of submission by KingsmanMK

• KingsmanMK (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bury Alexandra F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My page submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bury_Alexandra_F.C. was declined for the following reason "This draft does not have sufficient content to warrant a standalone article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Bury Town F.C..". I have looked at the Bury Town F.C. page but cannot see a logical way of merging the details into that page without creating confusion. Can you suggest what additional content might be relevant to justify a separate page, or suggest a way of merging the content in a way that would not cause confusion? Many thanks. KingsmanMK (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @KingsmanMK. There was also a comment left by the reviewer: It would be helpful if you could provide links to archived versions of the newspapers if possible, such as to newspapers.com.

Currently all your sources are very vague, not even including a title or page number. It makes it almost impossible to verify anything written in the draft. qcne (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Qcne Thank you. That's very helpful. I will go through each of the sources, add a link to the newspaper article and give the title of the article (where there is one) , page and column number.

While editing a draft following a review, is it possible to save my changes without submitting them for review until I have finished? There are two buttons - "Publish changes..." or "Resubmit". I'm not ready to do either, but will not likely be able to make all my changes in one session. Many thanks. KingsmanMK (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

"Publish" should be understood to mean "save".(it used to say save, but was changed to emphasize all edits are public) It does not resubmit your draft, only clicking Resubmit does that. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Great - thank you @331dot KingsmanMK (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

21:10, 28 September 2026 review of submission by Nkesse

• Nkesse (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nayan Keezy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I develop a Wikipedia page for this person? Nkesse (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nkesse see WP:Your first article. The main issue with your draft is you have no sources. You should be starting from sources then summarizing what they have written about a topic. S0091 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nkesse.

Please note that most people in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article can be written about them. This means that the sensible way to write an article is to start by finding the essential sources, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42: any other approach is likely to be a waste of time.

I can't see your draft, as it has been deleted as advertising, but judging from you user name, I suspect you might be trying to write about yourself. If you are, please be aware that almost nobody has ever successfully written an article about themselves on Wikipedia. See autobiography.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

21:25, 28 September 2026 review of submission by GlobalArchive23

• GlobalArchive23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cristie Crociani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I'm a new Wikipedia contributor preparing Draft:Cristie Crociani.

Draft:Cristie Crociani

My current draft includes coverage from ¡HOLA!, Monaco Tribune and Monaco Life.

I've also identified additional independent reporting in Le Monde, The Guardian, L'Espresso, Il Sole 24 Ore and Paris Match, much of which concerns a family inheritance dispute.

My question is whether the current non-litigation sources demonstrate sufficient notability, or whether the additional investigative reporting would be necessary to establish notability and maintain a neutral, balanced biography.

I'd appreciate any guidance on how to evaluate these sources before submitting the draft.

Thank you. GlobalArchive23 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this draft looks like it was written extensively by use of an LLM/chatbot/AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. English is not my first language, so I used AI assistance when preparing the initial draft. My wife is American and will help me rewrite and proofread the article in English.

I understand your concerns and will work directly from the original published sources to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

Since I'm new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate any additional guidance.

Thank you for your help! GlobalArchive23 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Rewriting LLM-generated text usually does not resolve the problem of LLM usage; the best solution is to remove all text and start over without LLMs. See Help:Your first article for general advice. If you have a connection to Crociani, you should read WP:Conflict of interest and disclose that connection. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Separately from what HR said, it doesn't appear to me that your sources are adequate.

In order for a source to contribute to establishing that the subject is notable, it needs not just to be reliably published, but also independent (in the sense that the subject and their associates had no part whatever in producing it), and contain significant coverage of the subject specifically. (See WP:42 for more detail).

As far as I can see (past the paywall) the Hola piece is based on what the Delrieus told the reporter - that is not independent; while the Tribune piece says something they have done, but does not have secondary significant coverage of Crociani as a person.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to review my draft and provide feedback. I really appreciate your guidance.

I'm new to Wikipedia, and English is not my first language. I understand your concerns about the initial draft. My wife, who is American and a native English speaker, is helping me prepare an entirely new article based directly on the original published sources, rather than rewriting the AI-generated version.

I appreciate your feedback and will make sure the new draft follows Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing, notability and neutrality.

Regarding notability, I understand that having two notable parents does not automatically establish Cristie's eligibility for a Wikipedia article.

I have also identified additional coverage in Le Monde, The Guardian, Paris Match, L'Espresso and other international publications. I will review these sources carefully to determine which provide substantial, independent coverage of Cristie herself.

I am creating this article on my own initiative and have no personal or professional relationship with Cristie.

Before submitting a new version, I will take the time to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, reliable sourcing and neutrality.

Thank you again for your advice. I appreciate your patience with a new contributor. GlobalArchive23 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

September 29

04:31, 29 September 2026 review of submission by SBF2004

• SBF2004 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Konami Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Japanese Wikipedia already has its own page, but still the english wikipedia page for Konami is literally abt the entire group as a whole. Remember in 2006, when Konami restructured into a holding company, splitting the home and amusement video game division into Konami Digital Entertainment (the amusement machine division is now Konami Arcade Games). SBF2004 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be better for you to first, if needed, expand the Konami article and then pursue a split of that article instead of using this process. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

05:00, 29 September 2026 review of submission by Venerab Birky

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

@CherryPie94:I need assistance for creation of articles . Thank you ! Venerab Birky (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Well your draft is going nowhwere, so it's best you do something else instead. If you are notable then someone, somewhere will write about you. But unless you have a long training and experience as a copywriter then autobiographies rarely work in Wikipedia, for the reasons explained in the message on your Talk page (see the links therein). It's not necessarily a good idea, since you will have zero control on the contents whereas LinkedIn or Bandcamp may be a better idea.ChrysGalley (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't submit this again as it's already been rejected, which means it will not be considered at this time in its present form. None of the sources you provided on your talk page are independent, reliable coverage of you. You do not pass WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG right now, but if you are in the future, there's a good chance that someone will create an article about you on their own. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

07:49, 29 September 2026 review of submission by DrSamitKrMallick

• DrSamitKrMallick (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pt. Samit Kumar Mallick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have provided multiple reputable secondary source references from independent newspapers such as The Hindu, Outlook India, Live Hindustan, Ministry of Culture (Govt of India) and Press Information Bureau. Still my draft is being declined. I referred several independent local newspapers too. Kindly note that Dhrupad is the most ancient and dying form of Indian Classical Music and it may not have the same level of media coverage that rock, jazz, Bollywood filmy music etc. may receive. This is an effort to preserve the 500 years old ancient legacy and not at all for promotion. The person concerned is undoubtedly a leading proponent in his field of music. Kindly help in my endeavor. DrSamitKrMallick (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be writing about yourself(despite referring to yourself as "the person"); while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, and almost no one succeeds at it. Please read the autobiography policy.

As noted by a reviewer, most of your sources are primary sources. While it isn't required that a topic receive coverage on the level of a top tier celebrity, it must receive coverage beyond a local area or niche. It must appear in independent reliable sources that on their own chose to write about the topic. In this case, you need to show that you are a notable musician.

If you just want to document this music form, you should work with a publisher and have them publish a book or news story about it. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I will also add that whether or not notability can be established, this draft has multiple major problems which will need addressing before it can be accepted. First and foremost: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting anyone or anything. Alone those photographs have the effect of turning this into a promo piece. There are also several inline external links which are not allowed and must be removed. And all information must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources; this is a hard requirement in articles on living people (WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

11:46, 29 September 2026 review of submission by Bodles

• Bodles (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ren Gonsalves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m writing to request an independent assessment of the two LLM-related declines of Draft:Ren Gonsalves.

My completed Word draft of the article was uploaded to Google Drive on 4 September 2026 at 13:50 UTC. At 14:28 the same day, I copied the first three paragraphs into the Wikipedia interface. You’ll see from the edit history that those paragraphs substantially match the beginning of the current draft.

I then added citations and references offline using the research information I had collected. After using an LLM to check that the citations and Wikipedia markups were correct, I pasted the results into Wikipedia on 5 September at 11:30 UTC. I did not realise at the time that the LLM had changed parts of my original prose. After resolving problems with the references not displaying correctly, I submitted the draft for approval at 12:21 UTC.

I was surprised when Helpful Racoon rejected it at 06:47 UTC on 20 September, claiming that the content appeared to contain AI-generated text. Once I saw that my writing had been changed, I reinstated my original article at 10:28 UTC that same day and resubmitted it. Theroadislong declined the restored version at 10:38 UTC for the same reason.

The current article matches my independently written Word draft. Wikipedia’s edit history shows its first three paragraphs existed under my account before the AI-assisted version was added in error.

The relevant revisions are:

• My original three-paragraph version, 4 September: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ARen_Gonsalves&oldid=1373196818

• Compare the three paragraphs replaced on 5 September without me noticing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ARen_Gonsalves&diff=1373336053&oldid=1373196818

• My original article restored on 20 September: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ren_Gonsalves&oldid=1375833815

I contacted Theroadislong via their talk page but have received no reply to date.

Could an independent AfC editor have a look at the above and determine whether the current draft can now be assessed on its own merit? If any part of the current draft is still believed to be generated by an LLM, I’d be grateful if you would let me know which specific part.

I've spent a long time researching and writing the article and want to resolve this issue before submitting it for approval again. Thank you. Bodles (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Most of the draft discusses his specific activities and not critical analysis and commentary about him/his career. It says he was given recognition from the governor-general but says nothing about what led to it other than "service to agriculture"; we need to know specifically what led to the award(which would be shown with critical analysis and commentary about him). 331dot (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, it looks very LLM-y, from top to bottom. So much of the prose is this odd text that makes the subject the reports themselves, not the actual information in the reports, and that's classic LLM that's wholly unnatural in human writing. For example, a human would write On April 14, 1865, five days after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln was fatally shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. and a human is extremely unlikely to write Contemporary reports indicate that on April 14, 1865, five days after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln was fatally shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre, which has been described in reliable sources as being located in Washington D.C. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

12:58, 29 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-48624-93

• ~2026-48624-93 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Damon Garwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like advice on the best way to get this submission included please

~2026-48624-93 (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48624-93 - I am afraid you cannot continue with this draft. Despite multiple reviews and advice for improvement it still hasn't reached the point where notability is assured and sourced. So the draft has not just been declined, it has been rejected. It is the end of the road. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

14:41, 29 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52411-16

• ~2026-52411-16 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Norman Williams, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am in the process of obtaining the requested references. Please do not delete this page as I will be editing it within the month. I would appreciate not a form letter, but specific points in the text in which the references are not sufficient, since it seems to me that all the requirements have been covered. Thank you. ~2026-52411-16 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No one has said it will be deleted, just edit it occasionally to keep it active. Drafts can be deleted after six months of inactivity, but can be restored via WP:REFUND.

Please see WP:BACKWARD; you should have the references in hand before you begin writing, not write and then look for references to support what you wrote. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

And part of the reason that 331dot directed you to WP:BACKWARD, @~2026-52411-16, is that if it happens that there are not adequate sources meeting the conditions in WP:42 to establish notability (which is the case for the vast majority of people in the world) then all work you have put in before discovering this lack is wasted. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

14:43, 29 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52194-00

• ~2026-52194-00 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:How Thanos gave us the slope formula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why do you hate me specifically ~2026-52194-00 (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody hates you personally. But this is a project to build an encyclopedia that reports on how independent, reliable sources report on notable subjects. The edits you have been making, both in this draft and beyond, are not helpful, and range from unsourced edits to clear vandalism. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

nuh uh ~2026-52194-00 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend you come back to English Wikipedia when you're older; from your edits and this schoolyard rejoinder, it doesn't seem like you're ready to collaborate on a project like Wikipedia. Grow and do other things in the meantime. I know at 48 I'd cringe at the things I wrote when I was 12. Maybe even 18. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

16:54, 29 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52252-73

• ~2026-52252-73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gary W. Keefe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was this rejected? What do I need to fix ~2026-52252-73 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Fire your LLM. It can't write Wikipedia articles for shit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

17:08, 29 September 2026 review of submission by PuneetInduBhushangoswami

• PuneetInduBhushangoswami (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Saketwasi Indu Bhushan Goswami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indu Bhushan Goswami was an Indian scholar of Ramcharitmanas based at Manas Mandir, Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh.

He delivered discourses on the Ramcharitmanas for several decades and was referred to as Manas Martand.

His death was reported in the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran, which noted that spiritual leader Morari Bapu visited Manas Mandir, Vrindavan to pay tribute to him.

PuneetInduBhushangoswami (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to why the draft is about to be deleted for blatant advertizing. We do not host hagiographies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

References

20:49, 29 September 2026 review of submission by Pichigo

• Pichigo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Freddy Fazbear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Freddy Fazbear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anyone know how to improve dis draft help Pichigo (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Without significant coverage of this character in independent reliable sources, no improvement is possible. See other articles about fictional characters like James T. Kirk, Superman, Paddington Bear. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Noting they also submitted Draft:Bottle Up which like the above draft, they did not create. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed; good catch. Pichigo, how are you finding these drafts? 331dot (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

idk :p Pichigo (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not easy to find a draft unless you already know it exists. You must be doing something to find them. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

23:13, 29 September 2026 review of submission by פולימון

• פולימון (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eldad Guetta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I'm looking for some guidance before making any further changes to Draft: Eldad Guetta. The first time the draft was decline I accidentally deleted some changes made by editors. That was added back. then it was declined because the sources were only showing credits and brief mentions. I am new to editing on Wiki and therefor I don't want to resubmit again without making sure I understand whether the sources I have are sufficient.

One source that may not have been clear from the citation is a print-only article (I have an original copy of the magazine and I took pictures of the relevant pages) which was published in the April 2017 issue of "Sound on Sound" (with the cover dedicated to the Oscar winning movie La La Land) written by Paul Tingen and titled: “Inside Track: La La Land,” pages 182-197. The article contains a separately headed section on page 186 titled “Eldad Guetta: Making MIDI Mock-ups,” which identifies Guetta as La La Land’s music co-producer and devotes most of the page to his work. It discusses his role in creating the film’s pre-production mock-ups, his work on the jazz material and “Start A Fire,” his studio and instruments, sampling and synthesis, and includes substantial comments from Guetta about his working process. His work on the film is also mentioned on other places in the article, including pages 185, 188 and 195. Since the article does not appear to be available online, I’m happy to send my photos if that is something you would accept?

The draft also cites independent coverage from major Israeli publications, particularly Ynet and Mako. My question is whether the substantial Sound on Sound coverage, together with those articles, could satisfy the requirement for multiple reliable, independent secondary sources providing significant coverage, or whether additional substantial sources specifically about Guetta would still be required.

I should also mention that I am Eldad Guetta’s wife, and I have disclosed this conflict of interest on the draft. I am using AfC rather than attempting to publish the article directly. Thank you for any guidance. פולימון (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

We actually cannot accept scans of the article (copyright violation). With that said, we will accept the print article provided it is properly sourced. We'd need, at a minimum: Publication name, publication edition (e.g. January 1923), article name, article byline, and page(s) the article is on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 23:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick reply. The full publication details are:

Publication: Sound on Sound

Edition: April 2017

Article: “Inside Track: La La Land”

Byline: Paul Tingen

Pages: 182-197

Publisher: SOS Publications Ltd / SOS Publications Group

Place of publication: Cambridge, England, United Kingdom

The separately headed section “Eldad Guetta: Making MIDI Mock-ups” is on page 186, with additional discussion of Guetta on pages 185, 188 and 195. I will cite the print source accordingly and will not upload any scans.

Would this Sound on Sound coverage, along with the independent Ynet and Mako articles already cited in the draft, be sufficient to meet the significant coverage requirement for notability? Or would I still need additional substantial independent sources specifically about Guetta? פולימון (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

That is a question I will leave for the reviewers. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 00:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! פולימון (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @פולימון.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

September 30

12:17, 30 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52608-41

• ~2026-52608-41 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Usha Bhasin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Thilsebatti:Thank you for giving me the opportunity to understand the requirements better.

My strongest independent evidence consists of substantial coverage in national newspapers published in 1988–89. These articles are not available online, but I have the original press clippings with the publication names and dates clearly visible. Could you please advise me on the correct way to cite such offline newspaper sources?

I also have letters from notable figures in Indian broadcasting and journalism — Sir Mark Tully, Padma Vibhushan M. V. Kamath, and Ameen Sayani, who nominated me for a lifetime achievement award. I understand that these may be primary rather than secondary sources, but would they have any evidentiary value in the draft?

If useful for verification, may I upload or otherwise share photographs/scans of the original newspaper clippings and letters? ~2026-52608-41 (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-52608-41.

No, you should not upload scans of newspapers - in most cases these will be copyright violations, and Wikipedia forbids linking to such violations.

Provided the print sources are reliable, you can cite them by giving sufficient bibliographic information that a reader could locate the source, eg from a major library: title, author, name of publication, date, page number. If you use the template {{cite news}} it will accept all these parameters.

Unpublished letters may never be cited or used as a source for a Wikipedia article: every single thing in an article should be verifiable from a reliably published source.

Your use of "me" in the above suggests that you are writing about yourself. Please be aware that this is such a monumentally difficult thing to achieve in Wikipedia that hardly anybody has ever done it successfully, and the probability is that you are wasting your time. Please see WP:autobiography.

I strongly advise you to review each one of your proposed sources against all the conditions in golden rule. Only a source which meets all the conditions will contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Sources which meet only some of the condition may be useful for verifying specific factual information, but the bulk of any article should be strictly based on what is in sources that meet all the criteria.

If you do not have several (usually, at least three) sources that meet all those conditions, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article. ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

12:28, 30 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52637-15

• ~2026-52637-15 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Japanese Let's Go (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Submission appealed change to no longer rejected adding more information in this draft ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-52637-15.

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.

Since your draft has not one single independent source, it cannot be accepted as a Wikipedia article. "Adding more information" is a pointless waste of your time.

In four submissions, you have failed to add even one reliable independent source.

The only possible way to continue with this is to find several places where people who have no connection with the programme or the network, have chosen independently to write in some depth about the programme without any contribution or participation from people connected with the programme or the network, and been published in reliable sources (see WP:Golden rule). If you can find at least three sources which meet all the requirements in that Golden rule, then you can politely approach the rejecting reviewer, Bonadea, and ask them to reconsider. I predict that if you approach them with anything less than that, they will refuse.

My better advice is to not waste any more of your own and other editors' time, and abandon this attempt. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

13:02, 30 September 2026 review of submission by Integral23

• Integral23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Solectric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, this has become a frustrating issue for me, and I don't want to frustrate anyone else with this, BUT: I have asked multiple times for feedback to my rejected versions of the Articles for MY EMPLOYER, the German company Solectric. If that's not too much to ask, I would like to refer to my talk page where I listed the reasons why I think the article(s) should not have been rejected. I am of course still open for and would approve of criticism and/or advice on how to do better, as I am still obviously not familiar enough with the mechanisms of the Wikipedia..

Thanks a lot in advance, Integral23 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Integral23.

I am sorry that you are frustrated, but not surprised. People in your position usually get frustrated, because they have been charged with doing something that is effectively impossible. (Have you read WP:BOSS?)

Your draft reads like what Solectric want people to know. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject wants people to know - that is called promotion in Wikipedia.

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.

And for most companies in the world, unless they have had some notorious scandal, there has simply not been enough independent secondary commentary published to make that possible. ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quick reply, @ColinFine, I appreciate that.

Yes, I read WP:BOSS and am familiar with (many/all?) the far more strict criteria of the English Wikipedia compared to it's German sister.

I also already am familiar with the argument that it's nearly impossible to get information published when you are an interested party.

Nevertheless, the people on my talk page confronted me with specific arguments that at least give the impression that if I could improve, there would (should?) be a chance of getting the article online.

As I mentioned on my talk page: Also, BUT NOT ONLY in the interest of Solectric, but also with regard to a considerable relevance, as Solectric is DJIs biggest partner in Europe (!) and is active in 8 countries all around the world - where people evidently don't speak German.

But, as I said, in do not want to frustrate anyone else. Do you have any advice for me, for example what exactly reads like promotion? Because I really tried to stick to provable and relevant facts, without any subjective judgment.. Integral23 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Integral23 Your boss has asked you, someone with no prior Wikipedia editing experience and (like most laypeople) probably very little understanding of how Wikipedia works in general. This is rather like them asking you to manage the construction of their new offices with no architectural or project management experience; no doubt you'd also end up frustrated by the amount of rules and red tape you have to figure out. WP:BOSS which you've been directed to above would be a good read, as well as WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you as well @Athanelar

I know my task is quite ambitioned, and I was not expecting an easy ride here. But you see, I have really been undertaking a considerable effort in making myself familiar with the English Wikipedia (in the German one, mind you, part of my latest revisions are already online..!) and I am just looking for definite proof that I am too incompetent to build at least the basement of that house - figuratively, architecturally speaking. Integral23 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

And what we are all telling you, @Integral23, is that it is probably not a question of your competence, but of the impossibility of the task.

I'm afraid that but also with regard to a considerable relevance, as Solectric is DJIs biggest partner in Europe (!) and is active in 8 countries all around the world - where people evidently don't speak German, which you said above, is totally irrelevant to writing a Wikipedia article, and indicates that you haven't yet understood.

Nothing that Solectric is or does or says is relevant unless an independent commentator has written about it. And I'm not quite sure what your point is about people not speaking German, but it sounds as if your purpose is getting the message out into the world - which is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is forbidden. ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

As Colin has said, your competence has nothing to do with it. I'm sure given a few weeks and a few hundred edits of practice you could be a very competent article writer; but that's not what you're being paid to do.

You have all of the following difficulties facing you:

• Writing a Wikipedia article from scratch is probably the single most difficult editing task to undertake on Wikipedia. It requires not only the self-explanatory writing and research skills, but also a robust knowledge of all of our relevant policies and guidelines and our manual of style; WP:NCORP, WP:V, WP:NPOV to name a few. And by "robust knowledge" I really do mean robust; i.e., having been around long enough to see how those policies and guidelines are applied and what they actually mean, a much bigger task than just reading the policy pages.
• You have experience with another language edition of Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia edition is an entirely independent project with its own set of community-derived policies and guidelines, and what is acceptable or encouraged on the German Wikipedia may well be completely forbidden here. So you not only have to learn our requirements, but also potentially unlearn some of what you know from German Wikipedia.
• On top of all of that, you are here because your boss is paying you to create an article, presumably for the purposes of promoting or publicising their company in some way, even if it's just to "inform people" about the company. (Why else would they pay someone to write an article about them?) This is explicitly forbidden here, so you have to not only deal with everything I said above, but you have to do so while also being stuck between the things your boss would really like their article to say, and the fact that we probably have no interest in any of those things.

This is why our advice for editors in your position is typically for you to turn around and tell your boss that the lovely people at Wikipedia said it can't be done and they'll just have to wait for someone to write an article entirely voluntarily and with no involvement from their end, just like how the vast majority of articles here are written. The fact that they want an article and want it now is, to be frank, none of our concern. Athanelar (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience in explaining and for not generally doubting my competence @ColinFine & @Athanelar ;)

Just a last question before I will probably accept my defeat - and please be so kind as to read this one carefully:

There is at least one article (I provided several on my talk page), where one of the bigger German newspapers has written (extensively) about the company.

A German newspaper that is obviously SO relevant to the English (!) Wikipedia that it has it's own entry:

Badische Neueste Nachrichten - Wikipedia

An entry that consists entirely of sources that are native to the company, which is, as I understand, (rightfully) forbidden with regard to the Wiki policies. (Even if Wikipedians could, and I am hereby advocating for that, easily "repair" that with a transposition of the German entry which has - ironically? - far more secondary sources than the stricter English version)

As I mentioned before and exhaustively on my talk page: I DO NOT WANT TO NAG anybody here, but the policies seem less transparent and less strict (see my point above) to me than what people on Wiki have been telling me.

I am still under the impression - and awaiting arguments to the contrary - that the information I provided in the article I created at least merits a brief mention on the English Wikipedia and does not (in toto) conflict with the Wiki policies.

Nevertheless, I can absolutely relate to Wiki people thinking "what does he get on our nerves for with that company bullshit". In spite of that, I am appealing to your honest judgment whether my efforts really can be dismissed so easily based your own standards and not on any (however understandable) bias. Integral23 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I cannot read that source because it is paywalled(a paywall is not a barrier to using a source, I simply cannot look at it). It seems, based on what I can see, that it just tells of the company's normal business- distributing drones. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I was also unable to bypass the paywall, and I echo what 331dot has said. Coverage which merely reports on the company's regular business activities without providing any additional in-depth analysis does not count for notability here; see WP:CORPDEPTH. Athanelar (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

13:04, 30 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52593-62

• ~2026-52593-62 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Third Man Gaming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why? he is a small youtuber - that why? ~2026-52593-62 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Article subjects must meet the rrquirements at WP:NPERSON. Athanelar (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

15:14, 30 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52785-08

• ~2026-52785-08 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fluance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am reviewing this draft and trying to better understand the notability concerns that resulted in the rejection.

Could an editor please advise what types of independent sources or coverage would be needed to demonstrate notability for Fluance?

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Thank you. ~2026-52785-08 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are associated with Fluance, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage- meaning critical analysis and commentary, not just naming the routine business activities and offerings of the company. Most companies on Earth actually are not notable as we define it. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

I am currently reviewing the available sources and trying to better understand what would qualify as significant company focused coverage in this case.

For example, would articles discussing the company's history, founder, growth, acquisitions, or industry position generally be more helpful than product reviews and buyer's guides? ~2026-52785-08 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, you need to tell us if you are associated with this company, directly or indirectly.

What you describe is all routine coverage, see WP:ORGDEPTH; we are looking for sources with unsolicited critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company, not just a telling of its normal business activities. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've missed that...

For transparency, I am an employee of CWD, the parent company of Fluance, and am reviewing this project internally to better understand the concerns relating to notability and sourcing.

I appreciate your feedback. ~2026-52785-08 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Would independent articles discussing a company's impact on an industry, market position, reputation, founder story, or business growth be examples of the significant coverage you are referring to? ~2026-52785-08 (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Stories about the founder might merit the founder an article, but not necessarily the company.

The rest depends on what is said and who is saying it. It would need to be an independent reliable source, and ideally not a trade publication or similar niche publication without a wide reach.

If you can fundamentally change the draft to address why it was rejected, you will first need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask that they reconsider the rejection given any new information.

Note that, the point of the essay I asked you to read is that most company representatives fail in efforts to write about their companies, because they are too close to the company to be able to set aside everything they know about it and all materials its puts out. Are you the rare person who can successfully do that? Possibly, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

Based on your comments, my takeaway is that the challenge is not the existence of media coverage, but whether there are enough independent, broad reach sources providing meaningful analysis or commentary about the significance of the company itself rather than its products.

Thank you again for taking the time to provide guidance. ~2026-52785-08 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

15:25, 30 September 2026 review of submission by OscarSwift09

• OscarSwift09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sergio Gustavo Barriga-Nunez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have noticed it has been many months since I last heard any review on this article. I am wondering when I should expect it to be reviewed? I believe I addressed all previous areas of concern. OscarSwift09 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sergio Gustavo Barriga-Nunez

@OscarSwift09: this draft was declined in May, and although you have subsequently edited it, you haven't resubmitted it for a new review. As such, nothing is happening with it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought I did but thank you for alerting me of this. I just resubmitted it. OscarSwift09 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

OscarSwift09 (ec) I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Sergio Barriga Wikipedia article". The header automatically creates a link to a page in the name of whatever text is there, so only the title of the draft should go there, as now shown. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you OscarSwift09 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Review of Rahul Bhuchar

On behalf of @Hindiedits:, I offer this message, which he inadvertently left on my bot's talk page:

I have resubmitted draft pls review Hindiedits (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The message appears to refer to this draft. —scs (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

16:40, 30 September 2026 review of submission by Timwhite123

• Timwhite123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Front App (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I work at Front and have disclosed my connection under WP:PAID. Draft:Front App has been declined four times, twice because I resubmitted without changes, which was my mistake. I've since rewritten it, cut most of the funding coverage and removed the weaker citations.

Before I resubmit, could someone tell me whether the Business Insider (2024) and Les Échos (2021) articles are enough for WP:NCORP? Both are reported pieces, but they mostly focus on the co-founder, Mathilde Collin. My source assessment is at Draft talk:Front App. If the answer is no, I'll leave the draft alone until there's better coverage. Thanks. Timwhite123 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE if you haven't yet; you're not likely to succeed at this, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience.

You are just telling of the routine business activities and offerings of the company, these do not establish notability(WP:ORGDEPTH). We're looking for a summary of critical analysis and commentary about the company as to what is viewed by others wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about it. Most companies on Earth do not have such coverage. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

18:06, 30 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52637-15

• ~2026-52637-15 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Death Joke (television program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The issue the wikitable is located reference section not list of episodes section ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Your first concern should be the sourcing. One source is not enough for an article on any subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

18:37, 30 September 2026 review of submission by AFNYC

• AFNYC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Skylands Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@S0091:I am thoroughly confused about why this article was rejected. We have provided multiple independent coverage links as evidence of notability. I was told I needed reputable third party news coverage when it was first rejected. I provided a link to ABC news coverage. I was told that details about the Museum's exhibits are not appropriate for the wiki page, but they are factual information about the museum.

I am looking at other museum pages, and I'm baffled why these qualify but ours does not. The Bergen Museum of Art & Science has its own page, with far less information. The only reference link is the website of the museum. It has a section for exhibitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Museum_of_Art_%26_Science

And now I'm being told that the page has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted, and I do not understand what you are looking for. AFNYC (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

See other crap exists finding a shockingly poor article on Bergen Museum of Art & Science is no excuse for adding another. Theroadislong (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It's now up for proposed deletion. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying that "this article is bad, therefore you should accept another one that is bad". I am trying to understand the standard that I need to meet in order to make this article acceptable for publication. My goal here is to make a good article! I am looking for help in doing that. AFNYC (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia does not merely provide information; it summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable organization. "Significant coverage" in this context is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by others as important/significant/influential about the topic, not a mere description of its activities and offerings. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I get @AFNYC's frustration when they see articles like Bergen Museum of Art & Science then legitimately wonder why their draft is not accepted, COI or not. That is something for everyone to keep in mind when others say such articles do no harm. They do. S0091 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Who is "we" ? User accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

They have declared their COI, which is what is required. They are not hiding their affiliation. If the question is if are they WP:PAID or sharing the account, then that should be asked directly. S0091 (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

And now looking at their talk page, I see that I advised them before back in 2025 at User talk:S0091/Archive 7#Request on 21:26:56, 21 May 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by AFNYC so maybe this is a shared account because they do not remember that at all (or perhaps choosing not to). S0091 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not paid by the museum, and not sharing this account. I am related to the founder of the museum, and I have disclosed that affiliation. I recall the previous conversation, and I replaced all of the references you objected to with more reputable ones. I have referenced multiple reliable news sources citing the existence of the museum and its relevance in the New Jersey arts culture. As far as I can tell the notability criteria is primarily “has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” and I have referenced several sources for that. So again, I don’t understand where the bar is here. AFNYC (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

We don't need the mere existence of the museum documented; we need a summary of critical analysis and commentary as to what sources wholly unaffiliated with the museum say is important/significant/influential about it, what makes it a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

A few examples to help out, AFNYC:

• The NY Times piece is about Shivers and Zukerman, not about the museum, so it is not significant coverage of the museum;
• The Jersey Arts piece is about the artist of the paintings, not about the museum, so it's not significant coverage of the museum;
• The NorthJersey piece is based on interviews with people closely connected to the museum, so it's not independent of the museum.

You need sources that are independent and published in a reliable source and have significant coverage of the museum - if any of the three criteria aren't met, the source won't help show that the museum qualifies for a Wikipedia article (or is 'notable', as we tend to say). I hope this gives you an idea of where the sourcing problems lie. Meadowlark (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm feeling like there is some confusion about what it is exactly that makes a museum "notable". The nature and provenance of the collections and the items on display there are central to the premise. That the museum houses a large part of the collection of a prominent former gallery owner in NYC and has a large body of work from a famous French painter in the permanent collection are extremely relevant. AFNYC (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AFNYC.

That, I'm afraid, is why "notability" is an unfortunate choice of word. Nothing that the subject is, says, or does, is directly relevant to whether it is notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word.

Notability in Wikipedia's sense depends almost entirely on what has been written about the subject with no involvement whatever of the subject or the subject's associates.

A subject that is notable in the everyday sense will often have been written about in this way; but not always. Unless multiple sources exist, each meeting all the conditions in golden rule, it will not be notable for Wikipedia's purposes. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, I’m having trouble understanding what is being considered the “subject” of the article. The collection of art in the museum and its provenance are integral parts of the museum. If those cannot be considered as part of the notability of the institution, what exactly is the scope of the article? Just the physical building itself? AFNYC (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@AFNYC it depends on the sources as to what should be covered in an article so if sources that meet the notability criteria have mostly written about the building, then that is what most of the content should be about. If they have written about the collection, that should be most of the content. However, the sources need to be in the context of the museum. Sources about a work art are helpful for that work, but if they only briefly mention the owner they are not helpful to establish notability of the owner. Generally, what one would expect is some in-depth coverage about the history of the museum along with critical reviews by qualifying sources (i.e. the author went to museum and wrote about their experience with little to no input by the those affiliated). Keep in mind mind, most museums and galleries are not notable. S0091 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to ask some specifics here:

This piece is about the history of how the part of the collection was established: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/arts/design/neil-zukerman-tom-shivers-apartment.html

It is specifically in the context of the collection that formed a central part of the museum's creation. The subheading of the article is "Now the vast collection assembled with his late husband, Neil Zukerman, will help start a museum." This is in-depth coverage of the history of the museum's collection by an independent journalistic source.

This recent piece is a video essay by a news photojournalist. It uses the words of one of the founders from the interview as a voiceover track, but it is not specifically an interview with her and uses original video and music. The creator went to the museum for their "One Tank Trips" series and made this about their experience with little to no input from those affiliated. It is an entirely independent editorial creation. Does this not qualify because it isn't a written article? AFNYC (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to include the video link: https://6abc.com/videoClip/19858913/ AFNYC (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@AFNYC I have reached to an editor who has expertise in the topic area to take a look at the draft and provide you some guidance. I cannot make any promises as to if or when they (or someone else) will reach out as we are all volunteers but I would rather ask than not. S0091 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it! AFNYC (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AFNYC. I'm the editor @S0091 referenced and I pinged another editor who focuses on art related articles. You can see our discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Draft:Skylands_Museum_of_Art. I do not have a lot of on wiki time right now but am willing to try and help. The museum still seems to be lacking in the kind of sourcing we need to have an article on a museum but I'll see if I can find anything else. This will be archived soom, but don't hesitate to ping me on your Talk page or the articles if I can help and feel free to join the discussion on my Talk. Thanks @S0091 for bringing this to my attention. Star Mississippi 00:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

19:57, 30 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52679-24

• ~2026-52679-24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:EJR74/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i would like to be assigned a different editor for my submission. I believe that I have enough newspaper and radio coverage, plus I am getting more links in the next few days. Commenting that my draft is a 'complete mess' or that I am self promoting isn't helpful or what I expect from wikipedia. I have been mentioned and played on BBC radio, had articles written about me in national newspapers like The Orcadian, european and amercian newspapers like The National Herald and Greek Reporter. I have looked at other wikipedia pages and they do not include this amount of requirements. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siwan_Morris. Thank you. ~2026-52679-24 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting, assuming you are EJR74.

Editors/reviewers are not assigned particular drafts.

Please see other stuff exists; we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer.

I don't know a kinder way to put it, but yes, I agree the draft is a mess. External links should not be in the main body of text, and most of those just advertise where her music is played. A Wikipedia article should primarily summarize significant coverage of the topic from independent reliable sources.

Note that you have dived right in to the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, writing a new article. Doing this without first getting experience and knowledge in how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content usually leads to frustration. Please use the new user tutorial and spend some time editing existing articles first, to build up experience. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Please also read the autobiography policy. In short, while not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Almost everyone who attempts to do so fails at it; I personally have never seen someone succeed at it in 14 plus years. The number of successful autobiographies that I have not seen can probably be counted on one hand, as I understand it. It is very rare. Most people cannot set aside everything that they know about themselves and all materials they put out, limiting themselves to summarizing what others have said. Are you the rare person who can do that? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Siwan Morris is now up for deletion. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles or even featured articles. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Some links that will probably be very useful to you: WP:ABOUTME; WP:42; WP:REFB (in that order). Meadowlark (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

21:09, 30 September 2026 review of submission by Wfkjfwnw

• Wfkjfwnw (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cheraga tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I resubmitted my article after readjusting and adding more references, but it's still in draft. The reason why i am asking is i wanna add more languages to the article, but I've been told I need to wait till it gets approved. Wfkjfwnw (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wfkjfwnw As it says on the notice at the top of your draft, the waiting time for a review is currently 5 weeks or longer. Please be patient and edit something else in the meantime. Athanelar (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

22:37, 30 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52671-69

• ~2026-52671-69 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Justin Gold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was declined because the Wiki editor who reviewed it said it appeared to be generated by LLMs. I wrote the article myself based on the sources listed in the References section. Could you please give me more specific direction as to how to change and improve my article to meet Wiki standards or do you advise that I try to contact EaglesFan37 who declined the article or should I reach out to someone who specifically works with biographies of living persons? ~2026-52671-69 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft looks vaguely promotional and has elements of "reporting on the reporting", both traits of LLM-generated text. I also see some issues here - watch this space. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 22:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I am going to do a BHFH assessment on both text and sources:

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• https://www.kvmr.org/podcasts/justin-gold-center-for-cultural-and-naturalist-studies/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• https://buildabiggerlife.simplecast.com/episodes/ep-164-a-most-unique-life-architect-featuring-j-justin-gold-30hpbRvC doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-03-ls-61647-story.html seems OK.
• I can't assess either Newspapers.com source (walled). These source are also incomplete (missing page numbers).
• https://justingold.net/media-archives/ - and anything else on that domain - either can't be used for eligibility (connexion to subject) or (in the case of the newspaper clippings) used full stop (copyright violation). You need to cite the newspaper clippings as offline sources (essentially citing the newspapers proper).
• https://www.dallasobserver.com/arts-culture/events-for-the-week-6404585/ seems OK but it can't be used to actually verify that Gold showed up for that event. (Any number of things could make someone no-show - brown M&Ms in the candy dish, a plane crash, committing pater familicide.)
• https://www.capradio.org/news/insight/2023/04/10/californias-response-to-tulare-basin-flooding-nevada-county-non-profit-travels-to-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-quilt-exhibit-asks-what-do-women-and-girls-need/# doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• https://readershouse.co.uk/j-jaye-gold-shares-wisdom-through-story-travel-and-service/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• I can't assess https://www.booklistonline.com/products/560011 (walled).
• https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-charity-group-shares-insight-from-service-trips/article_1b345008-d250-11ed-9ad2-37298fa4f18f.html doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Source is about CCNS, not Gold.
• We can't use https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953841154 (too sparse) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (wrong subject).
• We can't use https://ccns-inc.org/ (website homepage) and anything on that domain wouldn't help for eligibility anyway (connexion to subject).
• I can't assess https://www.theunion.com/news/paying-it-forward-center-for-cultural-naturalist-studies-to-present-event-on-inner-work-service/article_8c8344fc-cf31-11ed-a17e-5b08acee2cf3.html (walled). The Union has limited article reads without a subscription.
• https://dailytrojan.com/2017/09/20/spiritual-leader-j-jaye-gold-gives-lecture-inner-peace/ is borderline. This reads primarily like a prose interview.

Bastard Helper From Hell text assessment

• Gold grew up in New York City in an immigrant family that included Jewish, Muslim, and Russian Orthodox Christian family members. - Source?
• His early interests included horse racing and amateur boxing - This needs to properly cite the newspaper rather than the copyright violations on Gold's website.
• Gold has traveled internationally... - Relevance?
• According to the San Diego Union-Tribune.... Wording like this is precisely why the article was flagged for LLM use. This is what we call "reporting on the reporting" and it's something LLMs do habitually.
• ...these experiences contributed to his philosophic perspective and capacity to connect with people of diverse circumstances and backgrounds. - Editorialising. 86 this. (Yes, even with the qualifier; this is puffery.)
• Gold has lived collectively for the past four decades, working with others in business and creative endeavors, as well as providing humanitarian aid. Source?
• As a teacher of meditation, he has been assisting people in their search for inner meaning for over 40 years. Editorialising. 86 this.
• Gold does not request compensation for his teaching and mentorship. - Relevance?
• Gold founded the Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, in 1983. - The source here is unacceptable. Find a better one.
• CCNS international service projects have... ...absolutely no relevance in an article on Gold. The rest of this section belongs in an article on CCNS.
• The entire Public Speaking and Media Appearances section needs 86'd as spam. Discussing a public speaker's media appearances is like going into detail on Pablo Escobear taking a dump in the woods.

The sourcing is dodgy and the article is mildly hagiographical. No wonder it was declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 23:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

October 1

01:54, 1 October 2026 review of submission by SharkFish2

• SharkFish2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thank God It's Natural (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I did it SharkFish2 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to ChrysGalley, I think this one is for you :) Meadowlark (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark - yes and thank you.

@SharkFish2 - Wow! This is interesting and notable, but not quite in the way I expected. I think the story of the founder and company has a basis for notability showing through in terms of its background (and it would be reasonable to mention the product range, where verification is possible). Well done for that legwork, and of course I must lift the Reject. The interview text isn't so helpful, but the Ebony obituary is a story of a black woman enterprise becoming successful. Being in Ebony that would be obvious, but it's not necessarily coming out in the draft as it stands. So perhaps that could be considered. Thank you. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

thank you. What should I do next? I'm just a little confused because I'm new to this. Does somebody have to edit it or something? Or do I have to edit it? I don't think I see it yet SharkFish2 (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You should edit it, and resubmit, when done, and that's the big blue Resubmit button. It's not unusual for an accepted article to get a few declines along the way. More information on my Talk page in response to your message there. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

05:17, 1 October 2026 review of submission by MR. ROBIN SINGH POONIA

• MR. ROBIN SINGH POONIA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Robin singh poonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how can i publish robin singh poonia details MR. ROBIN SINGH POONIA (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You cannot. You really have to stop this incessant self-promotion campaign. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

06:07, 1 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52637-15

• ~2026-52637-15 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Death Joke (television program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

10 of 52 episodes done adding more 42 episodes must be from reliable source ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-52637-15: there's not much point in adding episode details until you can show that this programme is notable enough to justify an article. The draft currently cites two instances of the production company's website (which keeps timing out), offering precisely zero evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

in this television program the production company is IdeaGrow ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you comprehend the lexicon we are utilising to talk with thee? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 06:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

06:12, 1 October 2026 review of submission by Communication Dives

• Communication Dives (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Rashmi Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Rashmi Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I mean I see her name and books all over- her books archived in University of Washington libraries- Suzallo and Allen and in Calcutta National Govt Library and indexed in Australia and UK so then too she is not notable? Just a simple question. Communication Dives (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Communication Dives: correct, not notable. Please drop this now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Why are you so rude? I am questioning something. I will leave for sure. But you do not have to this rude. Communication Dives (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Communication Dives.

Please see my reply (about what "notable" means in Wikipedia) at the end of the item #18:37, 30 September 2026 review of submission by AFNYC above. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That's ok- I will see but if I am trying to understand a few things, why ppl jump at? Communication Dives (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The notability criteria can be found here WP:GNG, Rashmi Singh doesn't curently meet the criteria and The Times of India is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you know about The Times of India? AND HER BOOKS BEING ACQUIRED BY University of Washington an being catalogued worl wide also does not make her notable I guess?? Communication Dives (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:TIMESOFINDIA; their reputation of fact checking is poor, they accept paid advertorials, and may have published an AI-generated article.

That her books are in a particular library doesn't confer notability unless there is extensive unsolicited third party discussion as to why her books were added to the library collection; it's a normal activity for libraries to increase their collection, it isn't usually a form of recognition. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Her stories were not during of AI Times. Okay? Be informed properly first. I fail to understand why UW will increase their collection of a non notable author and that too, 2 books? TOI is the most respected newspaper and then she was backed by HT, Telegraph. Economic Times, New Indian Express and other Hindi ones. She is an Indian- only Indian newspaper will cover her- she left writing in between after 8 books in 2019 - AI CAME AFTER THAT- tHIS doesnt mean she became non notable Communication Dives (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

08:13, 1 October 2026 review of submission by Mr.kumar06

• Mr.kumar06 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kale Hanuman Ji Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@JavaHurricane:i am willing to contribute but thier are not highly covered reliable sources available what to do please guide Mr.kumar06 (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Simple, if there are no reliable sources then we cannot have an article about the temple. Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You should probably use a forum with less stringent requirements, like social media or a personal website, to tell about this temple. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

10:49, 1 October 2026 review of submission by Zoology7

• Zoology7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jonathan Henry William Gipps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! The recent draft for this was declined because - "In spot-checking the references I quickly found two that did not confirm--the facts may be correct but they are not in the given source. (Topic of his Phd; 1988 date for London Zoo.)" However - one of these facts (commencement at London Zoo in 1988) is very clearly stated in the reference at the bottom of the 3rd paragraph; and is corroborated by several other citations later in the draft. (https://www.bristol.ac.uk/alumni/our-alumni/honorary-degrees/honorary-graduates/2011/gipps.html) The PHD topic is also mentioned in the same paragraph, though perhaps not precisely, as Zoology specialising in animal ecology - this can be confirmed with another source which i will now add - (https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/research-and-education/subjects/biological-sciences/about-us/alumni/)

The review also mentions LLMs, which have not been used to create this.

Please could someone advise me on how to sharpen up these citations and references to pass draft stage, as I feel that the article is well supported. Is it that the information is sometimes to be found in the dense text of a citation, is it possible to higlight specific text within a citation or reference to avoid confusion?

Thank you! Zoology7 (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look (as a passerby) and could confirm the 1988 commencement at London Zoo. However, your sources don't mention the topic of his PhD, to my eye. The Royal Holloway web page simply says that his PhD was in Zoology, no specialism mentioned. The Bristol webpage says this:

He graduated ... in 1973, got his PhD in 1977, and spent nearly a decade studying animal ecology, particularly the consequences of social behaviour in voles and mice for the dynamics and behaviour of populations.

That sentence seems to be chronologically arranged, implying that the "consequences of social behaviour" research happened after Gipps got his PhD.

This kind of source/text mismatch is very characteristic of recent LLM-generated content, which is why the previous reviewer raised it as a possibility. It's a problem whether or not an LLM was used.

For citations where the key point is buried in a lot of dense text, you can use the |quote= parameter in the {{cite web}} template. See Template:Cite web#Using "quote". For longer sources, as well as printed ones, you can/should use |page= or |at= to point the reader to the relevant position. Hope this is helpful! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I will correct the lack of clarity around PhD. Go through and check other sources have the same level of clarity - and also use the quote parameter! Then re-submit. Thanks the help, very much appreciated Zoology7 (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Great, I’m glad I could help out! The subject certainly seems notable to me, so I wish you success in getting this article accepted. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

12:42, 1 October 2026 review of submission by SonicFan2011hhd

• SonicFan2011hhd (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Ted: The Animated Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ted: The Animated Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone edit this page. SonicFan2011hhd (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SonicFan2011hhd. Feel free to add content and find sources yourself. qcne (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

16:17, 1 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52637-15

• ~2026-52637-15 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Death Joke (television program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why the source is limited for reference in this television program likely a hard to find ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If there are not enough sources, there can be no article. It is possible that the Thai Wikipedia might have different inclusion criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

most episode references came from ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Any further requests for this draft will be reverted off as refusal or inability to take advice already given. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 03:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

20:26, 1 October 2026 review of submission by Luisa.dap21

• Luisa.dap21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Manuel Lucchese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I wrote this biography myself using verified sources (like CONI and official championship standings). It is not AI-generated. Could you please point out any specific issues with the facts or guidelines instead of a generic decline? All achievements listed are real and properly sourced. Thank you! Luisa.dap21 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

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

The draft names the things he did, but it does not summarize what is said about him- critical analysis and commentary. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

i! I wrote it myself and used a tool just to check English grammar, as I am italian

Could you please give me a tip on what kind of independent commentary or analysis I should add to make it acceptable? Thanks! Luisa.dap21 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Luisa.dap21.

It's not a matter of adding sources: if you have written it without reference to sources that meet all the conditions in golden rule, then you have written it WP:BACKWARDS, and it is likely that you are going to need to discard most of your text and start again, starting with the sources.

The answer to your specific question is in that "golden rule" that I linked to above. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

October 2

Please review — Building the Legend and tera V12 (both self-affiliated)

Hello — if a reviewer has a moment this week, could you please have a look at either or both of these drafts? Both are self-affiliated submissions: I'm the founder of the subject company, using AfC as the proper route.

1. Draft:Building the Legend — British automotive engineering company. Queued on 12 September 2026 and still pending; sourced to independent coverage including The Daily Telegraph, Hagerty, Motor Authority, PistonHeads and Jay Leno's Garage.

2. Draft:Tera V12 — the company's quad-cam V12 engine. It was submitted on 12 September but fell out of the queue when its submission template was lost in a later edit; I've re-added the submission template just now, so it's back in the queue as of today.

Transparency note: the Tera V12 submission was originally made from a second account of mine (NevilleBTL); I'm now using this account for both drafts — disclosed per WP:ALTACCT.

Thank you! NevilleSwales (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@NevilleSwales We don't do reviews on request. Like it says at the top of the draft, the waiting time for a review is 5 weeks or more currently. Athanelar (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @NevilleSwales. I haven't done a review, but looking at the list of sources for Draft:Building the Legend, it looks to me as if most of them are either primary/non-independent sources, or are about particular models, not about the company. Most of your sources need to meet all the criteria in golden rule - and if you don't have several sources which do so, you do not have an article. Please see WP:SIRS.

I suggest you also read WP:BOSS - I understand that you are the founder rather than an employee, but I believe it is still relevant.

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 that is even without the issue of a conflict of interest ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

01:08, 2 October 2026 review of submission by Bncohen

• Bncohen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roger L. Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Helpful Raccoon:Could an uninvolved AfC reviewer advise on Draft:Roger L. Cohen? Helpful Raccoon recommended asking here. The discussion is at Draft talk:Roger L. Cohen#Writing assistance and disability, including the reviewer's October 1 response.

Roger was my father, and I have disclosed that relationship. The original draft involved AI. I personally worked through and rewrote the text I supplied for the September 20 revision, and an AI assistant then restored citations and Wikipedia formatting. That revision is Special:PermanentLink/1375868827. I understand that the earlier AI involvement is relevant, and I am not claiming there was never any AI assistance.

The reviewer cited the phrase "His obituary listed him" as an example characteristic of LLM use and recommended removing all text. I disagree that this wording alone establishes authorship. I would appreciate advice based on the actual revisions and sources:

• Does this example require an editorial wording correction, or does the revision history support a broader concern about retained AI text?
• Which specific passages or source problems must be addressed, and could targeted corrections resolve them? If a fresh draft is necessary, please explain why and what properly sourced material can be retained.
• Does the independent coverage already cited establish notability, or what additional coverage is needed?

The strongest direct profile is Kathleen Q. Pemberton, "Roger Cohen: A Matter of Goals," Outlook: The Kansas City Business Journal, January 1980, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 44-46, 68, 70. It contains reporting about his career and business and interviews with colleagues. Other coverage includes Charles Ferruzza's September 23, 1994 Kansas City Jewish Chronicle feature about Roger and Joni Cohen and Kendrick Blackwood's June 28, 2001 "Bad Impressions" report. The latter supports his Art Institute role but is mainly about the institution.

I am willing to address concrete problems and would like a clear path toward a compliant submission. I asked an AI assistant to help prepare this request from my account of the events and my questions. Bncohen (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the AI definitely did more than basic spelling and grammar checks. There are a lot of sentences that, instead of reporting the facts, is reporting on the reporting of the facts, which is a notorious LLM tactic and rare for humans to use organically. If you're not using an LLM to do the heavy lifting of the writing, whatever you're doing to check it is clearly doing more than spelling and grammar. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Nor should an AI be preparing for a request. Something unpolished purely in your own words is taken much more seriously than something polished by AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

04:28, 2 October 2026 review of submission by Dare2Leap

• Dare2Leap (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know why it was declined as contained LLM text... The vast majority of the draft was copied from revision Old revision of Mumbo Jumbo (YouTuber), the only LLM help was to find sources, and I summarized those sources on my own.

Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 04:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@User:Dafootballguy The potential "offending" section was written by User:IanTEB on 21 November 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbo_Jumbo_(YouTuber)&diff=prev&oldid=1323342785

Also, does anyone here have guides for writing better drafts? I have been involved in 5 drafts (give or take) for 13 days, adding more reliable & notable sources, and not a single one of them got accepted. I can't stop thinking about drafts in my head. I am burned out and stressed from the constant thinking and the worry that I won't ever get a draft accepted. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 05:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

If you have been sweating it out like this @Dare2Leap then you are probably getting close. Writing articles is hard, I don't find it easy, but for me the sign that you have been working on it is a big clue that LLM will have been, or is close to being, faded out. As a general principle, trying to fix an LLM start point is much, much harder work than starting from fresh, hence unfortunately the pain barrier that you have seen here. The reviewers have given their opinion on the draft, which is what it is, but try to sweat a little more, resubmit - take out the IPKat source, that's unreliable. We get to see a lot of YouTubers and influencers trying to muscle their way into Wikipedia (goodness knows why, surely LinkedIn is easier), so that's the unspoken backdrop here. But if you demonstrate through you own efforts that this subject meets the notability standard for WP:NPEOPLE, then it will get accepted. Just go through that guideline carefully. Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I will note that next time. Goodbye. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 08:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap The best advice is what I gave you before; don't try to include everything about the subject right away. That just multiplies your workload. If I were you, this is what I'd do;

1. Start from an entirely clean slate.

2. Find 3 sources which strongly, obviously meet the golden rule. No edge cases, no grey areas.

3. Summarise those three sources. This should now make up your entire draft. If there doesn't seem to be enough there to make a full draft, then go back to step 2; the sources you picked probably don't have enough significant coverage.

4. Submit that draft. Resist the urge to add 20 more sources with every piece of information you want the world to know about this youtuber.

Then, if it's accepted, you can start adding more info from other sources (still paying good attention to due weight). By following this process you minimise the number of variables; if you can't create an acceptable draft with your 3 best sources, then you won't be able to.do it with 10 or 20 sources either, so you're just wasting additional effort at that point. As an example, take a look at Sri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple, an article of mine which is not only in mainspace but also a good article with jusf 7 sources. Hindu theology similarly had just 5 sources when I first wrote it and got it accepted as a DYK.

So, limit yourself to 3. If you can't make a draft out of 3 sources, that's a good indicator there's not enough to go off of. Athanelar (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

06:52, 2 October 2026 review of submission by Assekoas

• Assekoas (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdullah Shuaib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I am a Wikipedia editor interested in documenting Middle Eastern arts, music, and cultural heritage. My primary focus is on creating and improving articles about notable artists, musicians, and cultural figures from Iraq and the broader region. I strive to contribute well-sourced, neutral, and encyclopedic content. Assekoas (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Assekoas: okay, thanks for sharing... did you have a question in mind you wanted to ask?

This draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further (in case you were wondering). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

And what is the solution now? How? What should I do to be reviewed? Assekoas (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Assekoas: if you can provide evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may approach the rejecting reviewer directly to make your case. Otherwise the solution is to drop this and find something else to edit about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I can most definitely supply. ~2026-52994-66 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Help me if you can Assekoas (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Assekoas. It is likely that what you are trying to do is impossible, in which case the only help anybody can give you is to advise you to stop trying to do the impossible.

Most people in the world are not notable in the way Wikipedia uses the term, because there has not been enough independent, secondary, substantial material published about them. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

How can you assist me? Coopersworld100 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

07:25, 2 October 2026 review of submission by Coopersworld100

• Coopersworld100 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Bernadette Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Bernadette Cooper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am Bernadette Cooper, a new contributor, and my draft was nominated for deletion because I was assisted by ChatGPT; however, my information is accurate. I am sorry I did not read the guidelines. How do I proceed with a human-written draft based on my published coverage? Coopersworld100 (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Bernadette Cooper

Yes your draft is up for speedy deletion since it appeared to be unchecked LLM, which is indeed against our guidelines. The answer is straightforward: you have to research the material as a human without robots leading you down their garden path; then you have to write it up yourself. Yes it's hard work, even after doing two dozen articles from scratch I still find it hard work. There are no short cuts. But, and I believe this to be important, once you have an accepted draft which is all your own efforts, I would hope that to be far more personally rewarding than something the clankers came up in 20 seconds. See WP:YFA Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I wrote it with my hand. I modified the previous draft and wrote it with my hand. You can make sure of Wiki's data. Assekoas (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ~2026-52994-66 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, professor Assekoas (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

No worries..reach out. ~2026-52994-66 (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Assekoas (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Help me edit the article I added because at the time I re-edited the draft Assekoas (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Well it's now been deleted but I recall the final sentence was something like (not exact quote) "Journalist Michael Gonzales profiled the recording of Cooper's solo album, including contributions from Teena Marie and guitarist Bob Bacon" - that is pure WP:AIATTR, it is also not a summary of a source, it's a name check. AI does this to show clever it has been at finding obscure sources. It's like saying "Journalist John Smith in the Washington Bugle profiled Lincoln's involvement in a firearms incident at a public entertainment facility", whereas a human would say "Lincoln was assassinated by gunshot in the Ford's Theatre" and then sourced to the Bugle. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It will all be corrected. ~2026-52994-66 (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Info on my website www.klymaxxfeatbernadettecooper.com to continue. ~2026-52994-66 (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's one of the many key problems with an autobiography: Wikipedia isn't concerned with what biography subjects wish to say about themselves. You have to establish and source facts through independent, reliable coverage of you. And that's very difficult; you have to basically forget anything you know about yourself that isn't reported about you. WP:PRIMARY sourcing shouldn't come into it until individual notability is demonstrated, and has to naturally be very limited (see WP:SELFSOURCE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

09:04, 2 October 2026 review of submission by ArtThouGomeo

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

Hey I just created a page for a piece of Software called "DXMT," I would like to edit the page's title to "DXMT (Software)" to make it clear that this DXMT is referencing that. Every tutorial I find suggests I would need administrator rights to "move" the page to a new wiki page title with this change. If these rights are not grantable because of how new my account is, would it be possible to have an admin do this on my behalf?

Cheers, Gomeo ArtThouGomeo (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

What tutorials are you searching up? I don't have special permissions, and I just did it for you: Draft:DXMT (software). Whatever tutorials your looking at are probably wrong. It's generally best to stick to tutorials on Wikipedia written by Wikipedians, such as Help:Moving a page. guninvalid (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for doing that, much appreciated! I was using a video from 9 years ago on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgbT6hST0Aw

Gotcha, noted on using the written wikipedia stuff for future. Forgive me I'm new to Wikipedia and still getting my bearings, but appreciate you taking the time to make that change and for showing me the ropes. Have a great weekend!

-Gomeo ArtThouGomeo (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ArtThouGomeo.

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.

Most of your sources are not reliable sources, and are useless for a Wikipedia article.

Unless you can find several sources each meeting all the requirements in the golden rule, you are almost certainly wasting your time.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll take your advice on board. For what it's worth, I created the article largely based on the layout/template of DXVK; but I take your point about using cited reliable sources. Given DXMT is still a fairly niche piece of software that's not hardly written about at all this field, might be a difficult ask but I'll try my best to see what I can dig up in terms of research. Thanks again for your guidance ArtThouGomeo (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

12:10, 2 October 2026 review of submission by Wajahatzafar75

• Wajahatzafar75 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pakistan Sweet Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was rejected under WP:NORG/WP:ORGDEPTH. I'm asking for advice rather than a re-review, because I'd rather not resubmit something that isn't ready.

Pakistan Sweet Home is an orphanage and welfare organisation in Islamabad, founded in 2008. Most of what I can find is from APP, the state news agency, and I understand wire copy based on an organisation's own handouts carries little weight. The non-wire sources I have are:

• The Express Tribune (2013) - feature on its Sukkur centre
• Dunya News (2023) - report on its blood bank
• Gulf News (2023) - UAE embassy donation visit
• The Nation (2026) - staff report on a fundraising dinner

Three questions:

1. Is the problem the number of independent sources, or would these four also fail ORGDEPTH as routine coverage? Knowing which would tell me whether more searching is worth the time.

2. The founder has an existing article, Zamarud Khan, which already mentions the organisation. Would a sourced paragraph there, with Pakistan Sweet Home as a redirect, be the better approach for now?

3. There is a naming complication I'd welcome a view on. Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal, a government agency, runs a separate and much larger network of children's homes under the same name, and the founder previously headed that agency. Several sources conflate the two. The draft gives this its own section, but I'm not confident that's the right way to handle it.

Thanks for any guidance. Wajahatzafar75 (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you're using a different account than you used to edit the draft? 331dot (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

16:58, 2 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-52637-15

• ~2026-52637-15 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Death Joke (television program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All 52 episodes has been done the inside the draft the references for 51 episode remaining needed ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft has now been rejected, so it won't be considered for publication at this time in this form. If you should fundamentally rewrite it to demonstrate notability -- you can't use ThaiHealth to support notability for a ThaiHealth creation -- you can then contact the rejecting reviewer and ask them to reconsider. You need independent, reliable sources if you're going to have any chance at establishing notability for this program. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: ThaiHealth it does not have notability for Wikipedia article for English language these resources are limited for reliable sources for this television program ~2026-52637-15 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

If there are not enough sources, then unfortunately there cannot be an article for the program. Maybe more sources will appear in the future, but until then there is nothing you can do. Meadowlark (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

21:42, 2 October 2026 review of submission by Tonia Mavrommati

• Tonia Mavrommati (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:FERMENTANTS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Could someone please move Draft:FERMENTANTS to my userspace, at User:Tonia Mavrommati/Fermentants? I want to keep the draft because I am still gathering independent sources, and I plan to keep working on it. Thank you, Tonia Mavrommati Tonia Mavrommati (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to do so; you can work on it at your leisure where it is now. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tonia Mavrommati.

I came here to say the same as 331dot: only if you don't edit it for six months will it get deleted.

Are you aware that no publication in which you or your collaborators or associates were involved will count towards establishing that the term is notable? We need more than one instance where somebody wholly unconnected with you has written in some depth about the term and its referent. Neologisms are rarely notable in that sense. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Tonia Mavrommati Following from the above, WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOTMADEUP may be helpful. Your draft here explicitly says your term is ...not yet adopted... which, in other words, means it shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is for writing about things that are already well-known and widely discussed. If your draft outright has to say the words "here's a thing I made up that nobody else is using yet," that means Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Athanelar (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

October 3

00:42, 3 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53319-38

• ~2026-53319-38 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Flizzy Flomper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What should i do to my article for thou to publish it for me? I need this published please. ~2026-53319-38 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Your draft has been rejected, it will not be published. Athanelar (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

08:56, 3 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50546-38

• ~2026-50546-38 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Libraryminds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m seeking guidance on whether the current draft about Libraryminds meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements. Libraryminds is a relatively new company, around nine months old, and we currently do not have independent media, news, or editorial coverage about the company. I would therefore like to understand whether the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability and, if not, what type of independent coverage would be required before the article could be considered eligible.

If Libraryminds is not currently eligible for a Wikipedia article, could you also please advise me on the appropriate way to remove or delete the draft? The draft is currently publicly accessible and appears in search-engine results, so I would prefer to remove it rather than leave an unsuitable or incomplete draft publicly indexed. ~2026-50546-38 (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

A company must become established and recognized in its field by independent reliable sources before it can have an article here. Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first, because it can only summarize what others have already written. If there is no independent coverage of your company, there can be no article here.

It's odd that it appears in search results, because drafts aren't supposed to be indexed as I understand it. As you are the principle editor, we can do an author request deletion if you desire. If circumstances change in the future, the draft can be restored via WP:REFUND.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE; editors representing companies don't usually succeed in writing about their companies, especially as new users without prior Wikipedia editing experience. I suggest that you go on about the work of your company and establishing its presence, and allow an article to organically develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of the company in independent sources and chooses to write about it, summarizing that coverage. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. That makes sense, and I understand that without independent coverage, Libraryminds does not currently meet the requirements for an article.

Yes, I would like to request deletion of the draft. I appreciate the clarification and will focus on establishing the company's presence independently. If there is substantial independent coverage in the future, I understand that the draft can potentially be restored through the appropriate process.

Thank you for your help. ~2026-50546-38 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

10:51, 3 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53224-94

• ~2026-53224-94 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bobz langguaze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it wasnt a joke ~2026-53224-94 (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If you feel that it was wrongly deleted, you can appeal at User talk:MPGuy2824 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

15:10, 3 October 2026 review of submission by Aisha Saleh Adamu

• Aisha Saleh Adamu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nuruddeen Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello everyone, I would appreciate your honest review on Draft:Nuruddeen Muhammad. The draft has undergone several revisions but not yet moved to the main space.

Earlier reviewers raised concerns about sourcing and inline citations which I all made ultimate improvements. My concern is that, an editor recently commented “Passes NPOL” on 27 September. I understand that this does not mean the draft has been accepted, but I will be glad if it can be reviewed to see whether it can be accepted; if not, what further changes are needed?

Thank you. Aisha Saleh Adamu (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It was a comment, and not part of a review, so it has not been accepted at this point. There are two core requirements, WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability and the reviewer will be testing both of these, along with a few other factors. Your draft is resubmitted and is in the queue for review. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

15:32, 3 October 2026 review of submission by Ehinsonhasty

• Ehinsonhasty (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Elizabeth L. Hinson-Hasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need a bit of help looking at my draft and considering how to add the third party verification. There are a lot of citations, but I am not sure which ones are necessary. Ehinsonhasty (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Golden Rule and make sure each source complies with all of the criteria listed.

The ones that aren't necessary are what we call WP:Primary sources. These are citations to your own works, your own websites, or projects you're involved in, or anything else that isn't independent of you.

The reviewers have left ample feedback about what's wrong with the sources.

Also see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Generally you shouldn't write about yourself on Wikipedia. What possible reason can there be for you to want an article about yourself? That isn't a rhetorical question. Vanity, search engine optimization, getting the word out, maintaining a central information resource about yourself, all those are invalid reasons. If you are truly notable, then it shouldn't matter if someone writes an article about you next month or 60 years from now. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)