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 1

00:34, 1 August 2026 review of submission by Zuzu Darling

• Zuzu Darling (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wondertwins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Wondertwins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to resubmit this article with the corrections required and cited links. The article is based on the EPK I created for the Wondertwins in 2025. Third party references have links to articles and independent websites to venue where the wondertwins performed and articles and publications with the pull quotes. Zuzu Darling (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Please note the information provided in the decline notice; namely that one of the primary issues is that your draft seems to contain AI generated text, meaning you need to delete all of that AI generated text and start over entirely with your own words. Athanelar (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I did in my own words, other user commented that his draft had the same problem although he didnt used AI Andre Parahyba (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

01:15, 1 August 2026 review of submission by NateIsaacmanJoeMcCabe

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

It was stated in feedback that I am AI writing the draft. I am not AI. I did put the 'submit' code in so that I could submit a draft because I don't have a submit button. What I wrote is not AI. Does the code work in the draft?

NateIsaacmanJoeMcCabe (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@NateIsaacmanJoeMcCabe The latest decline on your draft, which is here, was not due to AI. Athanelar (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@NateIsaacmanJoeMcCabe - and in that respect, in your other draft, referenced above and now rejected, I did find two additional sources for you, which you could transfer over to the latest draft. This is a good reason as to why running with two drafts at the same time isn't necessarily helpful. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

06:01, 1 August 2026 review of submission by EmoryNB

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

I have submitted a userspace draft to AfC, but from what I gather, this appears to be bad practice, and I should've moved it to draftspace first. Template:AfC submission says this at the bottom:

Warning: This page should probably be located at Draft:VK Music (move).

I do not have permission to move it though, and I don't know if this technicality could lead to my draft being declined (that would suck). Should I request a move somewhere or does it not matter for AfC? — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 06:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This can be considered closed as @Sulfurboy fixed this for me. Much appreciated! — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 06:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

10:55, 1 August 2026 review of submission by Rdw1974

• Rdw1974 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert B. Moore (admiral) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm good in research, but not so good in creating a wikipedia page, therefor I used Ai, but now I know thats not accepted (I'm learning). I'm not here to flood wikipedia with fast AI research, but i did deep multi year research on the subject using offiicial documents. The Main subject of the research was George Stephen Morrison, father of Jim Morrison, who allegedly was involved in the Tonkin Incident. But in reality this was Rear Admiral Robert B. Moore. I'm planning to rewrite the wiki myself, but i keep struggeling with adding links, sources etc. Is there a simple way to create without having knowledge of code? Rdw1974 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rdw1974: have you looked at WP:REFB? It should tell you what you need to know about referencing, if you're editing in the source mode. And if you're using the visual editor instead, then WP:REFBVE probably helps (I say 'probably', because I don't use the visual editor myself, so can't really judge). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, No I didn't, but now i'm going to read it! I wasn't aware this information is out there. I think I'm going to fast, i will take a pause to go reading all information first! Thanks for the comment. Robert. Rdw1974 (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rdw1974: I seem to remember once reading that there are roughly a thousand help pages, and a million policy/guideline/advisory pages, in the English Wikipedia, so there's probably an answer somewhere out there to just about any question you have. And plenty to keep you busy for the foreseeable future. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The additional problem is that a lot of this appears to be WP:OR. If you've done research of the records, then you should discuss with publications on whether they wish to review, edit, fact check, and publish themselves. Even if it's correct, we can't have parts of an article being the conclusions that you drew from primary sources. And that's largely what the article is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's actually the most blatant and obvious AI "tell" I know of (interpretation of primary sources in Wikipedia's voice), which unfortunately isn't a qualification for G15 speedy deletion anymore. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

16:59, 1 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42572-38

• ~2026-42572-38 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Windows 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance because I don't know when Windows 12 will be released. ~2026-42572-38 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia unfortunately does not have an inside scoop with Microsoft. Please see WP:CRYSTAL Sulfurboy (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

23:34, 1 August 2026 review of submission by Boypoyi

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

Can we keep this one and delete another one from sundial initiative? Thank you! Boypoyi (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Both articles have been rejected, meaning that they will not be considered any further in their present form at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

What should I do ~2026-42600-06 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Stop trying to bypass your block, and read the notices on your (many) talk pages. Pinging Sohom Datta, looks like another sock for the drawer. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2

02:23, 2 August 2026 review of submission by Rzach

• Rzach (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Paolo Mancosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Paolo Mancosu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission was declined for two reasons: 1) it does not meet the notability criteria 2) the reviewing editor things it's ChatGPT. I don't know how else to write this so it doesn't sound like ChatGPT (which I didn't use). I just modelled it after existing entries. As to notability, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) gives 8 criteria, any one of which establishes notability for academics. The subject of the article clearly meets criteria 2 (highly prestigious award, eg the Guggenheim), 3 (elected to highly selective academy), and 5 (holds named chair at major university), and this is substantiated by the references I gave. Please advise what else I can do. Richard Zach (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to accept your assurance that this is not AI generated on good faith and accept the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

05:32, 2 August 2026 review of submission by DREAMVFIA UNION

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

Hello Sulfurboy — thank you for the review. I am affiliated with DREAMVFIA UNION / RNOISE RECORDS. I mistakenly used my user page like an organization brochure, which I understand is not the purpose of a user page. I also pasted draft notes that looked machine-generated; that was my error. I will replace the user page with a short personal page and a COI disclosure only. I am not trying to create a mainspace company article from this account without independent sources. If the page was already deleted, I will recreate only a brief user page as above. Thanks.

DREAMVFIA UNION (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not trying to create a mainspace company article You submitted the page as a draft for review via AfC, which is explicitly a process for getting articles into mainspace. It seems you and the robot haven't quite agreed on your purpose here. Athanelar (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

OP got blocked for promotion, then decided to have a profane crashout towards irisChronomia in Chinese on their user talk page and got it yanked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 19:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

06:18, 2 August 2026 review of submission by Ajaysinghshekhawatgangiasar

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

Please help with what is specifically needed to get this approved. all the supportings and tags are verified information. Ajaysinghshekhawatgangiasar (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:REFB for how to format references. Please see WP:MOS for how to format a page. The other issues are addressed (with links to helpful pages) on the draft itself. Are you able to see it? Sulfurboy (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

16:29, 2 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42767-17

• ~2026-42767-17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Annur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Annur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a Malayalam Wikipedia page for അന്നൂർ (ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/അന്നൂർ), a village located near Payyanur in the Kannur district of Kerala. I am a local resident of Annur and would like to create the corresponding English Wikipedia page for the village. Can anyone advise on how to draft an English Wikipedia page for this locality? How can I ensure it meets English Wikipedia’s coverage and citation requirements while incorporating local knowledge? ~2026-42767-17 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read this link to learn how to use a LLM to translate content; it must be done very carefully and with much human review.

"Local knowledge" needs to be in an independent reliable source. We cannot accept your personal word on something, as we cannot independently verify it. Much of your draft is unsourced.

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies, what is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Most geographic locations are notable, but you need sources. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

17:29, 2 August 2026 review of submission by Abinjozf17

• Abinjozf17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:St Joseph College of Communication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

always rejecting my article. still now, i am doing very thing with proper citation and genuine source. but, it's not approving here. please help Abinjozf17 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Watch this space; I am going to do a source assessment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abinjozf17: what is your relationship with this subject? Every edit of yours, bar none, has to do with it, and on Commons you have uploaded a photograph you took of the college. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I am the alumni of the college. yes i took the image and edited Abinjozf17 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is my assessment:

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• https://www.sjcc.ac.in/about.php - and anything else on that domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). This eliminates references 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
• We can't use https://collegedunia.com/college/7495-st-joseph-college-of-communication-sjcc-changanacherry (too sparse). School profile with minimal (and uncredited) description.
• We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference).
• https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/i-m-still-shock-helen-director-mathukutty-xavier-winning-national-award-145768 is a non-sequitur.
• I can't assess https://www.universitydunia.com/institute/17787-st-joseph-college-of-communication (geoblocked).

Nothing you have that I can assess is usable as a source for eligibility at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

21:02, 2 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42737-80

• ~2026-42737-80 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lin Chen (ultrarunner) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The bio is written by myself and modified with LLM; and We reviewed it word by word by myself and got approval from Lin Chen. If needed, I can share with you the communication thread. Please specify which part the article you like us to modify? Appreciate your help. ~2026-42737-80 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

We cannot accept articles written using the assistance of LLM. The article needs to be wholly re-written using your own words. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Please review conflict of interest and paid editing. Lin Chen's approval of content about him is not required. Most article subjects have no input into the articles about them. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42737-80 As 331dot says, an encyclopedia article is an article about something or someone, not an article written or approved by them. The articles on Joe Biden and Donald Trump were not approved by them.

LLM can massively screw up any prose that it is given to "modify". Don't use LLM to create or alter prose that's intended as an article here.

The rules here take some time to understand; good luck. See WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

August 3

Source-specific second opinion requested for Draft:Sharoll Fernandez Siñani

Hello. I am requesting a source-specific second opinion regarding Draft:Sharoll Fernandez Siñani, which was declined for insufficient evidence of notability.

I am the subject of the draft, and my conflict of interest is disclosed. I will not edit the article directly or resubmit it until I understand whether the sourcing can satisfy the applicable notability standard.

An extensive source audit found two sources that may provide substantial, reliable and independent secondary coverage:

1. El País, “Sharoll Fernández: ‘Es una locura que mi abuela haya muerto analfabeta y yo me haya graduado de Harvard’” — a substantial profile by Caio Ruvenal covering my background, art, books, education and educational work. It contains significant reporter-written context and synthesis, while also relying substantially on quotations from me.
2. Passengers Journal, “Sharoll Fernandez-Siñani’s From the Center,” by Anna Genevieve Winham — a sustained independent literary review focused on From the Center. It provides close reading and criticism rather than an interview, although it covers one creative work rather than my biography generally, and the page does not display an exact publication date.

The audit also recovered the following supporting coverage:

• WBAI 99.5 FM’s A New Day, 28 June 2021
• Opinión, “Sharoll Fernández, la paceña que se gradúa en Harvard y lució la vestimenta boliviana”
• Bolivia.com, “Sharoll Fernández, la boliviana aimara que se graduó de una maestría en Harvard”
• Página Siete, “Sharoll concluye su maestría en Harvard y se graduará de pollera” (surviving republication)

I understand that institutional pages from the Queens Museum and Harvard can verify events but do not establish notability, and that retailer pages, affiliated sites and my own materials do not count.

Could uninvolved editors please assess:

1. whether the El País profile contains enough independent reporting and editorial synthesis to count as significant secondary coverage;
2. whether the Passengers Journal review counts as substantial independent critical coverage of a creative professional;
3. whether these two sources are sufficiently independent of each other;
4. whether any of the supporting broadcast or newspaper sources add meaningful independent coverage; and
5. whether the draft has a plausible basis for resubmission or should wait for further independent criticism or profiling?

I am seeking an assessment of the sources, not expedited acceptance. Thank you. Sharollfer (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Asking us to review your draft before reviewing your draft literally doubles our workload. Also, we don't field demands for specific reviewers, uninvolved or not. If you are confident you have improved the article enough to address the previous reviewers concerns, then please just resubmit. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Did you use AL / LLM to compose the above set of questions? But one short response: you need to meet the WP:GOLDENRULE, where interview led pieces will not count. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

10:45, 3 August 2026 review of submission by TechEditor117

• TechEditor117 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kent RO Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've been working on Draft:Kent RO Systems for a few months and it's been in the review queue since May. The draft has gone through several rounds of revision based on reviewer feedbacks: Sources have been replaced with independent coverage from reliable sources, The tone has been reworked.

If anyone has a chance to take a look I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks. TechEditor117 TechEditor117 (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditor117: by "take a look", you mean "review it", I presume? We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. But there is currently a backlog drive underway, so older drafts like this are likely to be reviewed fairly soon anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you clarify which sources in the draft are considered insufficient to establish notability, and whether the Forbes India and Business Standard articles provide the significant independent coverage required for the company? I would like to address the notability concern before resubmitting.

TechEditor117 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditor117: please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing one.

The sources collectively are insufficient for establishing notability.

In any case, this draft has now been rejected (rather than merely declined), meaning it cannot be resubmitted, and won't be considered further. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the draft about Kent RO Systems has been rejected under WP:NCORP. The reviewer stated that there is no evidence that the company meets the notability requirements. Could you please advise whether the sources I used provide significant coverage under WP:NCORP or not? And if not, then what kind of source coverage would be required? TechEditor117 (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditor117: if the reviewer said there is no evidence of notability, then you should assume that comment covers also, and most particularly, the sources actually cited in the draft.

What is required to demonstrate notability is outlined in WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

13:08, 3 August 2026 review of submission by Bagel625zebra

• Bagel625zebra (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Transflo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm looking for a bit more insight into our latest rejection. Since the latest draft was rejected for the same reason as the prior draft in June, we would appreciate it greatly. All sources in the latest draft are from independent outlets covering the transportation and logistics industry. All references to press releases and Transflo website sources have been removed.

Additionally, several companies in Transflo's space who appear on Wikipedia (Trimble Inc., Samsara, Descartes Systems Group, WEX Inc., Lytx) use FreightWaves, Commercial Carrier Journal, and/or Trucking Dive as sources. Furthermore, all of these pages discuss similar topics to the Transflo draft -- founding, evolution, products, acquisitions, executives, market position, etc.

If the draft has specific content that needs to be removed for a better chance of approval, we are willing to make those changes as well. Bagel625zebra (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bagel625zebra: the sources are what we call 'routine business reporting' (appointments, M&A, product launches, minor business awards, etc.), typically based on press releases or similar, which do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. In short, your chances at succeeding at this are incredibly low, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bagel625zebra Also please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. David10244 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

And WP:CORPTRIV. David10244 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

13:18, 3 August 2026 review of submission by Luke Parisi

• Luke Parisi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:NXT Power, LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to resubmit the article for publication, though I cannot find it. I have re-edited the article to meet the guidelines. Any help will be appreciated. Luke Parisi (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Luke Parisi: that's because you removed the previous decline, replaced it with a new submission template, and then removed that as well. Give me a mo, I'll add the previous decline back, you can then resubmit it when you're ready, by clicking on the blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.. This is my first time uploading a wiki page. Luke Parisi (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Luke Parisi It seems to me that your company, like the vast majority of companies in the world, does not meet our requirements to be included on Wikipedia. I suggest you read (and heed) WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar to be honest, this is my first wiki entry and I do think NXT Power qualifies as a company to be on wiki. Is it because I completed the article as an employee, not sure what dictates what qualifies based on reading the requirements. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Luke Parisi (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NCORP and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH? Athanelar (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Luke Parisi You have just told of the routine activities and offerings of your company; we are much more interested in critical analysis and commentary by independent reliable sources as to what is viewed by others wholly independent of your company as important/significant/influential about it. As suggested above, most companies on Earth do not meet this standard.

As WP:PAIDADVICE will tell you, you are very unlikely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

14:34, 3 August 2026 review of submission by Summermonahan2015

• Summermonahan2015 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John Boyd Lowery IV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Want to get him seen and his companies. They will hit wall street this month. Summermonahan2015 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Summermonahan2015 That is exactly the wrong reason to create a Wikipedia article. That is a promotional purpose. See WP:YESPROMO.

If you are connected to this person, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

14:55, 3 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-39125-29

• ~2026-39125-29 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mahlatini Luxury Travel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Wondering if I could get a bit of a steer in regard to what else is needed on the Mahlatini Luxury Travel page. I've had a few different comments regarding required changes, which I have attempted to rectify to the best of my ability. However, my fourth submission was declined and there is no reason this time, so I am unsure of what to do next. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. ~2026-39125-29 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This draft has been rejected for failure to heed reviewers' concerns and will not be considered further. I will still do a deep dive on the sources as LLM use is indicated:

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• https://www.traveldailynews.com/regional-news/mahlatini-luxury-travel-enters-a-brand-new-era/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Regional office opening and logo change.
• https://www.irishnews.com/business/highflyers/2018/03/22/news/travelling-is-in-my-blood-1285709/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal which does an abysmal job identifying the interviewee.
• https://www.cntraveller.com/article/the-travel-specialists-to-know-right-now is borderline. Listicle.
• https://atta.travel/resource/mahlatini-luxury-travel-to-open-new-office-in-cape-town.html doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Regional office opening.
• https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/travel/arid-41602675.html doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Aside from the insubstantial lede, the article was effectively written by a company principal.
• We can't use https://www.travelandleisure.com/greg-fox-11887010 (too sparse). Too short and unfocused to cite.
• I can't assess either TTG source (Refs 7, 18) (walled). (This is not a rejection of the source; it simply means someone else has to assess them.)
• https://www.travelandleisure.com/a-list/a-list-travel-advisors has been discussed and dismissed. None of the profiles on this list are substantial enough to cite.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20250708122750/https://www.travelandleisure.com/worlds-best-awards-2025-tour-operators-11738487 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name in a list, no discussion of Mahlatani.
• https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/africa-travel/africa-safari-expert-picks-02b66n0xl doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drops, no discussion of Mahlatani.
• https://robbreport.com/travel/destinations/safaris-beyond-the-bush-1236116540/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop and quotable; no substantial discussion of Mahlatani.
• https://www.tourismupdate.com/article/luxury-travel-to-africa-surges doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Quotables from company principal; no discussion of Mahlatani.
• https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-to-plan-a-trip-to-see-africas-great-migration doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop; no discussion of Mahlatani.
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/africa/overcrowding-safari-serengeti/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Quotable from company principal; no discussion of Mahlatani.
• https://www.worldtravelawards.com/award-europes-leading-sustainable-tour-operator-2022 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). The general rule of thumb is that an award only helps for eligibility if we have an article on it; we don't have an article on the World Travel Awards. This also affects Reference 16.
• We can't use https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/find-a-b-corp/company/mahlatini-luxury-travel/ (connexion to subject, too sparse). Company profile with a summary written by a company PR flack.
• We can't use https://www.bitcni.org.uk/success-story/mahlatinis-sustainability-journey-continues-to-grow-from-strength-to-strength/ (connexion to subject). Blatantly obvious press release.
• https://www.savetherhino.org/fundraising/mahlatini-luxury-travel-joins-the-campaign-to-save-the-rhino/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage, connexion to subject). Press release from an organisation Mahlatani is partnering with.

Nothing you have that I can assess is any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

20:18, 3 August 2026 review of submission by Table19

• Table19 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stars Fútbol Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please advise on how this article can be published Table19 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Rejection is typically the end of the line for a draft. However, if you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

OP moved the draft into mainspace themselves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 22:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

And now that I've moved it back, I am going to assess the sources of this rejected draft:

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• We can't use https://cw7az.com/sports/college-soccer-stars-fc/ (no editorial oversight, connexion to subject). Clearly labeled as sponsored.
• https://www.uslleaguetwo.com/news_article/show/1322440-stars-fc-to-join-usl-league-two-in-2025 doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). League join coverage.
• I can't assess https://www.yourvalley.net/surprise-independent/stories/semi-pro-soccer-settles-in-surprise,690782 (walled). This is not a rejection of the source; it simply means someone with access to the source needs to assess it.
• https://www.communityforwardredlands.com/down-to-10-men-redlands-fc-salvage-draw/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Match report.
• We can't use https://tucson.com/news/local/collection_9a6d70a1-b248-4aa4-b984-95b8a6a5ae86.html#6 (too sparse). We don't cite photo galleries.
• We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6w4MtFcxZ0 (no editorial oversight, connexion to subject). Channel isn't verified and the description outright admits this is sponsored content.
• https://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/1357968-usl-academy-announces-2026-men-s-division-alignment doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). League news.
• We can't use https://www.uslleaguetwo.com/league-standings (too sparse). Statlines.
• We can't use https://www.uslleaguetwo.com/statistics (too sparse). Statlines.
• https://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/sports/stars-fc-of-usa-announce-partnership-with-medina-utd-fa doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Partnership news.

None of your sources are any good. Move it into mainspace again and I will take it to deletion debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 22:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

20:35, 3 August 2026 review of submission by Johnny Spasm

• Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kiss Destroys Anaheim '76 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What exactly are you looking for in order for this article to be uploaded? Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Per my comment on the draft: "Showing reviews of the album that are from significant secondary sources and/or showing this charted would help a lot ". Please make sure to take the time to read over feedback and decline reasons from reviewers in the future. Thank you! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that we do accept offline sources, if cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 22:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It'd be impossible to show chart performance as the album hasn't officially been released yet. Every source I've used in the article so far is literally all the net has to offer on the album so far. I'm also not a big fan of off line sourcesJohnny Spasm (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Then we can only wait until the album releases and gets reviewed. There's nothing to be done for it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 22:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Johnny Spasm. It is rare for an unreleased work of any type to meet the definition of notability that Wikipedia uses, precisely because there is not often any substantial secondary material published about it. Until that happens, it cannot be the subject of a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

August 4

09:11, 4 August 2026 review of submission by Jmunsl

• Jmunsl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:James Hargreaves (Plumbers' Merchants) Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Second opinion request: Draft:James Hargreaves (Plumbers' Merchants) Ltd

Hello, I would appreciate a second opinion on the recent decline of this draft under WP:NCORP.

While I understand the concern regarding routine trade news, I would like to ask if the combined weight of the following sources satisfies secondary, independent coverage for a major UK distributor:

1. National Sector Benchmark: Professional Builders Merchant (April 2026) independently ranks the subject at #17 nationally in the UK merchant sector, documenting an audited £131.2m turnover and 74 branches. 2. Corporate Restructure Coverage: TheBusinessDesk (June 2008) provides independent coverage of the corporate buyout of outside shares. 3. Strategic Investment: Builders Merchants Journal (2009 & 2014) details £3m+ capital restructures and multi-branch geographic expansions over a multi-year period.

Given the company's century-long continuous trading history (incorporated 1923) and position as one of the UK's largest independent trade merchants, could a reviewer re-evaluate whether these sources collectively establish organizational notability beyond routine press releases? Thank you. Jmunsl (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmunsl: no, the sources do not establish notability per WP:NCORP; the draft was entirely correctly declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with DoubleGrazing, these sources are classical example of WP:CORPTRIV and unhelpful sources don't add up to a good source. Also, we want to communicate with you, not an LLM. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comment: 'Also, we want to communicate with you, not an LLM.' I check my messages with Grammarly. Do you have rules against people with dyslexia?

We have always been a regional business and tend to receive regional press coverage rather than national. However, we are a highly successful company. I'm having trouble understanding why you permit trivial niche articles on the Doctor Who fandom but not about a company that has been operating since 1923 with tens of thousands of customers. Jmunsl (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not every article has been subject to an appropriate amount of scrutiny and checks. We evaluate each article individually against our standards, not against other articles.

I suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE and heed what it tells you. Athanelar (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the guidance. I want to confirm that I have formally declared my employment and conflict of interest on my user page in full compliance with WP:PAID and Wikimedia's Terms of Use.

As an employee of James Hargreaves (Plumbers' Merchants) Ltd, I am submitting this draft solely through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process to ensure independent, volunteer review. I appreciate your feedback and guidance on the draft but my point remains that you are holding me to a much higher standard than other articles. It is is disappointing to see this. Jmunsl (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No, we are holding you to the standard, the only standard. That there are other articles out there which are below standard does not mean yours gets a free pass. Athanelar (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

And the link I gave you was not to the disclosure requirements, it was to an essay called WP:Advice for paid editors. Please read it, or at least the information at the start of it. Athanelar (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It was read in full prior to my message, Jmunsl (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why your company wants an article about itself on Wikipedia?

Note that the articles about truly notable companies such as General Motors or Microsoft weren't written by company representatives. If someone unrelated to your company comes along and writes a Wikipedia article about it, why would it matter if that happens next month or 50 years from now?

These aren't rhetorical questions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

11:41, 4 August 2026 review of submission by Raghav R01

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

Hi, please requesting clarification and help regarding the recent 2nd review I got for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:1GLOBAL the reasons given for the decline were:

1. "This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources." -> Regarding this, I have mentioned multiple secondary independent sources that: provide significant coverage, are reliable, are independent.

To name a few: 1. https://www.gsma.com/ - the GSMA is an independent trusted body responsible for accrediting and evaluating different mobile operators throughout the world 2. FinanzNachrichten.de - leading German finance media source 3. www.handelsblatt.com - one of Germany's leading media / magazine covering different business topics in Germany and Europe 4. GOV.UK and companies house - official database from the UK government on important declarations and company info 5. https://financialpost.com/ - leading finance magazine and media source 6. https://marketplace.microsoft.com/ official directory from Microsoft for all apps currently listed and available on Microsoft applications. 7. https://itdigest.com/ leading IT magazine Naturally, in addtiion to these, where information, facts and numbers need confirmation and need to be verified by the primary source i.e the company website as these can only come accurately via the main source - I had to use it still. Examples of current wikipedia company pages also using the same (from their own website): Apple Inc., Microsoft, Dell, among others

2. LLM texts: The first draft still had some sub-topics where my own draft was fine-tuned and re-written with LLM, however, the second (the draft most recently reviewed) has been completely reviewed by me and any previous extracts / sub-sections taken from LLM references were all rectified / removed or re-written by me.- I can fully confirm this.

Could you please help with how to proceed? Raghav R01 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You need multiple sources that meet all 3 criteria at WP:RS. Microsoft Marketplace provides significant coverage, but it is not reliable because it is an advertisement, so it does not help your draft. guninvalid (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

16:36, 4 August 2026 review of submission by Emersonjd3199

• Emersonjd3199 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Michael Staenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Michael Staenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have submitted this draft multiple times and continue to receive that the subject is not notable. I understand the source requirement, however, I believe there are a multitude of sources that are about the subject and are independent, significant, reliable, credible:

1) Forbes (Brian Solomon, "Billionaire Stan Kroenke Splits With Real Estate Partner...") — major national outlet, substantial reporting on the Kroenke split, not connected to Staenberg.

2) St. Louis Post-Dispatch (STLtoday) — two separate articles ("Staenberg fires back in messy breakup with Kroenke" and "Stan Kroenke's ex-partner says they have settled their epic legal battle") — established newspaper, independent, substantive coverage of a business dispute.

3) St. Louis Business Journal (Jason Nevel, "Southwest Shopping Center has new owner") — trade/business journalism with editorial oversight, independent.

4) St. Louis Public Radio (STLPR) — "Chesterfield mall demolition begins" — independent public radio journalism.

5) I also include NBC affiliate KSDK - which I would assume lends to the three requirements?

Could someone help me determine what continues to cause it being declined on notability? Anything else I can do?

Thank you! Emersonjd3199 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The claim to notability seems to be that he works with Stan Kroenke; notability is not inherited by association with notable people.

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

It's not only the sources themselves that are important, but what they say. You have just summarized Mr. Staenberg's business activities, not critical analysis and commentary about him as an independent person. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! In your opinion do some of the awards need to be removed?

I agree notability is not inherited, however, it could be aligned with operation or founding of something. For example, THF realty has a page, and Michael Staenberg is the co-founder of THF Realty (he is mentioned on the THF page).

In another question - at what point do business activities qualify for notability? I would think being CEO of one of the largest privately held real estate companies in the U.S. would be qualifying? Most of Mr. Kroenke's page also is a summary of his business activities, however more broad and extensive. Emersonjd3199 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Emersonjd3199.

Business activities would qualify for notability when they are so unusual or unexpected (or foolhardy or illegal or ...) that commentators are moved to write independently about them. Most reports of CORPTRIV are based on press releases, because there is not really anything more to write about them than the company would have put out in a press release.

As usual, the criterion is not about the thing described, but about whether it has been written about in a way that meets all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have an association with Mr. Staenberg? 331dot (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not - I live in Chesterfield, Missouri and wanted to write more about the developments and things happening here, and the people doing the work. Emersonjd3199 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

18:29, 4 August 2026 review of submission by Abcde2026

• Abcde2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sadia Haque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking guidance on Draft:Sadia Haque, declined on 4 August as reading like an advertisement. I have a conflict of interest, disclosed on my user page since 30 July. I rewrote the draft for neutrality after an earlier tone decline and removed the promotional framing, award lists from the lead, and endorsement material. I am not able to identify what remains promotional in the current version, and I would rather fix it than resubmit blindly. Could someone point to specific wording that needs to change? I would also welcome a view on whether the sourcing is sufficient, as a separate reviewer declined on notability grounds. Thank you. Abcde2026 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've restored the declines you removed; those have to stay in place. As to your sourcing (since one of the reviewers pointed it out in their comments...)

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• https://www.thedailystar.net/business/business-special-events/23rd-bangladesh-business-awards/news/passion-travel-icon-3999716 seems OK.
• https://futurestartup.com/2022/09/07/sadia-haque-on-the-evolution-and-ambition-of-sharetrip-emerging-travel-trends-and-the-future-of-travel-in-bangladesh/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
• We can't use https://aviationexpress.news/news/pm-wants-sharetrip-to-become-a-global-travel-brand (unknown provenance) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources with role/no bylines as they're frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/meet-women-driving-bangladeshs-startup-revolution-1159831 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Her section in this listicle is almost entirely direct quotes from her.
• https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/corporates/sharetrip-becomes-first-bangladeshi-travel-brand-win-superbrands-award-1242176 doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Coverage of ShareTrip is not coverage of Haque.
• https://www.haj.gov.sa/en/Umrah is a non-sequitur.
• https://www.phocuswire.com/sharetrip-financial-infusion-digitize-Bangladesh-travel-sector doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Incidentally, it wouldn't help for eligibility for ShareTrip either (routine coverage).
• We can't use https://www.bangladeshmonitor.com.bd/en/pm-wants-sharetrip-to-emerge-as-global-travel-brand (unknown provenance) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (wrong subject).
• We can't use https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/corporates/sharetrip-ceo-co-founder-sadia-haque-wins-women-leader-year-kotler-awards-2023 (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (too sparse). We don't have an article on the Kotler Awards, so we have to rely on coverage of Haque in the article itself, which is minimal beyond a long quote.
• https://www.dhakatribune.com/business/284378/sharetrip-ceo-co-founder-sadia-haque-wins-women was discussed and dismissed (it's identical to the source directly above.)
• We can't use https://unb.com.bd/category/Business/sharetrips-sadia-haque-wins-ceo-of-the-year-at-bangladesh-c-suite-awards/125703 (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Role byline and hardly discusses Haque.
• https://www.newagebd.net/article/217641/sharetrips-sadia-haque-becomes-ceo-of-the-year-in-startup-category was discussed and dismissed (It's almost identical to the source directly above and the differences do not fix the original source's faults.)
• We can't use https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/ict-leaders-honoured-3781086 (unknown provenance) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Same issues as the last four sources.
• https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/corporates/sharetrip-co-founder-sadia-haque-wins-most-inspiring-woman-asia-award-2024-839566 doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). For an article that's putatively about her, it spends very little of the article actually discussing her.
• https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/corporates/sadia-haque-named-outstanding-woman-business-2024-1244446 " " " " (" "). " " " " " " ", " " " " " " " " " ".
• We can't use https://www.dhakatribune.com/business/392344/sharetrip-s-sadia-haque-wins-dhl%E2%80%93the-daily-star-bd (no editorial oversight). Clearly labeled press release.

You have one usable source. This doesn't come close to meeting WP:Notability, let alone WP:Biographies of living persons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 19:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Abcde2026.

It's not a matter of specific wording. If it is, or reads like, what the subject wants people to know, then it is promotional.

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

Your job as a Wikipedia editor, once you have found the independent reliable substantial secondary sources (see WP:42) is to basically forget every single thing you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Even if they leave out things you think are important. Even if they are critical or even downright nasty about the subject. Even if they talk about things that the subject would prefer people not to be reminded of.

Do you see why writing with a conflict of interest is so difficult? ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you — that is the clearest explanation I have had, and I do see it now. I was working from what I know about the subject and then looking for citations to fit, rather than starting from the independent sources and writing only what they contain. Applying your test honestly, the independent coverage of this person is one feature article and a passing mention, which is not enough for a biography. I am withdrawing the submission rather than resubmitting it. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the principle rather than just the outcome. Abcde2026 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

19:22, 4 August 2026 review of submission by Yashsharma7006

• Yashsharma7006 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vasant Rawal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I WANT TO PUBLISH MY ARTICAL RELATED TO ASTROLOGY Yashsharma7006 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yashsharma7006: Find somewhere else to advertize. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 19:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

20:18, 4 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42965-33

• ~2026-42965-33 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Smartstop Self Storage Reit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Im not sure why this keeps getting rejected its a highly traded stock people research on. What am I missing? ~2026-42965-33 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

All but one of your sources are routine business coverage and the exception is a press-release publishing service. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 20:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no criterion on Wikipedia for inclusion or notability related to "a highly traded stock people research on". We go by sources, and the sources you cited fail to comply with WP:SIRS requirements. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention investors are almost certainly going to have access to much better and more detailed information than a general encyclopaedia like Wikipedia could ever provide. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 22:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

23:23, 4 August 2026 review of submission by ABehjat

• ABehjat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Social Justice in the Baháʼí Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

I've made many edits to this article. I wrote it first as a large article along with another editor, but it was deemed to violate NPOV. The second submission highlighted that it's written like an essay and has OR violations. For the latest edits, I studied the the MOS guidelines about inverted pyramid and how to further summarize the content, which led me to this point where I've cut a bulk of the content content to a stub/start size article. I'd appreciate it if I can get more feedback on the content to see if there's tone/voice that I'm not seeing that I need to adjust/fix. ABehjat (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The prose looks pretty good to me. I don't have the time right now to check for source->text integrity so somebody else will have to do that, but in terms of tone it seems fine. Athanelar (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

23:45, 4 August 2026 review of submission by Gdatadog

• Gdatadog (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bassel Ojjeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

— is the sourcing sufficient? I've submitted Draft:Bassel Ojjeh and would appreciate a read on the sourcing before it works through the queue.

Declaring a conflict of interest up front: I have a COI regarding both the subject and LigaData, declared on my user page. I used AfC rather than creating the page directly for that reason.

My question is specific. The two strongest sources are a 2001 Computerworld article profiling digiMine, which treats the subject as one of three founders and quotes him at length, and a 2010 TechCrunch article on the launch of nPario, which covers his role there and his prior position as SVP of Strategic Data Solutions at Yahoo!. Both are independent and reliable, but both are primarily about the companies rather than about him. I can't tell whether WP:BASIC's allowance for combining less-substantial sources covers this, or whether it fails as inherited notability.

If it's short, I'd rather learn what kind of source is missing now, while I still have time to look. I deliberately left out several interviews and database listings on the grounds that they don't count toward notability — please tell me if that was the wrong judgement.

Thanks. Gdatadog (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

Yes, interviews do not count towards notability.

You have submitted the draft and it is pending. The reviewer will leave you feedback; we don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm an employee of LigaData which is the company the subject leads. I'm not being paid or directed to make these edits; this is my own initiative

Understood on interviews, and on pre-review. I'll wait for the reviewer. Thanks. Gdatadog (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're paid for specific edits or directed to; you salary makes you a paid editor, and you will need to strictly follow WP:PAID. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

August 5

00:28, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Firebook is rea;

• Firebook is rea; (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Blooket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

becuase request it Firebook is rea; (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This draft has been rejected twice and will not be considered further. I will go over your sources.

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• We can't use https://www.blooket.com/ (website homepage), and anything on that domain doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• https://www.modulo.app/all-resources/blooket-homeschooling-review is borderline at best. This is an incredibly shallow review at best.
• https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec522/2023/06/05/founders-parade-ben-stewart-creator-of-blooket/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Coverage of the founder is not coverage of Blooket.
• We can't use https://enozom.com/blog/blooket-what-is-it-how-does-it-work-and-whats-new/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources with no/role bylines because they're frequently used to launder literal fake news.)
• https://www.techlearning.com/how-to/what-is-blooket-and-how-does-it-work-tips-and-tricks seems OK.
• I can't assess https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/inno/stories/profiles/2021/09/14/inno-5-under-25-ben-stewart.html (walled).
• https://blog.khanacademy.org/khanmigo-and-blooket-ai-question-sets-for-fun-classroom-challenges/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Press release from a company partnered with Blooket.
• We can't use https://tech.pccsk12.com/khanmigo-teacher-tools-introduces-blooket-question-generator/ (inhuman authorship). This has far too many LLM tells for me to be comfortable.
• I can't assess https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3606094.3606117 (incompetent).
• I can't assess https://soar.suny.edu/entities/publication/ec58b91f-2e00-48ee-b555-68164d73fa27 (incompetent).

Most of what I could assess wasn't helpful. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 01:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That draft has a surprisingly long history. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

04:11, 5 August 2026 review of submission by BlueAcres

• BlueAcres (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Forensic Human Factors and Ergonomics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was declined because the reviewer determined that it was AI-generated. This is incorrect. I spent a lot of time working and reworking the draft in my sandbox before submitting it for review. What are my recourse options. This is an important article that should appear in Wikipedia to inform readers. BlueAcres (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@BlueAcres: A lot of the issue is the draft reading like someone discovered a thesaurus/dictionary combo for the first time. Simplify. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 05:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your advice. Now I have to spend more time dumbing down the article without any real benefit. BlueAcres (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I find it highly improbable that none of the text here is AI generated. § Criticism and Limitations contains AIWEASEL, RO3, and WP:AISIGNS#Outline-like conclusions about challenges and future prospects all in one.

If it is, as you say, human written, you would massively benefit from reading WP:SUMMARY. It is entirely possible for a Wikipedia article to say too much. Athanelar (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

06:30, 5 August 2026 review of submission by IsaacMDB23

• IsaacMDB23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Animal (Katseye song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Animal (Katseye song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I submitted this draft for review recently, and in the waiting period someone has copy-pasted parts of the draft into their own article, which you can see as they're literal copies, even copying references and access-dates, while being created far later. While I know about WP:OWN, thats not my concern about it. My concern is someone copy-pasting parts of a so-far-rejected draft and directly creating a page in mainspace about it while the actual draft waits in review, because, if the draft was rejected, surely this would be too? If not, I was wondering if maybe they could be merged so both informations are put together in one article. IsaacMDB23 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@IsaacMDB23, the article was created 10 hours ago. New articles will typically undergo a stricter review process by a new page reviewer. If the mainspace article is truly still nonnotable, it will usually be flagged for deletion. guninvalid (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

06:58, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Eloura Phoenixx

• Eloura Phoenixx (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mais Taha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The rejection came from unreliable account, all resources are authentic. Eloura Phoenixx (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS against your reviewer, User:Girdi45. If you believe they have made a mistake, you can just say they made a mistake. guninvalid (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eloura Phoenixx - no fewer than 5 experienced reviewers have declined this draft, with the key issues being statements not sourced or not reliably sourced; and not meeting the WP:GOLDENRULE. After each decline there was an opportunity to respond to this quite specific feedback, but at a certain point the limited and volunteer led resources have to be used on other drafts, where the editors clearly are responding to feedback. So now the draft is Rejected (correctly in my view) - you can still edit it and meet the feedback suggestions, but at the heart of it is that if you do not have ideally three solid examples of the WP:GOLDENRULE then you best think about better use of your time. Writing new articles is hard, even if you know the policies and guidelines well, it's not a good place to start as a Wikipedia editor, it's better to spend a few months improving existing articles to understand how the process works before writing a draft. Improving existing articles is a hugely creditable activity. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, let’s use this as an example, I’m editing drafts authored by other accounts, for this one as no topic is crossing my mind:

significant coverage over 5 independent resources times of Jordan, etc…

in reliable sources: reputable organizations ITU, EuroFM, government website

that are independent applicable.

What part makes it not notable? What drives notability? Eloura Phoenixx (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eloura Phoenixx: for notability per WP:GNG, each source you're relying on must be reliable and independent and secondary and provide significant coverage, all at once. There isn't a single source cited in Draft:Mais Taha which meets those criteria, and we would need to see multiple sources. The first few sources don't even mention the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eloura Phoenixx. Let's be specific here (and the BHfH will perhaps give their own version of this) but I see no source directly from the Times of Jordan. The ITU piece is a press release about their own award, it has one sentence on the subject: this is reliable BUT is not example of independent sourcing, and it certainly isn't in depth. Essentially someone like a journalist, author, or academic, who was independent of the subject, needs to write a profile or similar of the subject, interviews excluded. That is not the only route, but it would be the sort of thing where the Golden Rule is fully met. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I heard a Bori being summoned.

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• https://www.womentech.net/global-ambassadors-top?page=126 is a non-sequitur. She also does not show up on the page if you filter for specifically Jordanian ambassadors, which leads me to think this source may be hallucinated.
• https://www.palquest.org/en/biography/34670/qudsia-khourshid is a non-sequitur, possibly hallucinated. (If we assume this is Taha's mother, then Taha was born when her mother was 71 years old per maths, which seems impossible.)
• We can't use https://www.albayanschool.edu.jo/ (website homepage). You need to link to specific pages on that domain. I half-suspect this source is also hallucinated.
• https://engineering.ju.edu.jo/Departments/School_DeptHome.aspx?deptname=Architecture%20Engineering is a non-sequitur, possibly hallucinated.
• We can't use https://www.constructionjobsexpo.ie/bim-coordinators-summit-2022/ (no editorial oversight). I'd normally just say this source doesn't help for eligibility as too sparse, but the "learn more" link underneath her entry points me to a Wix landing page, which raises serious red flags.
• We can't use https://sahelalhiyari.com/ (website homepage) and no page on that domain would help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• https://commerce.gov.mt/en/malta-intellectual-property-awards/malta-intellectual-property-awards-2022/ doesn't help for eligibility (gov't document, too sparse). We don't have an article on the specific award, which means we have to judge this source on its merits, which means we have a name in a government-made list with no discussion of Taha.
• https://www.apsbank.com.mt/news/aps-bank-supports-jci-malta-toyp-awards/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Taha.
• We can't use https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR-2024-10-30-Global-Innovation-Forum.aspx (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Clearly-labeled press release with skeletal description of Taha.
• https://greeningtheislands.org/xukra/ is a non-sequitur. (Even if she did create it, her name isn't attached to it on this page.)
• https://eurofm.org/celebrating-excellence-the-eurofm-awards-2025/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Coverage of XUKRA" is not coverage of Taha.

I have some very serious concerns about this references list, to the point I'm not entirely convinced that a human actually read all these sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 00:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

07:01, 5 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42780-84

• ~2026-42780-84 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Asian Bureau of Finance and Economic Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is only one reliable, independent source talking about the subject. Other sources are mainly press releases or from the organization itself. Should i reduce the article to a stub instead? ~2026-42780-84 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia expects WP:THREE reliable sources for an article, stub or otherwise. If only one reliable source can be found, then no article can exist. You may simply have to wait for more reliable sources to exist. There is no deadline. Alternatively, you can try adding the subject as a brief discussion on a related article with the one source, but the subject is unlikely to survive as a standalone article. guninvalid (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Stubs were really only a thing in the very early days of Wikipedia, during the initial rush to create articles. Stubs do not pass the AFC process. Drafts do not need to be 100% complete(few actual articles are) but they do need to meet certain minimum standards. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Stubs have the exact same notability requirements as more fully-fledged articles. If a subject isn't notable enough to justify an article, it won't justify a stub, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

11:18, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Russellstuart

• Russellstuart (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lisa Stuart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the subject's spouse and disclose that conflict of interest. After the initial decline, Draft:Lisa Stuart was substantially shortened and rewritten in neutral language. The revised draft added a two-page Beverly Hills Weekly cover profile and a substantial Bold Journey interview, while retaining State Bar, ASCAP and program sources only to verify specific facts. The revised version was then formally rejected within seconds as “clearly not notable.” I understand that directories, primary sources and routine listings do not establish notability. Could an uninvolved editor please advise whether the Beverly Hills Weekly profile and Bold Journey coverage provide a plausible basis under WP:GNG, and whether formal rejection rather than another decline was appropriate? If those sources are insufficient, guidance on the type or amount of additional independent coverage required would be appreciated. I am seeking an independent assessment and process guidance, not approval based solely on the subject's accomplishments. Russellstuart (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You have summarized your wife's activities and qualifications, but have no sources with critical analysis and commentary about her legal work or career; how is she important/significant/influential as an attorney? Winning a case is a normal activity for an attorney; is there critical analysis and commentary by people wholly unaffiliated with her that describes her unique influence on the legal field? The draft was rejected because there is no such critical analysis and commentary provided. This is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further absent a significant rewrite that fundamentally addresses these concerns.

Conflict of interest related editing is not recommended as the first thing a new user does. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

11:38, 5 August 2026 review of submission by TheWikiExplorerGuy

• TheWikiExplorerGuy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Neil Blumenthal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, sourcing is from major national outlets, with in-depth coverage, not just quotes or trade. Welcome the community's input and recommendations to enhance the article, as it likely meets notability requirements. TheWikiExplorerGuy (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The claim to notability seems to be that he founded a company; this is a common activity that does not in and of itself confer notability on a person.

Interviews do not contribute to notability, because they are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

12:09, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Firebook is rea;

• Firebook is rea; (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Blooket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because we want to make it happen Firebook is rea; (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC) We need to make the blooket wikipeda page real! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebook is rea; (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Firebook is rea;: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Firebook is rea;

To translate what you have written above into Wikipedia terms:

"Because we want to promote it. We need to promote it!"

Promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. Please use some platform that permits promotion. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Firebook is rea; This is a repeat request. The answer hasn't changed... David10244 (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

12:17, 5 August 2026 review of submission by LePetitFilesdeFrance

• LePetitFilesdeFrance (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hanayaka Nari, Waga Ichizoku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! My draft for Hanayaka Nari, Waga Ichizoku, was declined, but I don't really understand why. Although my page contained translations (especially for the characters and the plot), I tried my best to edit them to more neutral sounding. If you could guide me on ways to edit my draft and make it better, I would really appreciate it! Thanks! LePetitFilesdeFrance (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

12:53, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Integral23

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

Hello Wikipedians, could someone maybe spare a little bit of their time in order to check what I can do to get the draft article about my employer (yes, I know..) approved?

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Solectric_GmbH

Thanks a lot! Integral23 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Integral23.

Probably nothing. Most companies on the planet are not notable, and nothing you can do in a draft will make them so.

Have you read WP:BOSS? ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @ColinFine, thank you for you reply.

Actually, I didn't know WP:BOSS and I just read it. Thanks again.

I already knew my task is really not an easy one. Also, I know I am not the first one to ask for an article.

BUT: Regarding the concerns of notability, I really tried to build a case on my talk page.

If that is not sufficient, I would put forward the aspect that my company already has a German Wikipedia article and has an international reputation, being one of the biggest partners of DJI in Europe.

I really don't want to promote anything and would be fully content if there is at least an English entry for strictly encyclopedic reasons, so that as much people as possible at least have a basic conception of what it is. Integral23 (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Integral23: having an article in a different language version of Wikipedia doesn't help here, because each language version is an entirely separate project with their own rules and requirements. The English Wikipedia has stricter notability etc. requirements than any other that I'm aware of, therefore it often happens that an article is accepted into another language version but not accepted here.

I haven't looked at your talk page, but just to say that you need to provide whatever evidence of notability there is in the draft, or, now that the draft has been rejected, by making your case directly to the rejecting reviewer (and if that doesn't go anywhere, then here at the help desk) if you have evidence that wasn't previously considered for any reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

12:58, 5 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42955-43

• ~2026-42955-43 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Glenn Kroiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I therefore ask you to remain factual and specify exactly: – which passages are considered promotional ~2026-42955-43 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not a matter of particular wording, @~2026-42955-43: it's about the whole presentation.

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

It doesn't look to me as if even one of your cited sources meets all the criteria in WP:42. I may be wrong, I haven't looked closely; but if I am right, then your draft is like a house built on a swamp: it is not based on anything.

Wikipedia doesn't care what you know, and it has very little interest in what Kroiss or any of his associates have said (and the fact that the draft appears to be based on what he and his associates have said is why it is promotional).

Writing an article successfully starts with finding several sources which each meet all of the conditions in WP:42: if you can't find several such sources, then you will know that the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's sense (like almost every person on the planet) and there is no point in continuing.

If you can find several such sources, you then need to effectively forget everything you know about Kroiss, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much all of it. It also appears to be written at least partially by LLM/AI/chatbot, which is not acceptable.

If you're still interested in writing an article about the subject, start with only the published sources about Kroiss that are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage about Kroiss. And then write an article yourself, using only those sources. Once notability has been demonstrated, only then very carefully introduce material from primary sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for the guidance. I will review. I had been trying to use relevant references and also used the film director Rob Savage's page as a reference that is highly references with interviews, so I thought it was allowed. There are loads of articles online so I can amend. Is IMDB considered an acceptable source? ~2026-42918-83 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

No, user generated sources are not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IMDB and Wikipedia:User generated might be of use to you. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

13:26, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Lfrye 1331

• Lfrye 1331 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Richard Venditti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey! My draft got denied, however theer was not much information about why and I wanted to reach out and ask for more specific details so I can make it better for my resubmission. Lfrye 1331 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are mostly written based on what independent, reliable, published sources say about a subject. This article is almost entirely either Venditti's work (so not independent) or NC State writing about Venditti (so not independent). This article is really just a cv written in prose. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

13:39, 5 August 2026 review of submission by ~2026-42918-83

• ~2026-42918-83 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kate Dolan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused as to why this article was not accepted. I used multiple references and Kate Dolan is really trailblazzing in Ireland and internationally in terms of working the horror genre and being a female film maker. If you could give some specific feedback it would be great. ~2026-42918-83 (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user generated. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

14:24, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Russellstuart

• Russellstuart (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Russell Stuart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the subject of this draft and disclose that conflict of interest. Draft:Russell Stuart has now been declined three times for insufficient notability, including after it was substantially shortened and rewritten. Before making further edits or resubmitting, could an uninvolved editor please assess the strongest sources individually under WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT: (1) The Daily Beast's 2020 feature, “Inside the 'Secret Service of Hollywood' That Guards Stars Like Post Malone and Jennifer Lopez”; (2) Fox News's 2023 profile, “Man behind Hollywood's 'Secret Service' runs for office with pro-police message in Beverly Hills”; (3) ABC7's 2024 report centered on Stuart following the Beverly Hills carjacking collision; (4) the Beverly Hills Courier's 2024 recovery profile; and (5) Los Angeles magazine's 2022 coverage of Stuart and Beverly Hills Guns. Do these sources collectively provide a plausible basis under WP:GNG? If not, guidance on which source fails which requirement, and what additional independent coverage would be necessary, would be appreciated. I will not resubmit while this question is pending. Russellstuart (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You have just described your activities; instead you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and all materials that just report on what you do, and summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you- meaning critical analysis and commentary of you by people wholly unaffiliated with you. You mention you appear on TV- what is the significance of this? Has your commentary had a particular influence on public policy? Have laws been passed specifically due to your advocacy?

Though not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. I personally in over 14 years have never seen someone succeed at doing so, though it may have happened; it is rare that someone can set aside what they know about themselves. Are you one of the rare people who can? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll answer those questions, as well as the questions about the other sources on your draft.

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• https://www.beverlyhills.gov/DocumentCenter/View/96/Voter-Guide---March-2024-?bidId= doesn't help for eligibility (gov't document, connexion to subject). The candidate blurbs in the voters' guide are provided by the candidates themselves and so are primary irrespective of this being a gov't document (which are also primary sources nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine times out of a thousand).
• https://www.tenniscanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015TennisCanadaMediaGuide.pdf is 404-compliant (redirects to bespoke 404 page).
• We can't use https://digital.la84.org/digital/collection/p17103coll25/id/4205/ (too sparse). Raw race results.
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-secret-service-of-hollywood-that-guards-stars-like-post-malone-and-jennifer-lopez/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The article is about Stuart's company, and is liberally sprinkled with direct quotes from Stuart. The Daily Beast also isn't the best source to be using in a biography of a living person.
• https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/04/9633880/meghan-markle-prince-harry-new-security-team-los-angeles doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Same issues as the above source, with less direct quotes and more attributed positions.
• We can't use https://www.avengedsevenfolditalia.it/a7x-universe/a7x-crew-lo-staff-della-band/ (too sparse). Staff listing for a band at an event, this looks like? Still nothing to cite.
• https://lamag.com/news-and-politics/l-a-s-arms-race-of-the-affluent/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The subject is the weapons store, not Stuart (who, again, gets direct quotes and attributed positions).
• https://abc7.com/post/beverly-hills-gun-store-la-crime-los-angeles-burglaries/11425722/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Exact same problems as the source above.
• https://beverlypress.com/2022/01/crime-sparks-gun-purchases-in-beverly-hills/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). I should really be getting out the ditto marks here.
• https://www.foxnews.com/video/6289437228001 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Anything which is primarily Stuart being interviewed is a primary source regardless of venue (The New York Times or a random Beverly Hills street corner) and interviewer (Larry King or Borat Sagdiyev). An argument can also be made that this source is unusable on other grounds; see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS.
• https://www.foxla.com/video/1449669 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Exact same issue as the source above.
• https://www.talentmanagers.org/russell-stuart doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Blurb from an organisation he/his firm is a member of.
• https://www.bravotv.com/vanderpump-rules/season-3/blogs/scheana-marie/scheana-i-dont-need-kristen is a non-sequitur.
• We don't cite Apple Music/iTunes (online storefront).
• We can't use https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-hollywoods-secret-service-runs-office-pro-police-message-beverly-hills (deprecated).
• We can't use https://results.lavote.gov/text-results/4324 (gov't document, too sparse). Raw election results presented by the government with no commentary other than neutral descriptions of the ballot initiatives.
• https://beverlypress.com/2024/12/bhusd-installs-new-members/ is borderline at best. There isn't a lot of discussion of Stuart in the source.
• https://beverlypress.com/2025/03/bhusd-board-member-recall-petitions-put-on-hold/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The article is about the botched recall, and doesn't discuss Stuart past a superficial level.
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-11-14/man-arrested-in-beverly-hills-after-crashing-stolen-car-injuring-four is a non-sequitur. We cannot "connect the dots" from what one source says to make another source acceptable; the source needs to explicitly corroborate the claim it is being used for.
• https://abc7.com/post/victim-of-beverly-hills-carjacking-crash-details-traumatic-experience-that-left-him-with-broken-bones/15558117/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Minimal discussion of Stuart beyond his direct quotes.
• I can't assess https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/11/21/russell-stuart-recovering-from-injuries-sustained-in-carjacking-incident/ (walled). This is not, and should not be read as, a rejection of the source; it means someone else who has access to the source needs to assess it.
• https://beverlypress.com/2025/08/russell-stuart-sues-beverly-hills/ is borderline at best. Minimal discussion of Stuart as opposed to every other player in the incident itself (read: the carjacker and the Mystery of the Missing Jersey Wall).

The sources you have as a whole seem to follow a pattern of talking around Stuart rather than discussing him at any length, making it hard to demonstrate Stuart's notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed assessment. The draft has now been substantially revised and resubmitted with additional independent coverage that was not part of the earlier source review. The political-career section now cites Los Angeles Times and Jewish Telegraphic Agency reporting on the Jewish American Heritage Month and Israeli-flag resolution; Beverly Press and Beverly Hills Courier reporting on Stuart's role in the five-year BSN Sports/Nike agreement; and Beverly Press and Beverly Hills Courier coverage of Stuart's participation in the Amanda Stern vice-president vote and the Daniel Lifschitz litigation, including the April 2026 ruling. Could an uninvolved editor please advise whether this additional coverage changes the earlier WP:GNG assessment? I understand that the stories concern public actions and controversies; my specific question is whether their repeated, substantive treatment of Stuart as a decision-maker and spokesperson contributes meaningfully to notability. Russellstuart (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you still Mr. Stewart? Speaking about yourself in the thid person is confusing.

The political career section reads as a summary of the activities of the Beverly Hills school board, and not of your particular influence on the board or those activities. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am the subject; I used third person because the draft itself must be written in encyclopedic style, but I understand why that was confusing here. I have now acted on your point by removing the board-centered Israeli-flag and vice-president/litigation paragraphs. The resubmitted draft is limited to background and security coverage, the election and recall, the Nike agreement (where the Courier identifies my individual role), and the collision and resulting lawsuit, which received coverage centered on me. I will stop adding activities. I would appreciate an uninvolved editor's view on whether this version now reads as a concise biography based on the strongest available sources; if it still does not meet WP:GNG, I understand that the remaining issue is source sufficiency rather than further drafting. Russellstuart (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, if this draft were approved and ended up at WP:AFD, I'd vote Delete on it at present, and it's likely it would end up there pretty quickly. The fundamental problems remain in that almost the entirety of the sourcing is not made up of reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage that is about you. At best, you're adjacent to the notable thing in most of the cites, but notability by osmosis isn't a thing.

The closest thing to being independent and reliable and that is significantly about you is the local coverage of the carjacking, injury, and lawsuit. But we're in WP:BLP1E territory and this is a pretty obscure local event. You've done an interesting variety of things in your life, well above that of the majority of people, but I'm just not seeing Wikipedia's threshold for notability being close to met here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

15:23, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Alexandereden

• Alexandereden (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sidney Eden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello.

I am requesting guidance regarding the rejection of my draft, Draft:Sidney Eden.

The draft was recently rejected with the statement that the subject "does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion." I respect the review process, but I am having difficulty understanding how that conclusion was reached because the draft cites multiple independent newspaper sources that discuss Sidney Eden and his theatrical career.

These sources include several Chicago Tribune articles, including a feature by Linda Winer devoted to Sidney Eden and the First Chicago Center Theatre, additional Chicago Tribune coverage by Aaron Gold, William Leonard, and Roger Dettmer, The New York Times coverage of his later work, and independent coverage of his 2002 Actors' Equity library donation.

I am not asking anyone to overturn the review automatically. I am simply asking whether an experienced editor would be willing to look at the sources and explain whether they satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline, or identify what specific evidence is still missing.

I would greatly appreciate any guidance. Thank you for your time. Alexandereden (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're a relative, as your username suggests, that needs to be disclosed, see conflict of interest.

I'm not clear on how he meets the notability criteria? You have summarized his work, but I see little to no critical analysis and commentary about his work. The sources you have provided are not online(which is fine) but will be difficult for other editors to examine. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

His donation increasing the size of the library collection might be relevant to an article about the library, but not necessarily him personally. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. The Linda Winer Chicago Tribune feature is a lengthy article devoted specifically to Sidney Eden and his efforts to establish the First Chicago Center Theatre. I also have additional newspaper coverage discussing his work beyond production listings. I'll review the draft to make sure those sources are cited for statements about his career rather than relying primarily on production reviews. Is there any particular aspect of the notability guideline you believe these sources still fail to satisfy? Alexandereden (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The concern hasn't changed. If you believe the sources provide the significant independent coverage needed, I'd suggest waiting for additional input from other experienced editors on this appeal rather than continuing to revise the same draft. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandereden Note that your draft has now been rejected, not merely declined. This means that you cannot resubmit the draft for review anymore without first appealing to the rejecting reviewer, @Accesscrawl, and having them lift the rejection. Athanelar (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandereden - I have added to the draft a URL from the Chicago Tribune, in order to be helpful. (Use another browser or Incognito if the cookies stop you seeing the two clippings). And yes that is significant coverage as well as including commentary from several other people about the subject (including a less than complimentary quote from his bank manager. Those where the days). Is there another clipping that is independent and significant coverage where I can add a URL perhaps? Best to avoid interviews unless there is a lot of independent editorial commentary around it. Critical / adverse reviews are OK to use. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandereden - looking at it, the layout and the choice of wording, can I in addition ask about the use of AI / LLM here please? Was that involved? It's not so much about finger pointing here, though obviously it's not allowed, but this is more about how to help you with this draft. Any details about this would be helpful since there is a referencing pattern here that has been raised by another review editor relating to an unrelated draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

21:49, 5 August 2026 review of submission by Locu

• Locu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rentec Direct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first AfC draft was declined for not being written from a neutral point of view. The feedback is well received and appreciated. I have disclosed my COI with the subject, and I want to make sure I've fully addressed the tone issues before resubmitting. Since the decline I have: a) removed the Recognition section, keeping only the Inc 5000 mention as a single sentence in History b) removed comparative language about competitors c) cut the founder origin story d) removed a product feature list that was cited only to the company website.

Could an uninvolved editor take a look and let me know whether the tone issues are resolved? And if not, which sentences may still a problem? Any feedback is very much appreciated! Thank you! Locu (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You're asking for a pre-review review; for feedback, you should resubmit the draft.

That said, you have just summarized the routine activities and offerings of your company, not significant coverage with critical analysis and commentary.

Please see WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues; in short, you're not likely to succeed at writing about your company, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Most companies on Earth do not meet the criteria for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

apart from all GNG bla.. if your boss assigned this, I'd second 331dot's advice and show them WP:BOSS first. It could save everyone a lot of time. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• RobMeyerson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • 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)