Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

August 6

02:54, 6 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43386-71

• ~2026-43386-71 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Total Artist Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can this page get approved ? ~2026-43386-71 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The subject simply isn't notable by our standards. There is no path possible to approval at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

03:30, 6 August 2026 review of submission by KyleSettlemyer2000

• KyleSettlemyer2000 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Sedonas (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I get my piece approved? Thanks! KyleSettlemyer2000 (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Has anything happened in the past 2 years to cause the band to become notable since the article was rejected? Athanelar (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

05:47, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Lvsreddy

• Lvsreddy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Megha Gas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it is company profile Lvsreddy (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a billboard. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

08:37, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Armin Pangerl

• Armin Pangerl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thomas Riesner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hallo i need a little help to make it complet. Thank you Armin Pangerl (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners are good places to start. Athanelar (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you dear Athanelar Armin Pangerl (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

08:42, 6 August 2026 review of submission by RecentConfidence

• RecentConfidence (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Debarag Banerjee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know which parts of the article does not have good citations so that I can make changes there or remove that part. RecentConfidence (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@RecentConfidence: the latest decline is saying that this person is not sufficiently notable. You need to provide evidence that they meet either the general WP:GNG or the subject-specific WP:NPROF standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

09:52, 6 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43158-61

• ~2026-43158-61 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Svetlana Dmitrenco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Articles for Creation Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft on Dr. Svetlana Dmitrenco.

I would respectfully ask you to reconsider the draft or to indicate specifically which notability requirements you believe have not been met.

My intention was not to promote the subject but to document the career of a scholar whose achievements are supported by reliable published sources.

The draft is based on independent publications, including scholarly and biographical works, as well as official academic records. Some of the key sources are in Russian and Romanian because Dr. Dmitrenco has spent her entire academic career in the Republic of Moldova. Unfortunately, there are very few English-language publications covering Moldovan scholars in the social sciences.

The draft documents, with reliable sources, that Dr. Svetlana Dmitrenco:

was among the first scholars to establish sociology as an academic discipline in the Republic of Moldova; became the first woman to hold the position of Chief Research Fellow in an academic research institute in her field in Moldova; became the first woman earned the degree of Doctor Habilitat in Sociology; authored nine scholarly monographs and numerous scientific publications; supervised doctoral research and participated in the development of sociological education and research in Moldova; has been the subject of independent biographical essays and bibliographical studies published by independent authors and institutions.

The article does not rely solely on institutional webpages or self-published material. It includes independent publications devoted specifically to Dr. Dmitrenco and her scholarly contribution. These include biographical essays, scholarly reviews, and bibliographical studies rather than routine mentions.

I fully understand that non-English sources may require additional effort to evaluate. If helpful, I would gladly provide English summaries or translations of the relevant passages from the cited publications.

I am an elderly contributor and not a native speaker of English. I have tried to follow Wikipedia's policies as carefully as possible. If the draft still falls short of the required standards, I would sincerely appreciate specific guidance on which sources are considered insufficient and what additional evidence would be necessary to demonstrate notability.

Thank you very much for your time, your patience, and your work as a volunteer editor.

Kind regards, ~2026-43158-61 (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-43158-61:

(If you are 1vikbak17, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.)

Assuming you are want to assert academic notability, specifically, then you need to study the relevant guideline WP:NPROF, and specifically the inclusion criteria described at WP:NACADEMIC, and provide evidence that this person meets at least one of those criteria, objectively and unambiguously, as supported by reliable and independent sources. It may be that such evidence is already buried somewhere among the very extensive contents and 80+ sources cited, in which case it would help if you could highlight that.

Please note that "first X to do Y" (eg. first woman to hold a particular position) do not establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter 1vikbak17 (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm 1vikbak17 1vikbak17 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Request for review: Draft:Diamantis Karanastasis

Κείμενο: Hello, I would like to kindly bring attention to Draft:Diamantis Karanastasis, which has been awaiting re-review since 19 June 2026. The subject is a former Member of the Hellenic Parliament (2023–2025). All previous reviewer feedback (Umais Bin Sajjad, 5 June 2026) has been fully addressed: the draft has been restructured as narrative prose, primary/affiliated sources replaced with independent reliable sources, and personal details carefully sourced per WP:BLP. Given the current August Backlog Drive, I would greatly appreciate any attention to this submission. Thank you. Zeidwros Zeidwros (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zeidwros Some very important previous feedback which you've ignored, however, is that you cannot use AI to generate article text, and I have declined the draft again for that reason. Athanelar (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

10:55, 6 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42443-95

• ~2026-42443-95 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:HodieLabs Preventative Health Testing Longevity Clinic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this contrary to Wikipedia? ~2026-42443-95 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Many of the sources (that aren't HodieLabs itself) appear to be non-sequiturs or otherwise irrelevant to HodieLabs, and the text itself appears to have been copypasta'd from raw LLM output, including instruction to the end user. I'll do a source assessment.

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• https://www.forbes.com.au/covers/investing/first-look-inside-patty-cripps-longevity-bet-stille/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of HodieLabs.
• I can't assess https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6224297/ (incompetent) but I can't exactly see how a whitepaper on behavioural training in re ADHD would help for HodieLabs' eligibility. Even if HodieLabs were used in the whitepaper's creation, that does not in itself make HodieLabs notable any more than a wrench being used on Dale Earnhardt Sr.'s car makes that wrench notable. This can also be applied to References 8 and 9, since both are likewise whitepapers on tangential subjects.
• https://hodielabs.com/about-hodielabs.html - and everything else on that domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). This disqualifies References 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10.
• We can't use https://uluwatucapital.com/ (website homepage), and even if you found a page on that domain that does corroborate the claim you're citing it for we couldn't use it for that (connexion to subject).
• We can't use https://www.globalwellnesssummit.com/blog/stille-raises-a10m-for-melbourne-recovery-and-longevity-club/ (too sparse). The actual article is a non-sequitur.
• https://niim.com.au/about/ is a non-sequitur.
• We can't use https://www.everlab.com.au/ (website homepage). I'm also sceptical any page on that domain would be anything but a non-sequitur.

I will be tagging this article for speedy deletion as not written by a human. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 14:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, fyi, for some reason the source assessment table is listed as "Bastard Helper from Hell." Presumably that's not your doing. SenshiSun (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun Yes, @Jéské Couriano is the "bastard helper from hell". I think it's related to "BOFH" (see a search engine for that). He does a fantastic job, which probably takes a long time per article.

Although I don't know what the "incompetent" tag above means. David10244 (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Incompetent" means I don't have enough background knowledge of the subject matter to fairly assess the source, whether for lack of understanding of the terms used or the significance of the source itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 06:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano I can't imagine you being incompetent...maybe "not well-versed in that particular subject matter". David10244 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun: That's intentional, as is the Bastard Operator From Hell reference. After all, both of us do our level best to stop someone who doesn't know what they're doing from making more (unnecessary) work for us. Note the link on the collapsible title points to the cheatsheet for my assessments; I also do BHFH assessments via IRC, where hard character limits apply per message. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 07:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I did see the title linked to the explainer table. The name is cute if you realize (a) there is a reference and (b) have enough knowledge of Simon Travaglia's work to know the reference. The term is designed to be aggressive.

But if you don't recognize it, it sounds much more hostile than you might intend. I genuinely thought some angry vandal had done a find & replace on the name, then was confused when I couldn't find the change.

Perhaps you could add a link to the original BOFH page somewhere in the explainer? SenshiSun (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

13:07, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Pkumardxb

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

---

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

what is the reason of rejection Pkumardxb (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It says in the decline and the comment the reviewer left. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

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

13:10:35, 6 August 2026 review of submission by EricValencia-Passaic

• EricValencia-Passaic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Hector Carlos Lora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Hector Carlos Lora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a disclosed paid/connected contributor (per my user page) working on behalf of the City of Passaic, New Jersey. Draft:Hector Carlos Lora has been declined four times: twice for neutrality/promotional tone (by Sulfurboy and CostalCal) and twice for source diversity/significant coverage (by Dafootballguy and EaglesFan37).

After each decline I've made a genuine, close-reading pass against MOS:WTW and removed unattributed characterizations (e.g. "drew regional media attention", "lighthearted") — I couldn't find further clear violations on my last read. On sourcing, the draft now cites about a dozen independent outlets beyond the local paper of record, including Gothamist/WNYC, CBS New York, ABC7/WABC, Univision, NJ.com/Star-Ledger, TAPinto, and Bloomberg Philanthropies, alongside New Jersey Globe, InsiderNJ, and NJBIZ.

Could an experienced reviewer point to a specific sentence or two that still reads as promotional, or confirm whether the current source list meets WP:GNG? I'd rather fix a concrete problem than keep resubmitting blind. Thank you for your time. EricValencia-Passaic (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@EricValencia-Passaic: you have resubmitted the draft, so will get feedback once it has been reviewed.

I would, however, say that the 'Policies and initiatives' section is very extensive, unduly so in my view. This is neither Lora's manifesto nor a record of his achievements, but an encyclopaedia article about him. By all means give a brief and broad-brush overview of what he stands for, but I would not recommend spending ¾ of the draft on this, like you are currently doing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@EricValencia-Passaic Removing promotion isn't as simple as checking for certain words to watch. It's in the stuff like DoubleGrazing points out above; you spend the vast majority of your article talking about his policies, because of course you do, he's paying you to do that. This is why it's nearly impossible for paid editors to write truly neutrally, and therefore nearly impossible for paid editors to succeed at the task of creating an article. See WP:PAIDADVICE and please heed what it says. Athanelar (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

13:22, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Hillsilo

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

Which template or any words should I add? (NOTE: My English grammar level is very bad because I don’t heard or understand any new English words) Hillsilo (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hillsilo No templates required, you need indpendant reliable sources discussing this website and its affect on the world. This will help demonstrate why this website is notable by our definitions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mcmatter But I’m a Wikipedia beginner level editing user. Hillsilo (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hillsilo I don't know what more you want, I answered your question. If you still don't understand then it's probably time for you to work on other things and come back to this after you better understand how Wikipedia works. Writing acceptable articles is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia especially for a new user, start with other tasks like fixing errors in or updating existing articles. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hillsilo.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

14:55, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Renarawr

• Renarawr (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dorothy Hanley Whiteside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm working on Draft:Dorothy Hanley Whiteside, which has been declined a few times for notability (lack of independent, significant secondary coverage). One of the decline comments mentions that "Find a Grave is not reliable" as a source, but I don't see Find a Grave cited anywhere in the current reference list. I want to make sure I'm not missing something — is there a part of the draft where that concern applies, or was that comment referring to an earlier version?

More importantly, I'd appreciate guidance on the core notability issue: Whiteside was one of the seven founders of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, and the draft currently cites the sorority's own founder pages, two newspaper obituaries/death notices, and a Butler University article covering all seven founders collectively. Reviewers have noted these don't meet the "significant coverage," "independent," and "reliable" criteria together. Before I put more time into searching historical Black press archives (e.g., the Indianapolis Recorder) for additional coverage, I wanted to ask: does an obituary ever count toward significant coverage if it's several paragraphs and biographical rather than a routine notice? And is there a general sense of whether founder status in a notable organization, on its own, is likely to be enough once paired with 2–3 solid secondary sources, or should I consider proposing a redirect/merge into the Sigma Gamma Rho article instead? Thanks for any pointers. Renarawr (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Renarawr Find a Grave was in the references on August 5 when that reviewer left their comment. Considering that you, presumably, wrote this draft (at least the edit history would seem to suggest that!) and you're the one who then removed the Find a Grave source in this edit, one would expect you to know that.

Unless of course you've been enlisting the help of AI to write (and rewrite) this draft for you, and therefore have no idea what you've actually been adding and removing; which is very much against the rules here. Athanelar (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article and receiving the regular decline due to lack of notability. I have kept adding various sources that I think could be considered reliable secondary sources, including newspaper articles that I subscribe to myself, yet I am uncertain whether I am following Wikipedia’s requirements on notability properly. My main efforts have been directed at the references, since, according to the reviewer, “does not demonstrate that the person meets Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion” and requires several published secondary sources. I would appreciate any advice on where the border is drawn between having sufficient number of reliable sources and having demonstrated notability. I am currently looking into other founder’s Wikipedia article which was accepted for publication and noticed that there is very little difference between the two articles. Renarawr (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to respond to what I said. Was your draft written with the help of any AI tool? Athanelar (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Having suitable sources is how you meet the criteria, so there's no border - if you have the sources, then the person meets the criteria; if not, they don't. Being the founder of a notable organization is not one of the criteria.

The articles about the other founders may never have been accepted for publication; the Articles for Creation process has not existed for long on the Wikipedia time scale, and more experienced editors may even now simply move their articles into mainspace (and take the risk of having them deleted, of course). We know there are many deficient articles out there, but we simply don't have enough volunteers to find and take action on all of them. We can't use that fact to add more deficient articles - that only makes the problem worse. New articles should be good enough to not need any (or at least very little) clean-up work.

I too am curious about whether AI/LLM tools were involved in writing your draft or your responses here. Meadowlark (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

14:58, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Ponrajvellai

• Ponrajvellai (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:V. Ponraj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm working on Draft:V. Ponraj, declined on 5 August 2026 for insufficient significant independent coverage. I have sources confirming his career (LCA-Tejas, President's Secretariat under A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, political career) but most are either primary/court records or mention him within stories about others rather than substantial coverage of him directly. I have disclosed my COI as his manager. Could someone advise whether specific source types would help, or whether this suggests he doesn't yet meet WP:NPEOPLE? Thank you. Ponrajvellai (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that the requirements to demonstrate that a subject is notable is the presence of multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources of significant coverage, if no such sources exist then that does indeed suggest this person (like the vast majority of people on the planet) does not meet our requirements to be included here. Athanelar (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ponrajvellai You say that you are his manager, and yet your username is very similar to his name. Your username should reflect you, and you can use your real name, or a made-up name. It's not a good idea to have a username that is very close to the name of someone you are writing about, though. That gets confusing. David10244 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

15:29, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Southwold1966

• Southwold1966 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Southwold1966/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would be grateful for adivce as to how I may make the text uploaded into wiki parameters/ fields. Also - what is the difference between bibliography and references? Southwold1966 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Southwold1966 The answer, though it's likely not what you want to hear, is that as a brand new editor with 0 experience in Wikipedia or even knowledge of how a Wikipedia article should be structured, the chances of you succeeding at writing an article are close to zero, and you should first spend at least a few weeks in the Wikipedia community learning the basics. Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. I have gone too far, too fast. I have uploaded several huindred images and descriptions to wiki commons, see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=formerly+robin+de+beaumont+collection&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

During this work, editing records with small changes became routine.

Apologies if you have already viewed these.

Regards Southwold1966 (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Southwold1966 Several HUNDRED images and descriptions? David10244 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Southwold1966 Are you sure that none of that material is copyrighted? If you are not sure, then the several hundred things you uploaded to Commons might get marked for deletion. David10244 (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

15:40, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Misstko2026

• Misstko2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bupa Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello team, I saw a gap in getting the below page for Bupa Hong Kong available in English so I translated at my interest with the same content in English. https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E4%BF%9D%E6%9F%8F_(%E4%BA%9E%E6%B4%B2)

Or should I seek help in creating a translated page instead of creating a completely new page? Is there any guideline on this? I'm keen to provide more translation support to Chinese wiki content. Thanks.

Misstko2026 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that the policies between zh.wp and en.wp are not one-to-one, with en.wp having amongst the strictest policies and guidelines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

16:46, 6 August 2026 review of submission by StyleMediaEditor

• StyleMediaEditor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marie Denee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assitance because my draft was declined, telling me I used ChatGPT, but I did not use chat to create my submission... I asked for formatting help but not the content, because I was afraid of it being declined again. I removed all of the self promoting or content that was not directly verified for this submission. I need help here. As someone who has run their business online for 18 years, this is both overwhelming and a bit fursttrating. I want to follow the rules and steps and the formatting... please advise? StyleMediaEditor (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@StyleMediaEditor: Unfortunately LLMs often go beyond what is asked of them in an effort to be "helpful". The only winning move with LLMs is not to play. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As to everything else in the draft, you're getting a BHFH double-bill.

Bastard Helper From Hell text assessment

• According to Ebony[.] - This is a very common tell as to LLM use, such that we have a name for it: Covering the coverage. You don't need to add this for the overwhelming majority of claims (and for those that do require attribution, such as quotes, you attribute the writer first and outlet second). I will skip over all instances of it in the draft; each and every last one of them need to be 86'd.
• Denee holds a Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Marketing... - Source? (Before you say "it's at the end of the sentence", we require it to be cited at the spot of the claim per our biographical policies.)
• [Denee] worked in retail management for over eleven years prior to founding The Curvy Fashionista. - The source here is not fit for purpose. (I will be covering the sources immediately after this.)
• Denee founded The Curvy Fashionista in December 2008. - Source? (If we take the Ebony source at face value, this claim seems to be blatantly contradicted by it.)
• In a 2023 interview... Denee said the publication was created in response to a lack of fashion coverage for plus size consumers in mainstream media at the time. - There's nothing to this effect in the cited interview.
• [B]y 2022 the publication had produced over 3,500 articles. - The source here is not fit for purpose.
• In 2021, Denee and Eloquii announced the Cultivate Award, a competition for BIPOC independent designers working in plus size fashion. - Source? And who or what is Eloquii? Details are important.
• WWD reported on the award winners in May 2021. - Relevance?
• In 2015, Denee founded the TCFStyle Expo in Atlanta, Georgia. - Source?
• [T]he event brought together plus size consumers, brands, and industry professionals and attracted over 500 attendees in its second year. - There's nothing to this effect in the cited interview, and we wouldn't be citing an interview with one of the event's organisers for something like this.
• Denee moderated panels at the Essence Festival of Culture in 2024. - Relevance?
• Denee has worked with brands and retailers... - Irrelevant. We do not acknowledge notability-by-osmosis.
• The Root 100 Most Influential African Americans - Source?
• Ebony Future 50 - Source?
• BET Future 50 - Source?
• The Network Journal Top 40 Under 40 - Source?
• Full Figured Fashion Week Industry Award - The source cited here isn't even about Denee, thus there can't be anything to this effect in it.
• 86 the entire Media coverage section. That's what the references are for.

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• We can't use https://www.forbes.com/sites/goldiechan/2022/12/08/growing-a-plus-sized-media-platform-with-marie-denee/ (no editorial oversight). Anything on Forbes' website that is written by a "Contributor" or "Council" is a glorified op-ed that hasn't gone thru their editor's desk.
• We can't use https://www.ebony.com/curvy-fashionista-marie-denee/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of role/no bylines because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• https://parlemag.com/2023/11/marie-denee-interview/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• https://www.essence.com/video/watch-shop-essence-live-lets-talk-style-with-curvy-fashionista/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). She had a direct hand in this.
• https://www.thecut.com/2021/02/eloquii-and-curvy-fashionista-announce-the-cultivate-award.html doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). This is about the award, not Denee. Coverage of Denee's works is not coverage of her.
• https://wwd.com/business-news/retail/eloquii-the-curvey-fashionista-disclose-winners-of-the-cultivate-award-1234811944/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Article is about the Cultivate Award winners, not her.
• https://www.essence.com/fashion/efoc-2024-soko-mrkt-inclusivity-plus-sized-fashion/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Attributed claims, no sunstantial discussion of Denee.
• https://www.ebony.com/curvy-plus-6-plus-fashion-power-players-on-the-rise-405/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). She's credited with writing the piece at the end of the article.
• https://www.bet.com/video-clips/s15fgk/the-glam-gap-marie-curvy-fashionista-denee-on-self-love doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• https://www.nbcbayarea.com/local/a-chat-with-the-curvy-fashionista/2090057/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.

Even if we take your claim you only used LLMs for SPaG, the sources - assuming ChatGPT didn't add new ones - are all unusable for both eligibility and biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

17:11, 6 August 2026 review of submission by DenZaUNITY

• DenZaUNITY (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2026–27 Czech Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please help me with Draft:2026–27 Czech Cup. I was added a ref links (because at first, the reason was with missing links), but draft still declined. For comparison, 2025-26 Czech Cup article are still is functioning with ONLY 1 (!!!) ref link. The DoubleGrazing advised me to go here and send a request with my problem, since they respond faster here. DenZaUNITY (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@DenZaUNITY: The usual response to someone comparing a declined draft to a live article is to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and to explain that just because other articles on questionably notable subjects has been published isn't a reason to add another one to the pile. In this case, however, the season isn't over, which may be a factor. Your best approach is to ask Sulfurboy who last declined the draft for more detailed reasoning. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

18:39, 6 August 2026 review of submission by SenshiSun

• SenshiSun (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:International Arena League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was rejected twice for a lack of reliable sources. The second submission seemed to meet WP:THREE. I can take out some of the facts sourced to Instagram posts. Is there something more I should be focusing on? SenshiSun (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:BACKWARD. guninvalid (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah... Okay. This one might be a lost cause. I started helping on this before games had been played, so it wasn't as obvious. SenshiSun (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

19:00, 6 August 2026 review of submission by Newdawnrises44

• Newdawnrises44 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Hasan Djaafar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Hasan Djaafar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was declined because the subject not meeting the GNG guidelines for a person. I am not sure why this is the case. I included 9 sources, comprised of: one 60-page museum catalogue containing primary sources (interviews) as well as synthesis and analysis, 2 Dutch newspapers with coverage of his shows, 3 dutch newspapers, 1 singapore newspaper, and 2 singapore museum archival numbers.

When I look at other comparable artists in List of artists from Indonesia I notice that many of them have less than 9 sources, some of them with just one:

Lee Man Fong Sudjana Kerton Marina Joesoef

I am not sure how these artists meet the GNG guidelines if Hasan Djaafar does not. Any insight or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Newdawnrises44 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your links, the whole url is not needed, just the title in double brackets.

Please read 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 have just not yet been addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles or even featured articles.

As the reviewer asked, how do you assert this artist passes WP:NARTIST? Interviews do not contribute to notability. Focus less on his exhibitions and more on critical analysis and commentary about his work. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

August 7

01:10, 7 August 2026 review of submission by Wikiguythatlikesbiology

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

why cant i submit? i tried converting as much content as i can into a stub? is there any reason why you are rejecting my page? Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Because your topic isn't even close to meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If there is no notability, there is no article. This draft is dead on arrival and will remain so until secondary organic coverage arises. guninvalid (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

i understand. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Wikiguythatlikesbiology Stubs have exactly the same requirements for notability as a full-sized article. Athanelar (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

i understand. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

02:35, 7 August 2026 review of submission by RobMeyerson

• RobMeyerson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Alina Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Alina Wheeler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft Draft:Alina Wheeler has been declined twice on notability of the person. My strongest independent sources (reviews in Communication Arts and Design Issues) are about her book, Designing Brand Identity, rather than about her personally. Would I be better off converting this into an article about the book under WP:NBOOK, with the author covered in a section? I have a disclosed COI (I co-authored the 6th edition). Thanks. RobMeyerson (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither of these reviews are compelling. DK Holland has a professional relationship with Wheeler (Wheeler literally thanks them in the book), so that's not an independent review. The other 'review' reads much more like a summary to me and really isn't anything notable in terms of book reviews. I do not believe Wheeler nor any of her books are wiki-notable. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not realize that about DK Holland (will look into it to confirm). The design world can be surprisingly small. Will look for other, independent reviews or evidence of notability. I appreciate your feedback. RobMeyerson (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

03:05, 7 August 2026 review of submission by EricValencia-Passaic

• EricValencia-Passaic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Hector Carlos Lora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Hector Carlos Lora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was rejected (not just declined) by Sulfurboy on 7 August, on notability grounds, after five earlier declines for tone/structure/sourcing that I addressed (removed subsections, cut the policy section from ~70% to ~50% of the article, restored source diversity, fixed close-paraphrasing concerns). I'm a disclosed paid editor working on behalf of the City of Passaic.

The current reference list includes independent coverage from Gothamist/WNYC, CBS New York, NJ.com/The Star-Ledger, Univision, TAPinto, New Jersey Globe, InsiderNJ, and NJBIZ, alongside the local paper of record. Other reviewers on this draft (Athanelar, DoubleGrazing) engaged with structural/proportion concerns rather than outright notability, so I'd like to ask: could an uninvolved, experienced editor take a fresh look and confirm whether this genuinely falls short of WP:GNG, or offer a second opinion on Sulfurboy's rejection? I want to respect a "not notable" verdict if that's the consensus, rather than keep resubmitting. EricValencia-Passaic (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Talking with us using AI just further confirms why my rejection was needed. Fire your LLM and have a nice day. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors at the City of Passaic. 331dot (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@EricValencia-Passaic A good start would be to put down the ChatGPT and directly address some of the feedback you've been given in the decline notices and in your previous question at the helpdesk. Athanelar (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

03:34, 7 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-39720-60

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

Is the only issue the organization tag? ~2026-39720-60 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No. The issue is the subject isn't notable. Further, you've used AI to polish your article. You also resubmitted multiple times without meaningful changes which wasted the time of multiple editors who were kind enough to volunteer their time for you. I did not feel there is any hope that you could create a meaningful, notable article on the subject so I rejected the draft. It will not be considered further at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

04:55, 7 August 2026 review of submission by Liaocaoxuezhe

• Liaocaoxuezhe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tabbit (web browser) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why can't we submit entries for our browser products? Please explain the specific reasons. For example, Arc Browser (Arc (web browser)) and Comet Browser (Comet (browser)) already have their own entries. Liaocaoxuezhe (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Because you're products aren't notable. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise yourself, especially if you are advertising by creating articles and making edits using AI. You're clearly WP:NOTHERE for any reason other than for poorly constructed promo. I'm upgrading the Draft:Browser Use to a rejection as well so another editor doesn't have to inevitably waste their time on that either. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Liaocaoxuezhe 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. One browser getting an article does not automatically mean that all browsers do. You may also wish to read WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

07:03, 7 August 2026 review of submission by EdTech and innovation enthusiast

• EdTech and innovation enthusiast (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DreamApply (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi , I'm working on Draft:DreamApply and I’d like to understand the bar a bit better so I’m not just guessing.

My question is mainly about what qualifying coverage under WP:NCORP would actually look like in practice for a B2B software company like this. What kinds of sources would genuinely help establish notability, and which ones tend not to count? For example, should I be looking for independent product reviews, national business or tech coverage, substantial sector trade coverage that isn’t based on interviews, or something else entirely? I’d rather understand that now than spend time chasing sources that ultimately wouldn’t meet the standard.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. EdTech and innovation enthusiast (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@EdTech and innovation enthusiast Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered for inclusion any longer. Athanelar (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@EdTech and innovation enthusiast: what we would need to see is the kind of coverage that for the vast majority of organisations doesn't exist, namely a journalist or similar, entirely unconnected to the subject and not being fed information by them or incentivised or prompted in any way, basically saying "hey, this business/institute/association/whatever is doing something very interesting that I think really 'moves the needle', so I'm going to research them and then write a piece about why I think this matters". It doesn't have to be solely about the subject, it can be about the sector more widely, but it does have to have significant coverage directly about the subject.

Instead, 99% of what we see is

• press releases, sometimes overtly, sometimes regurgitated to give the outward appearance of journalism
• sponsored content, eg. churnalism, advertorial, quasi-editorial coverage in exchange for advertising
• interviews, or someone from the business commenting on things
• routine business coverage (financial results, investment rounds, appointments, M&A, new products, new markets, new locations, new partners, business awards, etc.)
• product reviews; note: product reviews may make the product(s) notable, but notability is not inherited, ie. a business doesn't become notable by having notable products
• primary sources: affiliates, trade associations, government or NGO reports, supplier listings, etc.

...none of which are any good.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Review help needed for Draft:Anu Tomar

​My draft Draft:Anu Tomar (which is about an international shooter with multiple medals at Asian Championships and National Games) was hard-rejected by a reviewer claiming "no meaningful improvement". ​However, the draft contains verified independent reliable secondary sources (The Hindu, Times of India, The Telegraph, Amar Ujala) and official records from the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) and National Rifle Association of India (NRAI), fully meeting the WP:NATHLETE criteria. ​Kindly review the sources and draft objectively, or guide me on how to get it reassessed. Thank you. ​Regards, Advocate Vinit Tyagi Advocate vinit tyagi (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Anu Tomar

@Advocate vinit tyagi: of your five sources, the first two don't seem to be about this person (I say "don't seem to", because you've not linked the actual articles, for some reason); the next two return 404 errors; and the last one is just a database entry for her. We need to see significant coverage, directly of her (and not eg. just routine competition results etc.) in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent.

And the reason why your draft was rejected, is that with seven (!) prior declines, and still no evidence of notability, we have to eventually draw the line under it and move on to reviewing other drafts instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

07:33, 7 August 2026 review of submission by Cinema Creatives

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

Hello, I have completely revised the references on Draft:Pradeep Srivastava. I have removed the missing red link for "Ram Ki Janmabhoomi" and correctly anchored it to existing verified encyclopedic lists. Furthermore, I have added high-quality, independent secondary coverage from major national and regional publications including Live Hindustan (Hindustan Times Group) and Dainik Bhaskar with live blue hyperlinks, which clearly fulfill the Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. Since the previous reviewer instantly rolled it back without assessing these major editorial upgrades, I kindly request an independent senior editor or helper to re-review this submission. Thank you.

Cinema Creatives (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cinema Creatives Stop using AI; both to generate text for your article and also to talk to us. Once you've dome that, then the issues with the article can actually be meaningfully addressed. Athanelar (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

i apologise for this but i used the tool just to translate since i wanted to avoid any gramatical mistake.

i just wanted my draft to be reviewed because i have worked hard to find this person's actual news link from live hindustan and dainik bhaskar along with news18 to show his notability and credibility. i found on google too.

please tell me what changes i need to do manually,i will comply with all them.

Thank you, Cinema Creatives (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to write the article from scratch without any help from AI. If you aren't confident writing in English, there is a Hindi-language version of Wikipedia here which you might prefer to contribute to. Athanelar (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou for your suggestion, I have re-written everything to remove any automated phrasing, The information given by me is based on simple facts with supporting new sources. Kindly review it once again. Thanks Cinema Creatives (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please respond to the important inquiry on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

08:43, 7 August 2026 review of submission by Mateusz Bednarski

• Mateusz Bednarski (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rucomfy Beanbags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This has been rejected twice. Not written by an AI engine and does not read like an ad for the company. My profile clearly states a conflict of interests and it is not an advertisement Mateusz Bednarski (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mateusz Bednarski Your draft is nothing more than details of the company's routine business activities and its product offerings. That does not meet our requirements for inclusion; which is to be expected, the vast majority of companies on Earth don't meet our requirements either. I suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE and heed what it has to say. Athanelar (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

11:31, 7 August 2026 review of submission by Zigapotocnik

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

My draft (Draft:Databox) was declined by Sulfurboy for insufficient independent sourcing, citing WP:NCORP criteria for significant coverage, reliability, and independence. I added several sources in response: a Forbes review of the company's product by contributor Ben Kepes (2014), independent reporting from BostInno/American City Business Journals (2015), and a full interview with the co-founder by a Siol.net staff journalist (2017), in addition to the STA interview and Finance.si coverage already cited.

The draft was then rejected outright by Bonadea as not meeting the notability bar, with a note pointing to WP:BOSS. I have disclosed my COI as a Databox employee on my user page throughout.

I'd like to ask: given the sources currently in the draft, is there a reasonable path forward, or does this genuinely fall short of NCORP in a way that isn't fixable? I want to make sure I'm not misreading the bar here before deciding whether to pursue this further. Thanks for any guidance. Zigapotocnik (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAIDADVICE. Like most companies on Earth, yours does not meet our criteria for inclusion. You have just described the routine business activities and offerings of your company, not significant coverage with critical analysis and commentary. I don't think there's a path forward. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

14:11, 7 August 2026 review of submission by Raghav R01

• Raghav R01 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:1Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

With complete respect here, we're a bit concerned why this is being rejected multiple times. Can you please provide us the exact reasons?

The article has been re-written multiple times from a neutral perspective. We've tried our best to make it as informative by removing any promotional context, adding only external trusted sources and removing any LLM texts here. We're simply trying to provide "Encyclopedia" like facts and information about the company and nothing else

Could you please advise us how we can get the page live? What changes would exactly be needed? Raghav R01 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. Like most companies on Earth, yours does not meet our criteria for inclusion. You have just described the routine business activities and offerings of your company, not significant coverage with critical analysis and commentary. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. If we remove all prodcts and service information and only list coverage by industry experts and trusted media sources does this help? ~2026-43650-27 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43650-27@Raghav R01 It's not just about who says it, it's about what they say. You need significant coverage of your business beyond just its routine activities, and most companies in the world are simply not remarkable enough to attract that kind of coverage from independent sources. Athanelar (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

17:44, 7 August 2026 review of submission by CatsNBeta

• CatsNBeta (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nolan Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi and hello, I'm asking for assistance verifying the sources used, and if there are enough. I'd like to make sure that the ones I use are credible enough, because the only place I could find the GSU leadership part was through a Facebook post. Due to difficulties finding recordings, or anything that mentions names, for that matter, the draft also lacks outside sources that make it clear Nolan Clark was in the GSU orchestras/bands outside of the Mill Creek Bands director description, which I'd like to keep citations to a minimum. Any advice or recommendations outside of this to help make the draft more polished are also welcome CatsNBeta (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CatsNBeta

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.

If you haven't any sources that meet all the requirements of WP:42 - independent, secondary, reliable, and substantial about Clark specifically - then, like most people in the world, he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability

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) 17:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

23:09, 7 August 2026 review of submission by Moondragon21

• Moondragon21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Next Saxony state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Next Saxony state election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am still unclear why my draft was rejected under TOOSOON. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Moondragon21 What's unclear about it? The election isn't for another 3 years. Very few future events like that are worth including on Wikipedia; you'd have to demonstrate that there's been some serioud volume of independent discussion about the election, its potential ramifications etc. Athanelar (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I am unclear because Next Saxony state election was recreated by someone else within days of my draft being rejected. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

August 8

08:38, 8 August 2026 review of submission by Marcus358

• Marcus358 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sadraddin Aghjayev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I confirm that I am not paid for editing Wikipedia and I am not receiving any compensation, directly or indirectly, for creating or improving any articles. Marcus358 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea, thank you for your guidance. I confirm that I am not paid for editing Wikipedia and I am not receiving any compensation for creating or improving this draft. I have added the required disclosure to my user page. I also understand your concerns about AfC templates and will not remove or modify them. I will only use the blue Resubmit button for submissions. Thank you for your patience. Marcus358 (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to address Bonadea, please respond on your user talk page, or their user talk page.

What is the general nature of your relationship with Mr. Aghjayev? You haven't yet added a disclosure to User:Marcus358. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, 331dot – I just saw this here. @Marcus358: thank you for this, but as 331dot observes, there is no disclosure on your user page, so please add that as a matter of priority.

I also asked you to stop reverting the formatting of the references. A bare URL is not a reference the reader is helped by, and in particular when the sources are in languages many of the readers don't understand it is important to provide information in the citation template. More information here. Note also that any claims like "he has been frequently cited" must have an independent, secondary source that actually makes that claim. Links to individual pieces that cite him don't support it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @BonadeaI am the subject of the draft Marcus358 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; please carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiographies. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I have now added the required disclosure to my user page. I will also avoid reverting reference formatting and will use full citation templates instead of bare URLs. Thank you for your help. Marcus358 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Your user page, which is located at User:Marcus358, still has no disclosure. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Is English the main language you use to communicate? You may feel better editing the Azerbaijani Wikipedia instead, where you will not struggle to understand or to be understood. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

no problem Marcus358 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

15:09, 8 August 2026 review of submission by Octabina

• Octabina (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Guy Strazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have had two rejections. So I would like to know how to move forward in creating a bullet-proof page draft. Octabina (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Please describe your connection to him, as he posed for a picture you took.

Did you use a LLM on the draft in any capacity? 331dot (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on 'declined' vs 'rejected.' To answer your questions on whether I used LLM: I originally drafted the text entirely by hand myself, but I did use the basic Google AI tool strictly to check spelling, grammar, and typos before pasting it. I can see now how resume-style layout inadvertently triggered formatting patterns resembling LLM style. I apologize. I am currently rewriting the entire page into a standard chronological narrative format to comply with an encyclopedic style article. About the photograph: I took the portrait in my studio on my iPhone with a 10" delay and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons as a jpg. I now understand that writing biographically is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest guidelines. Octabina (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

LLM will often go beyond what is asked of it, Please review WP:LLM.

Please describe your general connection to him, as I assume he was not in your studio by chance and you just happened to take his picture and decided to write about him. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologise for the confusion: I am Guy Strazz. Octabina is simply my pseudonymous username I chose when creating this Wikipedia account. When I wrote "I took the portrait in my studio on my iPhone with a 10" delay" I meant that I set up the camera and took the photo by myself. The editor, the photographer, and the subject of the article are all me. I have added the conflict of interest disclosure template to my user page to reflect this. Octabina (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, please carefully read Wikipedia:Autobiographies. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please review the page indicated by Helpful Raccoon. You are very, very unlikely to succeed at creating this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. In over 14 years I personally have never seen someone succeed at it, though its probably happened. The point is that it's very rare. Are you the rare person who can succeed where most fail? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it. It is very difficult for someone to set aside everything that they know about themselves and all materials they put out(including reporting of their activities) and limit themselves to summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage(meaning critical analysis and commentary). We're less interested in a list of your performances and notable people you are associated with(as notability is not inherited by association) and more in what others say about you.

Also know that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

19:19, 8 August 2026 review of submission by Ayoussef1628

• Ayoussef1628 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hrant Keshishian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am struggling with providing the resources needed for the article. I have all the resources, but unsure how to properly reference them and what are the best ones to use. Your kind assistance would be grateful. Ayoussef1628 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ayoussef1628! For how to reference your sources, see WP:REFB (Referencing for beginners). For which are the best ones, see WP:42: a good source will meet all three criteria. Usually you need three or more good sources for a draft to be accepted. Since your subject is a living person, every statement needs to be verified by a reliable source; more information at WP:BLP.

Did you use an AI/LLM to help you create this draft? In the History section, you have written According to critic Enayat Wasfy, who wrote about him in Arek magazine in 2012, Keshishian is Egypt’s most original yet under-recognized artist, whose works “take the viewer through a tour of civilizations.” but the referenced source is the Oman Observer, specifically a piece by Georgina Benison, and neither the quote nor the 'most original...' claim are in the source. AI/LLMs love to put vaguely plausible sources next to information they've found somewhere else or simply hallucinated. Meadowlark (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, Reviewers have described his musical language as “a synthesis of the 20th century technical progress and traditional Near Eastern melodic and metro-rhythmic frameworks is found nowhere in the source. Unless translators are wrong, The Oman Daily noted that the Royal Opera House Muscat’s first-ever world premiere was well-received by the audience is sourced by an article describing it as a future event. And so on. Ayoussef1628, start with the sources, and write the article yourself from those sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

20:48, 8 August 2026 review of submission by Sevdayeli28

• Sevdayeli28 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Remeliorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance with improving the draft's structure, terminology, and sourcing. The article is intended to describe Remeliorism as a proposed ameliorative variant of reformism, with a clear distinction between reform, amelioration, and revolutionary change. I would like the draft to follow Wikipedia's neutral, encyclopedic style and relevant sourcing requirements. Sevdayeli28 (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sevdayeli28 Is "remeliorism" a concept you came up with? Wikipedia is not a place to introduce new ideas, it only summarizes what has already been written in WP:reliable sources. See WP:No original research. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You wrote this backwards, see WP:BACKWARD. Writing a text and then looking for sources to support it usually fails. You need to first gather the sources and have them in hand before you begin writing, because without sources you have nothing to summarize. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

One problem (of many) with combining LLM writing with a concept that you just created is that anything can be anything. What if my LLM is instructed to do the same thing for my conception of remeliorism? The start of my article has as many sources as yours does: zero. So, whose conception of remeliorism is more valid? That's why sourcing is absolutely crucial to any Wikipedia article existing, and why we start with the reliable sources. Verifiability is such an important policy that you can go see it with a one letter shortcut WP:V. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Obviously preposterous example of why we source things

Remeliorism is a political doctrine and form of culinary extremism centered on the coercive use, threatened use, or ideologically motivated distribution of remoulade sauce. The term is a portmanteau of remoulade and terrorism. Adherents, known as remeliorists, are purported to regard remoulade not merely as a condiment but as an instrument of political, cultural, or social transformation.

Remeliorism has been used in line with the language of terrorism studies, ideological factionalism, radicalization, and disputes over culinary authenticity. Accounts of remeliorism commonly depict conflicts between rival schools over such questions as the proper mustard content of remoulade, the legitimacy of mayonnaise-based variants, the acceptable use of capers, and whether fried seafood constitutes the only appropriate vehicle for the sauce.

The term is sometimes distinguished from remouladism, which refers more broadly to enthusiasm for remoulade without necessarily endorsing coercive or revolutionary methods.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sevdayeli28 Your question here was also written by LLM, which artfully avoided dobbing itself in as the cause of the problem. What is stopping you from finding your own sources and writing the draft yourself, without AI assistance? ChrysGalley (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

August 9

09:32, 9 August 2026 review of submission by Sunuraju

• Sunuraju (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Killing of Lee Chae-won (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i ask some korean users for help sources for draft Sunuraju (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place to solicit co-editing; you could try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea.

Note that in order to call this case a murder, someone needs to be convicted of murder by a court of law. See WP:MURDERS. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

11:50, 9 August 2026 review of submission by Hocky76

• Hocky76 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Salahuddin Siddiqui (Mussan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Submit it for review Hocky76 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have declined the draft for reasons that are inside the draft heading. You do not need to use this noticeboard after submitting a draft, we have a queuing system which tells us when articles are ready for review, and that included this draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologise , am new to this space Hocky76 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You are OK, it is all a bit confusing at first, and actually it's not that clear how the queuing system works, I get confused by it at times. Just read up on Help:Your first article and perhaps look at some other drafts to see how it works. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

18:03, 9 August 2026 review of submission by Johnwitwitham

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

I'm Sorry i was just trying to create an article Johnwitwitham (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Johnwitwitham: Maybe consider an alternative outlet? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

18:18, 9 August 2026 review of submission by Ahuacaxochitl

• Ahuacaxochitl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Oliver Larkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Oliver Larkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this article being declined? I had no hand it writing or editing it, though its rejection - and this comment from Dan arndt, "Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Wikipedia does not support the posting of aspiring political candidates [sic] profiles. (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)" - got me to read the guidelines. The article's references seem to demonstrate significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, therefor passing the "notability" test for inclusion of people. Dan's claim contradicts the guideline wherein it states, "...such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

Thanks for your time! Ahuacaxochitl (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

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

If you have never edited the draft, what is your interest in it?

As noted by the reviewer, WP:NPOLITICIAN is not met. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of the use of “rejection” in this context - its use was a coincidence, as I only used the word as a synonym for “decline” since I felt neither the nominative form of “decline”, declension, nor the gerund, declining, would convey my idea.

My interests are in understanding the guidelines for my future writing/editing as well as in regulating any potential self-interest in the process of this article being declined publishing. I’m arguing that the criteria were met. Please review the sources cited and measure them against the general notability guideline. Ahuacaxochitl (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In any case, WP:NPOLITICIAN is typically easier to meet than WP:GNG. Subject-specific notability requirements are alternatives, and it wouldn't make sense for them to typically be harder to meet than GNG, after all. If the easier requirement isn't met, it's usually not particularly helpful to invoke the harder one. In this case, all the coverage of Larkin is tied to and focused on his candidacy in the primary. This might change in the future. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaining the notability hierarchy. Are you claiming that the coverage being tied to his candidacy disqualifies the article from being published? I’m following the guideline, and my interpretation is that it meets the requirements and should be published.

From WP:NPOLITICIAN

”Just being an…unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.”

If there are additional implicit or esoteric rules/conventions in this arena that aren’t accessible to the public, that should change. Ahuacaxochitl (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are asserting Larkin is more broadly a notable person, you need to show that he is notable for something other than seeking elective office. If he is a notable union leader, you need sources that discuss that outside of the context of him running for Congress. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

19:57, 9 August 2026 review of submission by Yitzhak Eliezer

• Yitzhak Eliezer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pico-Burnside Baths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I’m looking for some guidance on Draft Baths. The draft was declined for notability, specifically because the reviewer felt there were not enough independent reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage.

I have since worked on strengthening the sourcing, including substantial Los Angeles Times coverage from 2005 and 2025, Los Angeles Review of Books coverage discussing the bathhouse’s role in the origins of WET magazine, and historical documentation of the bathhouse.

I may have accidentally resubmitted the draft before I finished revising it. Before making further changes, could someone please advise whether the current independent sources are sufficient to establish notability under WP, or what additional sourcing would be needed?

I’m especially interested in making sure I address the previous reviewer’s concerns rather than simply resubmitting without resolving them.

Thank you for any guidance. Yitzhak Eliezer (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You are asking for a pre-review review, which will just do what the reviewer will do. If you would like feedback, you need to resubmit the draft. You may continue to edit it even after it is resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

21:36, 9 August 2026 review of submission by Luxexterior

• Luxexterior (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Critterhill Varmints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am looking for your help to make sure that all aspects of the updated page now meet the wiki criteria: all the sources referenced are secondary, with additional independent references now provided to assure the reader of the factual and notable nature of the entry, in sufficient detail to indicate the veracity of the band and its endeavours. All sources used are indeed reliable, whether this is the Shetland Folk Festival, the Scottish newspapers, the Herald and the Scotsman, the Record Mirror newspaper, Channel 4's arts programme episode from 1989 courtesy of youtube, and especially the BBC which is now including the band in David Olusoga's latest 'A House through Time' series. I trust this now meets the requirement? Many thanks in advance Luxexterior (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The sources are mostly reliable, but the mentions in them (though I don't yet have access to check sources 6 and 7) are really brief and superficial. We want significant coverage that is about subjects, not just namedrops that demonstrate they exist. For example, you would demonstrate that a band is a popular, important fixture at festivals with a reliable source that describes them that way, not simply linking a handful of events they performed at or a schedule. The short paragraph in the Record Mirror is the only thing I've seen so far that even attempts to be about them, and it doesn't provide much. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

August 10

00:40, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Jamier93

• Jamier93 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please assist -- I do not understand why this was rejected. The subject I wrote about is a real, notable subject, and I cited legitimate published sources. Jamier93 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Per the note of the reviewer that rejected it: "AI generated and submitter is not productively engaging with the feedback given or the relevant notability requirements" Sulfurboy (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to self-plagiarize since you asked this question at another noticeboard and then didn't engage.

None of these sources are useful. Only awards that are notable themselves help with notability, and simply mentioning that he's a CEO is not enough since CEOs aren't inherently notable. The Beverage Dynamics piece is absolutely not a "full personal profile of Rosenstein." It's a passing mention that says little about him, and being quoted doesn't mean anything for notability.

Wikipedia articles are written about what independent, reliable, published sources say about subjects while providing significant coverage of the subject.

There are also some serious LLM/chatbot/AI signs here, with text that doesn't match the source. For example The same profile identified him as "ceo of the chain" and described his hands-on leadership style, The Ultimate Party Source. is absolutely untrue. The profile says nothing about his "hands-on leadership style" and "The Ultimate Party Source" is a branding subheading for the store itself, not a description of Rosenstein. This is common LLM hallucination, and if it isn't, it means that you're not reading the sources themselves; both are problems.

Are there any conflicts of interest that you need to disclose about this individual? If so, sooner is always better than later. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

01:41:26, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Silvermatsu

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

I am improving the lead section based on the reviewer's advice. Since I can't add neocategory to Template:Group-like structures before moving the draft to the article space, is it okay to temporarily create a "User:Silvermatsu/Template:Group-like structures"?--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Silvermatsu, you really shouldn't be trying to add categories to a draft article anyway. Categories don't help a draft with acceptance. Fussing around with them too much tends to just annoy your reviewer, making it that much more likely your draft will be declined, if not rejected. guninvalid (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, adding Template:Group-like structures to Draft:Neocategory might seem the same as adding Category:Group-like structures to Draft:Neocategory. However, I believe that adding this template to an draft will help readers understand the draft's topic.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Silvermatsu, what readers? Drafts aren't indexed by search engines. Your draft, while technically public, will routinely get 0 views a day until it's accepted through AfC and NPP. After the fact, feel free to add categories. But draft space is not the place to add categories. guninvalid (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I see now that I misunderstood your question. You are able to create a draft template (not a category) in your userspace if you wish, but that template can't really be added to the draft as user space templates are not permitted in mainspace. Therefore, you can get the draft accepted first, then make an edit request at Template talk:Group-like structures once the draft is actually accepted. Until then, focus on notability. guninvalid (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I'll put the template aside and focus on notability. The reviewer's comments are as follows: almost no background for readers who aren't versed in the topic. I think addressing this comment is equivalent to addressing the notability issue.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I clarified that a neocategory is an algebraic structure by rewriting the lead instead of relying on a template.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I swapped the figures in the Definition section and the Lead section. Rather than categorizing "neocategory" under "Group-like structures" in the lead section, it is more important to state that, in a neocategory, composition is relaxed to a partial law of composition. @guninvalid: I am grateful to you for making me realize this.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

... you're welcome? I have almost no idea what any of this means guninvalid (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistakenly thought the template was displaying an image file, which is why I referred to both the diagram and the table as "figures".--SilverMatsu (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Are the terms "multiplicative graph" and "multigraph" confusing?--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

04:47, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Cinmakspere

• Cinmakspere (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roy Puramadam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May i Know the reason why it has been taken down.

Cinmakspere (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cinmakspere, @Timtrent left a note along with his rejection explaining that the draft seems to be AI generated. It also shows no indication that the subject meets our criteria for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cinmakspere I did. It does, despite a helpful user correcting the AI mess of a submission template subsequent to rejection, which was pointless since this draft s going nowhere. He does not.

If you feel you are able to prove he passes WP:NMUSICIAN you are welcome to start again, basing your draft on that the references say about him.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

By "Start again" I mean a 100% new draft, not editing the existing one 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

07:05, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Jeremymcfarbe

• Jeremymcfarbe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Nothing bundt cakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was rejected on the grounds that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion and that it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

To be clear, Nothing Bundt Cakes is a bakery chain of roughly 800 locations and one of the largest food franchises in the United States. KKR's agreement in March 2026 to acquire it for more than $2 billion was reported by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. Inc. published a feature on the company. Nation's Restaurant News and Technomic also ranked the company the No. 1 chain overall in America's Favorite Chains in 2025 and 2026, which was also covered by Southern Living. The company was also named Yelp's No. 2 Most Loved Brand in 2023.

Editor suggested this was AI generated, which it is not. Additionally I have cut the promotional material as previously suggested.

For transparency: I have a declared connection to the subject, unpaid, noted on the talk page.

Is the subject ineligible (as the rejection suggested), or was this intended as a decline of the draft? If the latter, I'd like to rewrite and resubmit. Jeremymcfarbe (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jeremymcfarbe Rejection means the article will no longer be considered for inclusion unless you can specifically convince the rejecting editor, @Sulfurboy, to lift their rejection. This is not likely to happen as you evidently have not familiarised yourself with our criteria for inclusion for companies and organisations. Namely, company size has nothing to do with its eligibility, coverage of routine business activities like acquisitions also doesn't help, nor does being ranked on lists.

I have no doubt this same issue also applies to Draft:Groundworks and Draft:Neighborly (franchisor). Since you are simultaneously working on multiple drafts which you have a COI with, please make everybody's life easier by disclosing on your userpage rather than on each article individually. Athanelar (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The only thing worse than using AI is denying using it. If you are not willing to be honest about your LLM usage going forward then your drafts will continue to be rejected. We are generally not interested in overly promotional drafts about non-notable companies created by COI editors with the assistance of LLMs. You've got a lot of reading to do on our policies. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

07:05, 10 August 2026 review of submission by DiamondWalnut

• DiamondWalnut (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lakewood Central Church or Lakewood Central Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I published my article about Lakewood Central Church but it doesn't show on google or find under wikipedia search box. DiamondWalnut (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That is because the draft was declined for mainspace. The reason for the decline can be found on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Because you have not "published" this article; you have created a draft and submitted it for review, and it has been declined because it is currently not suitable for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Why is it not suitable for inclusion? ~2026-43792-96 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Because your sources are a random blog (no editorial oversight) and a random Korean-language YouTube video (unknown provenance - the fact the channel isn't verified obviates me needing to assess it). Please find somewhere else to proselytise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 07:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43792-96@DiamondWalnut Everything JC has said is correct; but the larger issue is that you've attempted to write an article for an encyclopedia without making any effort to learn our rules or standards for articles, which is inevitably going to end in failure. If you don't even know the standards, how can you be surprised you haven't met them? This is rather like somebody walking into your church and trying to give a sermon without ever having touched a Bible or learned a single thing about Christianity. Athanelar (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

you don’t have to add extra comments about like i don’t even know the standards and i haven’t made effort to. I wrote a second article that contains alot of information i don’t even know you made any effort to look at the second one not the first one. ~2026-43937-06 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if you still looking at the first article that I wrote. I have another article that has more information and more references in English. Also Hyundaijongkyo is not a random website, it is proven to be accurate and very well known in Korea.

User:DiamondWalnut ~2026-43937-06 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

We are because that is the draft you have presented to us. As to your other draft, it has similar issues. We don't cite Facebook (no editorial oversight), we wouldn't cite anything Yoon writes (connexion to subject) and that reference is incomplete anyhow, two more sources are non-sequiturs and the text as a whole is this very odd melange of proselytising and scam-warning. (The last source I can't assess as I do not read Korean, and nor does any sort of automated translation.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

09:23, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Avmarker56

• Avmarker56 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sri Avimuktha Datta Kshetram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my draft was declined because of notability and source issues. Can an experienced editor advise on what specific type of reliable secondary sources are acceptable for a local ashram/temple like this, or check if the current draft text meets Wikipedia standards? Avmarker56 (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, with critical analysis and commentary of some kind. It shouldn't just document the existence of a topic and tell what it does. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

09:53, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Maya966

• Maya966 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Quod Financial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to gain notabilty ? Maya966 (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

You cannot "gain notability" for the company. It must already exist in the form of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that offer critical analysis and commentary about the company, not just tell of its activities and offerings. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

10:30, 10 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44063-73

• ~2026-44063-73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wando Batisti Lundgren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What should i remove, add or change i order for it to get accepted? Or is this simply a no go

~2026-44063-73 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Simply a no go. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Hello,

I would like to ask advice on how I can fix the notability issue. Would adding more references and citations would help improve the notability?

Thank you! Gabclem (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

You have no sources at all, though you do have external links; sources must be formatted properly, see Referencing for beginners.

You have just told of the routine business activities and offerings of the company, not summarizing significant coverage, meaning critical analysis and commentary. The draft has been rejected because the prospect of this occurring seems low. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You have apparently been using an LLM tool, at least to some extent (the last submission template was malformed in a very specific way we see in AI generated drafts). Please read this information. --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

12:27, 10 August 2026 review of submission by SBF2004

• SBF2004 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dr. Slump – Arale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone check the page for the series on Japanese Wikipedia to get sources abt the production (which might go in-depth)…. And have them translated so it can fit English Wikipedia? SBF2004 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's ok to use non-english sources on Wikipedia. Your sources do not need an official English translation. guninvalid (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes but, how can I directly translate the Japanese Wikipedia page into that wiki? SBF2004 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

14:50, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Soaring55

• Soaring55 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Miura Kite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was declined for insufficient significant coverage in independent secondary sources. I have disclosed a personal conflict of interest with the subject and do not want to resubmit unless the sourcing is strong enough.

Could someone advise whether these sources are likely to satisfy the significant-coverage requirement?

1. Isaac Hamlet, “Iowa City native Miura Kite gets her first executive producer credit in ‘Noughts + Crosses,’” Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 8, 2021. This is a substantial profile centered on Kite covering her background, education, career and television work, although it also includes interview material.

2. Matthew Frank, “Participant Collapsed. These 10 Execs Landed Big Roles Afterward,” The Ankler, June 11, 2025. The article profiles ten former Participant executives and includes a dedicated section on Kite covering her Participant career, current role at MFF & Co, Playtone background and major credits.

There is also independent career coverage in Screen Daily and Playback, although those stories were occasioned by executive appointments.

Would the Press-Citizen profile and Ankler feature, together with the supporting trade coverage, be enough to justify revising and resubmitting the draft, or would another substantial independent profile likely be needed? Soaring55 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You need to do more than just describe her career; you need to summarize significant coverage in independent reliable sources, meaning critical analysis and commentary of her work. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

15:33, 10 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43418-61

• ~2026-43418-61 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chris Reinacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I recently submitted this page to be approved but saw it was declined. I was wondering if I could get more feedback as to why. Chris was a huge part of early BuzzFeed back in the 2010s and has been getting more popularity since working with Curry Barker. He made one of the shorts that got him a lot of traction and is going to be in his upcoming movie which is probably going to be big since Obsession did so well. Please let me know, thanks! ~2026-43418-61 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43418-61 Hi there. You need to demonstrate that the subject of your article meets the criteria for inclusion for creative professionals. Athanelar (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

16:58, 10 August 2026 review of submission by Cinmakspere

• Cinmakspere (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roy Puramadam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not appealing the rejection; the reviewer was right that I used an AI tool to write the draft, which I now understand is against policy. My question is about the future.

The subject is a Malayalam lyricist. The strongest claim is that he wrote "Amma Poovinum", the song S. Janaki chose before announcing her retirement, and she named him personally when announcing it (IBTimes India, 23 September 2016). He is also credited in the soundtrack section of the existing 10 Kalpanakal article.

I have a personal connection to the subject, which I've disclosed on my user page.

If a full-length interview or profile of him were published in a Malayalam newspaper, would that plus the existing sources be enough for an article? And would it be better for me to request it at WP:RA and let an uninvolved editor write it, given my connection? Cinmakspere (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

A full-length interview would do nothing to help the draft's chances, as interviews are the subject talking about themselves and not third-party reporting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If a newspaper notices him on their own and writes an article that isn't just an interview, that might count towards notability. If his team solicits a newspaper to publish a glowing profile about him, that would not be considered an independent source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Cinmakspere Please read WP:PAIDADVICE, and show it to Mr. Puramadam. In short, you are very unlikely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

17:36, 10 August 2026 review of submission by MayaFrodemanGallery

• MayaFrodemanGallery (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lance Letscher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I really want to make this page happen. I edited the introduction paragraph. Please give me any notes that may be helpful to create a successful sunmission. MayaFrodemanGallery (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@MayaFrodemanGallery: All of your offline sources are incomplete in a way we'd expect AI to botch it (all are missing page numbers and, for the books, ISBNs/OCLC #s). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

August 11

02:53, 11 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43975-70

• ~2026-43975-70 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alder Graduate School of Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received feedback regarding the draft - and confused specifically about the comment that "In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject. Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like an advertorial." The entry contains five peer-reviewed scholarly articles about the subject and NOT by the subject, and several trade publications with editorial oversight that are not advertisement. The history of the organization is based on what is available in other sources that are NOT by the subject itself. So I am wondering what else should I do. The person has not looked at the scholarly articles mentioned directly in the entry or in the references. ~2026-43975-70 (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cabrils Care to elaborate on your decline? Athanelar (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar thanks for the ping.

My comment is much more detailed and specific than what the IP user has included above.

There is no basis whatsoever to assert "The person has not looked at the scholarly articles mentioned directly in the entry or in the references."

At the risk of repetition, I refer you to my comment on the draft which, for the absence of doubt, includes the following:

"Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid or being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please see WP:COI and/or WP:PAID). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).

It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess."

Addressing these issues will progress the review process.

Cabrils (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

08:10, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Captivatingenchanter

• Captivatingenchanter (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Unnath Hassan Rathnaraju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would appreciate some guidance regarding an Articles for Creation draft concerning an Indian Bharatanatyam dancer, Unnath Hassan Rathnaraju.

A previous draft was declined, and before resubmitting I want to make sure that I am handling the sourcing and notability issues correctly rather than simply submitting another version.

The subject has had substantial coverage over a number of years, including coverage in Indian and international publications. Some of the older coverage is in print Kannada, Telugu and English newspapers and has not been digitised, so it is not readily accessible through online searches. I have copies/scans of some of these newspaper articles with the publication names, dates and articles visible.

There is also independent coverage of his international work, including his collaboration with the New York-based Battery Dance on The Durga Project / Shakti: A Return to the Source. This has been discussed by publications including The Indian Express, Bangalore Mirror, The Week, The Asian Age, and other publications, in addition to institutional documentation from the Indian Council for Cultural Relations and the Consulate General of India in New York.

My specific questions are:

1. Offline/print newspaper coverage

If a newspaper article is a genuine independently published article but is not available online because the newspaper has not digitised its older archive, can it still be used as a reliable source for an Articles for Creation submission?

If so, what is the preferred way to cite such a source? For example, should the citation include the newspaper name, exact article headline, publication date, page number and author, with the physical newspaper clipping retained as supporting documentation?

2. Regional-language coverage

There is also substantial coverage in Kannada and Telugu newspapers. Some of these articles are about his performances and career rather than simply event announcements.

Can such regional-language print sources be used to establish significant coverage, even if the reviewer cannot immediately access the article online? Would providing the original-language citation together with an English translation/summary of the relevant passage be appropriate?

3. Awards

The subject has received several recognitions during his career. Two that I would particularly like to understand how to handle are:

- Natraj Gopi Krishna Samman, which he received earlier in his career; and - Aryabhata International Award 2026, for his contribution to Bharatanatyam.

The Gopi Krishna recognition has independent references in published biographical material, and the award itself is an established dance recognition with its own Wikipedia coverage.

The 2026 Aryabhata International Award is supported by award documentation and recent newspaper material, although I am still distinguishing between independent editorial coverage and material originating from the awarding organisation.

I understand that receiving an award does not automatically establish Wikipedia notability, and I am not trying to argue that it does. My question is instead: what is the appropriate way to mention significant awards in the article when the award itself is independently verifiable, but independent newspaper coverage of the specific recipient/award may be limited?

Would it be appropriate to include such awards as part of the subject's career/recognition section while relying on independent sources for the overall notability case?

4. Overall notability

The draft is supported by multiple independent publications covering the subject's career, particularly his international work and his collaboration with Battery Dance. In addition, there is older regional newspaper coverage that is currently available primarily in print.

Would this combination — substantial independent coverage over a number of years, including international coverage, plus regional-language print coverage and documented professional recognitions — be considered relevant evidence under the general notability guidelines?

I am specifically looking for guidance on how best to document and present this evidence in an AfC submission, rather than asking editors to assess the subject's accomplishments based on awards alone.

I would be grateful for any advice on the preferred sourcing/citation format for the offline newspaper material and how the awards should be handled. Captivatingenchanter (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Citing offline sources is discussed at Referencing for beginners. Whether you keep a copy of the source is up to you, you need only provide sufficient information for someone to theoretically locate the source(publisher, title, author, publication date, page numbers, etc.). 331dot (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

08:42, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Itsmeela

• Itsmeela (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Romela Jemenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i need to publish my own page Itsmeela (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Itsmeela Your draft(the link to which I fixed in the header, the "Draft:" portion is needed) is blank. Note that Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Itsmeela You have said that you are a Filipino Aspiring Model... Wikipedia does not typically have articles about "aspiring" figures in any field; our central requirement for article subjects is notability, so you have to be very well established in whatever it is you do in order to have an article here. Athanelar (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

okay.. this is noted. Itsmeela (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

08:47, 11 August 2026 review of submission by SteveLow32

• SteveLow32 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Veloce Solutions Sdn Bhd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

need a correct way to write on this content. SteveLow32 (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

We are not interested in contributions that do nothing but help advertise a company. I would advise reading the pages linked in the notices on your talk page. You have a large learning curve ahead of you before you'll be able to make a constructive article. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

09:13, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Jessey b

• Jessey b (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Age of apocalypse (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know what to do next Jessey b (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you seen the message left by the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jessey b You need to find reliable sources WP:RS that demonstrate how the group passes WP:NBAND Sulfurboy (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

10:41, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Itsmeela

• Itsmeela (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Romela Jemenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to post my articles Itsmeela (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The subject has to pass WP:BIO to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. The subject you made an article for has no hope of that at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

10:49, 11 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43949-85

• ~2026-43949-85 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zangar Nurlanuly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We rewrite article with help of content manager. What we do next? ~2026-43949-85 (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

11:39, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Cdxx1

• Cdxx1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Zhilin Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Zhilin Wang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could an experienced reviewer please advise whether Draft:Zhilin Wang could plausibly be assessed under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1? I am asking for guidance before revising or resubmitting, not asking for the decline to be overturned without evidence.

COI disclosure: I know the subject personally and he is a friend.

The strongest evidence is work-level and disambiguated. Wang is the first author of the 2023 IEEE TPDS paper Incentive Mechanism Design for Joint Resource Allocation in Blockchain-Based Federated Learning (DOI: 10.1109/TPDS.2023.3253604). Queen's University Belfast's Pure record currently reports 116 Scopus citations. Crossref and OpenAlex report 126 citations, and OpenAlex's work-level record places it in the field-normalized top 1% (FWCI 16.04). Later independent papers also discuss or compare this research, including a 2026 Computer Networks paper and a 2024 Mathematics paper.

I excluded the ORCID-linked OpenAlex author aggregate because it visibly conflates several namesakes; I am relying only on DOI-level records. Would this be a plausible basis for NACADEMIC criterion 1, and what specific evidence or draft changes would be needed before resubmission? If it is not enough, I will wait for stronger evidence rather than repeatedly resubmitting. Thank you. Cdxx1 (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

12:40, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Mcp ceo

• Mcp ceo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Erdal Ozkaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm a student and long-time reader of Dr. Erdal Ozkaya's books, and I follow his blog and have attended some of his talks, as well as his youtube videos. I've been working on a draft about him (Draft:Erdal_Ozkaya) using published sources, and I used AI only to help fix grammar in my own writing, not to generate content. The draft was rejected on 10 August 2026, and earlier reviews also raised concerns about source independence/notability. Could I get guidance on whether there's anything that can be done to have it reconsidered, or whether I should focus on finding stronger independent sources before attempting to resubmit?

Thank you for any advice.
Mcp ceo (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion, so there is no way for you to attempt to resubmit this draft without appealing to the rejecting reviewer to lift their rejection. Athanelar (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

13:01, 11 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44259-82

• ~2026-44259-82 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohammad Shariful Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the creator of Draft:Mohammad_Shariful_Islam and have a declared conflict of interest (COI) as an employee of the subject's institution. The draft was declined twice for not meeting WP:PROF/WP:GNG, and has now been rejected by FuzzyMagma, citing that the subject (a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, not Vice-Chancellor) does not meet WP:PROF, along with concerns about my edit history on the draft (removing prior decline banners) and my COI disclosure. I would like guidance on: Whether there is any realistic path to notability for this subject under WP:PROF or WP:GNG given his role and published research record, or whether I should abandon this draft. How to properly restore/handle the decline history that was flagged as improperly removed. How to correctly format my COI disclosure so it's clearly visible per policy. I want to make sure I'm not violating any COI or editing guidelines going forward, and would appreciate advice before taking any further action on this draft. ~2026-44259-82 (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting.

Rejected means it's the end of the line for the draft, at least absent major, fundamental changes that address the concerns of reviewers.

I would suggest that you and him read WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

15:45, 11 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-43418-61

• ~2026-43418-61 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chris Reinacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! Not sure why this has been declined again. I thought Chris was relevant enough as he was very influential in early BuzzFeed and is also a collaboator of Curry Barker and will be in his upcoming movie. I have citations from Variety, Deadline, and Poltico among others so not sure what the issue is. Any help would be apprecaited, thanks! ~2026-43418-61 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

15:52, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Nelehnit

• Nelehnit (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Cara Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Cara Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New to this so asking for some help. All of the other players on the Orlando Pride National Women's Soccer League team have Wikipedia pages, so I'm not certain why this one was declined for relevance or for football(soccer)/women in sport projects. I've edited the draft page and deleted some of the collegiate sources in case those were considered too biased. I'd love any additional assistance if someone has recommendations. Nelehnit (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read other stuff exists. It could be that the other team members should not have articles, or some but not others, and they just have not yet been removed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more.

You have documented her work, but not significant coverage of her, meaning critical analysis and commentary about her(like from sports writers)

You have resubmitted the draft, the next reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

16:15:23, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Sinead RAU

• Sinead RAU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tony Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would appreciate any help with revising this article and getting it approved. He is a notable architect but a lot of the sources are offline. Sinead RAU (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed the header for proper display. The whole url is not needed. Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to be publicly accessible, like books or magazines in a library. Please see referencing for beginners for information on how to format such references. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

19:07, 11 August 2026 review of submission by TheGamerNerd14

• TheGamerNerd14 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Noah Marbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was rejected in April 2026, and I want to be upfront: it was resubmitted several times back then without addressing reviewer feedback, and I understand why that led to rejection. I am not resubmitting — I am asking whether reviewers would consider taking a fresh look, because two things have changed. First, the draft has been completely rewritten: inline citations throughout, weak sources removed, only staff-written coverage cited (CBS News , WSB-TV, WABE, Hypepotamus, FSR, The Financial Express). Second, significant new coverage was published after the rejection: a staff-written feature in FSR magazine (June 11, 2026), a national trade publication TheGamerNerd14 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest asking ChrysGalley directly, as the reviewer who finally rejected the draft. I don't personally think it's ready yet, as too much of it is coverage of the same basic story in roughly the same timeframe, but there appears to be some real progress in the right direction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

So, after saying "I am not resubmitting," you then go right ahead and resubmit it? That was a very bad idea. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

19:08, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Karel Havlicek MUSIC

• Karel Havlicek MUSIC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Karel Havlíček (composer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the subject of this draft and have disclosed my conflict of interest on the draft talk page. The draft was declined because the earlier in-depth sources were interview-led and the reviewer requested ideally three independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. I have revised the draft and would appreciate an uninvolved editor's view before resubmission. The principal sources are: (1) an independent iDNES review of the album Spoken (13 January 2022); (2) a KlasikaPlus review of a 2022 concert devoted to Havlíček's music; (3) an eight-minute OperaPlus review of the 11 June 2025 Prague Philharmonia concert, discussing five compositions and their style; and (4) a separate KlasikaPlus review of that 2025 concert. The official Czech Film and Television Academy also confirms a direct Czech Lion nomination for Best Music, while the Prague Philharmonia programme is used only to verify concert details. Do these independent reviews provide a sufficient basis under WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO, or should the draft be further trimmed or sourced before resubmission? Thank you. Karel Havlicek MUSIC (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Karel Havlicek MUSIC Asking us to do this is asking for a pre-review review, a thing which we do not do.

Your only objective is to prove with references the subject of any draft to pass the relevant notability criteria. Usually this means less text, and tighter writing. Note that I have not examined your draft.

Once you are confident that you have done your best and that the subject is notable in our terms then please simply resubmit for review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

19:34, 11 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-44278-83

• ~2026-44278-83 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Challenger Learning Center of Maine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was denied after making tons and tons of changes to be inline with wiki rules, and probably changed the article for the better....but the last edit said "The subject is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." and put a stop on being able to submit. The article is about a non profit education center in Maine. Wiki is loaded with more obscure and less impactful non profits. Maine Huts and Trails (no shade intended) has three newspaper articles listed as reference.... and that's it! ~2026-44278-83 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44278-83 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy

That said, may I suggest that you ask @Guninvalid their precise reason for rejection and whether they are sympathetic to your appeal to continue? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are Volfan999, remember to log in.

Please see other stuff exists. Many inappropriate articles likely exist on Wikipedia, and have just not yet been addressed by a volunteer. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us.

You have just described the center and its offerings, not significant coverage, meaning critical analysis and commentary as to what makes the center a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of your sources seem to be interviews with people associated with the center or announcements. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44278-83, I'll acknowledge that the subject does seem like it's on its way to notability. There's some coverage, but it's hard to verify how much alongside the plainly garbage cites to Google Maps and others. But the real problem with this draft is the way it's written. This draft needs a fundamental rewrite before it can be considered for acceptance. Please consult WP:BACKWARD. guninvalid (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

For further clarification, your draft would require a fundamental rewrite from sources. The way it's written now is plainly promotional and not acceptable for Wikipedia. guninvalid (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

19:44, 11 August 2026 review of submission by GIRLMOMANDBOYMOM

• GIRLMOMANDBOYMOM (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stacy Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do I immediately need to change in my draft. I'm including outside sources. I'm so confuses on what type of sourcing you require. GIRLMOMANDBOYMOM (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@GIRLMOMANDBOYMOM For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

19:49, 11 August 2026 review of submission by HarrietFest

• HarrietFest (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Charles Bound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I welcome help with (a) making the photo to size (b) adding the citation correctly (I read the guidance but still couldn't figure it out). HarrietFest (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Please visit WP:TEAHOUSE for article assistance. The AFC help desk is exclusively for help with the AfC process itself. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Now, now, Sulfurboy. @HarrietFest: The image is irrelevant; reviewers are looking at your text and sources - or in this case, the utter lack thereof - when they assess articles. And with no sources, the article won't be accepted, image or no. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 20:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I added three sources, were these insuffient? HarrietFest (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to him beyond taking his picture? 331dot (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

My husband - Dr Stephen F Eisenman - is a Emeritus Professor of Art History at Northwestern University. He wrote an article about Charles Bound's work that is listed in the external links. He was unpaid. He did it because he thought Charles' work is significant, his article explains why. There have been several additional articles that we can add to the external links, they're just not online. Unusually, Charles is also represented in two major museum collections. HarrietFest (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@HarrietFest: You failed to actually cite them. Just slapping references on the end is not acceptable for content about still-living or recently-departed people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 21:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, you'll see from my original note that I had requested help doing the citations. It seems that I might need to get that help from the teahouse. I'll do that. HarrietFest (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You did most of the work already. All you need to do is put the cites in-line (in the body of the article itself) and surround them with <ref></ref> to get them to show up. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 01:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. HarrietFest (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

20:44, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Lizkentleon

• Lizkentleon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Beloved Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Beloved Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sulfurboy rejected my article. None of the three reasons he cited were accurate. It has multiple secondary sources cited from extensive research. If you believe he was correct, could you please explain what specifically is wrong with the article? Thank you. Lizkentleon (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Lizkentleon: ISBNs/OCLC #s for book cites are a hard-requirement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 21:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection has a specific meaning in the draft process. Please consult WP:RS. guninvalid (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

22:04, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Modreatorceaser

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

i can't identify the problem deeply Modreatorceaser (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Modreatorceaser Perhaps it is simpler to identify it "shallowly". This is a blatant piece of promotion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Modreatorceaser (ec) The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or tell about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

22:18, 11 August 2026 review of submission by Fencer1965

• Fencer1965 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jeffrey Andrew Weber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I resubmit this draft for review? Fencer1965 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use the {{subst:submit}} again. Also: don't. Your draft as of now would be declined again. Please see the resources in your decline message for help. guninvalid (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

22:24, 11 August 2026 review of submission by TheGamerNerd14

• TheGamerNerd14 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Noah Marbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

is it ready to be approved yet? TheGamerNerd14 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It is exceedingly difficult for founders to meet the bar for notability on Wikipedia. The notability guidelines for people are looser than the guidelines for companies, but only by so much. Being a founder does not convey notability; your sources make a better case for notability for your company rather than yourself. guninvalid (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Would my company be able to get a Wikipedia page? Bobby12!!la (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I see that we have been here before. As said there, it is exceedingly difficult for businesspeople to be considered notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It's not impossible, but I don't see this person meeting this bar, at least not yet. guninvalid (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

So does my company qualify for wikpedia? Bobby12!!la (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the draft was rejected and will not resubmit it. I would like to respectfully request reconsideration of the rejection because I believe there may be significant independent secondary coverage that was not adequately considered. In particular, CBS News Atlanta and WSB-TV Channel 2 Action News have each published substantial reported pieces specifically about the subject, rather than passing mentions. There is also additional coverage from WABE and Financial Express. Would you be willing to reconsider whether the subject may satisfy the applicable notability guideline in light of these sources? Bobby12!!la (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bobby12!!la There is no draft in your edit history, and you are currently responding on a thread relating to somebody else's draft. Athanelar (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's confusing, but all three accounts involved (Edtior162! also) appear to be the same person. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

August 12

00:59, 12 August 2026 review of submission by Oakdig1

• Oakdig1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ben M. Bensaou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been working on Draft:Ben M. Bensaou, which has been declined for insufficient evidence of notability. Before making another resubmission, I would appreciate some guidance about how the draft's independent sources are being evaluated under WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.

In particular, I am trying to understand whether the following sources constitute significant independent secondary coverage:

• The Irish Times, "When a company builds an innovation engine the process of creating happens in all departments" (30 September 2021): https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/when-a-company-builds-an-innovation-engine-the-process-of-creating-happens-in-all-departments-1.4684852

This is a substantial newspaper article discussing Bensaou's work and Built to Innovate, including his organizational innovation framework and examples from his research.

• Sifted, "Forget genius leaders — middle managers are the secret to innovation" (27 September 2021): https://sifted.eu/articles/middle-managers-innovation

This is a seven-minute article focused on Bensaou's work and book. It includes interview material, so I would particularly appreciate guidance on whether editors consider the article sufficiently secondary and independent for notability purposes.

• Sifted, "Seven steps to sustain change" (18 January 2022): https://sifted.eu/articles/sustain-change-innovation

This article discusses Bensaou's work alongside ETH Zurich professor Stefano Brusoni and examines his framework for sustaining organizational innovation.

There is also independent recognition of Bensaou's academic case writing. Poets & Quants reports that two cases he co-authored were included among The Case Centre's Top 50 MBA cases of the last 50 years, although I understand that this recognition may support academic impact rather than constitute significant biographical coverage by itself.

I understand that sources such as his INSEAD profile and his own contributed articles can verify particular facts but do not establish independent notability, so I am not relying on those for WP:GNG.

Could an experienced editor please explain whether the Irish Times and Sifted coverage satisfies the significant-coverage/independence requirements, and, if not, what specifically is missing? I would prefer to understand the sourcing issue before resubmitting the draft again. Thank you.

Oakdig1 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Oakdig1: I can't assess the Sifted sources (walled) but The Irish Times wouldn't help for eligibility under WP:BASIC/WP:GNG (and thus by extension WP:BLP) as the article hardly discusses Benasou beyond merely attributing positions and claims to him. Most of the article appears to be about random companies, in fact. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 01:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The Sifted article is an interview with Benasou, with no original reporting as far as I can tell. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

02:12, 12 August 2026 review of submission by Clara Wrenford

• Clara Wrenford (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Catfight (group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Catfight (group) was declined. Could someone please look specifically at the two sources below and tell me whether either fails GNG, and if so, why?

Jamie Smith Cantara, Austin American-Statesman, June 12, 2001, “Female comedy troupe sinks its claws into originality” — a dedicated review of Catfight. Robert Faires, The Austin Chronicle, June 15, 2001, “Catfight” — a separate dedicated review of the troupe.

Both are independent secondary sources from different publications and authors, and both discuss the troupe in substantial detail. I’m trying eto understand whether these two sources establish significant coverage, or which GNG criteria they do not. Clara Wrenford (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clara Wrenford: You're missing page numbers for all but your second source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 02:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

04:38, 12 August 2026 review of submission by TechEditorUAE

• TechEditorUAE (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdulla Al Nuaimi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Sir,

I was checking for long to find something conencted with Dr Abdulla al nuaimi and Securetech , atlast I found something which is very important . The article features Dr Abdulla along with Dell. please find the link:

1. https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/uae-a-positive-force-for-technology-firms-1.43394

Kindlys upport and let me know if this article can be considered.

BEst Regards,

TechEditorUAE (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditorUAE The article has been rejected and will no longer be considered for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

06:09, 12 August 2026 review of submission by Julia1160

• Julia1160 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DeepBrain AI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Review of submission by Julia1160 — Draft:DeepBrain AI

Hello, my submission Draft:DeepBrain AI was declined on 10 August 2026 by FuzzyMagma, citing WP:NCORP (no significant, independent, reliable coverage). I have disclosed my WP:PAID status on my user page.

I would appreciate guidance on which of the current references (if any) come closest to satisfying WP:NCORP's "Independent Content" requirement, and what kind of additional coverage would help before I resubmit.

In particular, I believe this source may qualify as independent, first-hand reportage rather than PR-derived content: Kim, Min-su (2024-11-15). "[르포] 국내 최초 AI 은행 무인영업점, '신한 AI 브랜치' 가보니" [On-site report: A visit to Shinhan AI Branch]. The Electronic Times (Etnews) — the reporter personally visited the branch and interacted with the AI teller before writing about it, rather than relaying a press release.

Would this count toward notability, or does it still fall short? Any guidance on what else would help meet NCORP standards is appreciated. Thank you. Julia1160 (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)