Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

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

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

October 1

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

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

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

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

@Meadowlark - yes and thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Communication Dives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Communication Dives We don't need (or want) sources created by AI; whether AI came before or after her work is irrelevant. The sources don't even need to be online; printed newspapers and magazines can be cited (and they do not need to be, and should not be, scanned). Sources just need to be properly referenced (see WP:REFB).

Sorry, the Times of India is not a reliable source, and unfortunately, what you say here will not change that. David10244 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Luisa.dap21.

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

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

@Luisa.dap21 And tools that are used to "check grammar", such as Grammarly, now use AI and can rewrite text and change its meaning. David10244 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Luisa.dap21 An article should not just list "achievements"; as mentioned, an article is based on what independent publications have to say ABOUT the subject. David10244 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

October 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even without the issue of a conflict of interest ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Start from an entirely clean slate.

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

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

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

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

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

@Dare2Leap I would gently suggest that if this is burning you out and stressing you, that maybe you should consider stopping, and doing something else instead of Wikipedia.

Also, 13 days is a very short amount of time to do a very hard task that requires a lot of learning. I have been here for years, making a few hundred edits (I think), and I don't think I am qualified to create a new article. But that's just me. Some people create articles after a few months of learning Wikipedia, and undoubtedly some do it sooner. David10244 (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Coopersworld100 Is this question related to the previous topic? David10244 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, no, it goes with the next topic. I was reading top-down. 🙂 David10244 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: Draft:Bernadette Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@~2026-52994-66 Please be sure to sign in when commenting. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

@Assekoas, @Coopersworld100 The comments by these two editors are mixed up in these two topics. David10244 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @ArtThouGomeo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @Tonia Mavrommati.

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

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

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

October 3

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

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

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

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

@~2026-53319-38 Do you think that a draft that says "Back then sometime, Flizzy Flomper was born. It was was a happy day for all" should be published in an encyclopedia? David10244 (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I provided an additional assessment of sources on the talk page. While I was doing that, the draft was rejected, which means stop, do not continue wasting community time on this, we will not consider it further. AI-generated content without human review is prohibited here, and it is clear from the source analysis from two different submissions that you are letting the AI do your creation for you. Enough. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19:01, 3 October 2026 review of submission by Schlawa

• Schlawa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Georg Friedrich Schlatter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wiki-team, February this year I've posted the above article. An article about Georg Friedrich Schlatter does exist already in German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Friedrich_Schlatter). Soon after submitting, an experienced user/Wiki editor added some language and format adjustments. Following this, another Wiki editor (Namita Tudu) declined publishing the article and asked for "Please add more reliable, secondary sources to verify the information provided." I replied two times asking which secondary sources are meant, as the article mentions key references (e.g., Anzinger, Herbert (2025). Pfarrer Georg Friedrich Schlatter: ein kirchlicher Vorkämpfer für Demokratie und nationale Einigung Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert. Veröffentlichungen zur badischen Kirchen- und Religionsgeschichte (1. Auflage ed.). Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. ISBN 978-3-17-044935-0) plus additional references also mentioned in the German Wiki article, some of which referring to old original publications from GF Schlatter for which no ISBN or public accessible online versions do exist. I also asked why I couldn't upload two pictures. Unfortunately, Namita Tudu never came back on my questions (unless I've overlooked them). Your help would be greatly appreciated to get the article published or point me to any specific aspects I should add or consider. Thanks. Schlawa (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Schlawa The problem is the lack of citations within the prose, not the lack of references at the bottom. You have many paragraphs which have no inline citations attached to them. All factual information should be cited as soon as it's provided in prose, no later than at the end of the paragraph. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Athanelar (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks much! I've added further citations within the prose, plus I uploaded/added 4 pictures, and re-submitted the draft article for review.

To note: The two images I've uploaded are in a quite large format. I couldn't figure out how to reduce format during upload. Let me know if I should change (probably I have to reduce format size before uploading). Schlawa (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

19:46, 3 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53168-27

• ~2026-53168-27 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Samuel Alexander Woods III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was denied within hours of publishing by editor with complaints listed insight by other users and a questionable profile that appears artificially created. I fully intend to edit and correct any errors in the article. I would just like to have confirmation that "Icepinner" is an accredited editor for Wikipedia. ~2026-53168-27 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no "accreditation" for editors, but the reviewer has over 7800 edits. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-53168-27 @Icepinner has been an active editor here since 2023 and was approved by an WP:administrator (admin) to review drafts, otherwise they would not able to use the AfC tool. One either needs to on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants list (only an admin can add anyone that list), be an WP:New page reviewer (also requires admin approval) or be an admin in order to review drafts. S0091 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "accredited editor" but Icepinner is on the list of AFC reviewers at WP:AFC/P. Athanelar (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-53168-27: as others have said, I am an AFC reviewer. I did not use AI to create my userpage at any point in time, rather it is the product of code from other users' userpage (full list can be seen here for your interest). Not sure what you mean by "complaints listed insight by other users", though – do you mean the questions on my talk page from other users? If so, it's part of the mentorship programme; new editors can ask me questions relating to editing Wikipedia via my talk page. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

20:14, 3 October 2026 review of submission by Loado0

• Loado0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MATLAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It was declined for using LLM (or AI). But I didn't use any AI. I only used template for Infobox but the content was written by me. Loado0 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

You have no independent reliable sources in the draft, it is exclusively sourced to social media and Spotify. The primary purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent sources say about the topic with critical analysis and commentary, not merely documenting the existence of their work. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

20:36, 3 October 2026 review of submission by Syed Ikram Haider Zaidi

• Syed Ikram Haider Zaidi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Syed Ikram Haider Zaidi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why Syed Ikram Haider Zaidi (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much all the reasons. It's unsourced, presents no evidence of notability, is promotional in tone, and appears to be written by at least in large part by LLM.

Amusingly, even with the LLM trying to tell you what sources were needed, you didn't find any of them, re-printed the LLM's instructions, and the LLM's sourcing suggestions largely wouldn't even be proper for Wikipedia sourcing anyway. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

23:43, 3 October 2026 review of submission by Timw5k

• Timw5k (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sirius (2027 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am genuinely struggling to understand what sort of sources are expected besides the 9 that I have already provided. The movie has wrapped filming, is currenty in post-production and is slated to be released somewhere in 2027.

I have added sources from iMDB, the production website and multiple trustworthy articles from highly regarded media such a Variety, Deadline and TheWrap.

This is the information that is available at this point, which seems pretty reasonable in my opinion for an early version wikipedia article about an upcoming movie. I will keep the page up to date along the way when more information is coming out.

I do not expect what sort of information is expected right now for this Draft to be accepted. I have looked at several other wikipedia pages for upcoming movies and I don't see any noteworthy differences. Timw5k (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The latest reviewer's comment said; Press is mainly announcements of casting and filming or pre-release promotion. Nothing notable about the production to qualify under WP:NFF either

So they're alleging that the sources you've provided don't give significant coverage of the film.

It's usually difficult for upcoming releases to warrant an article. Per WP:CRYSTAL we try to avoid articles about upcoming events unless they have some seriously extraordinary levels of coverage. You can check out WP:NFF which has specific guidance for the kind of coverage necessary for a future film to be considered notable. Athanelar (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Not directed at you specificly, but I find these things so incredibly discouraging and counterproductive. How is no wikipedia article better than an wikipedia article that contains the information that is available at this time?

Isn't the whole idea that information can be added along the way? Everybody can make revisions and additions as more information comes along. There are so many articles for upcoming projects that contain a similar level of information as the one I prepared.

I just do not understand what is expected right now? Should i just delete it and give up? I can't make up articles that don't exist at this time. Timw5k (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

How is no wikipedia article better than an wikipedia article that contains the information that is available at this time? Because Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Our goal isn't to have as many articles as possible. Our goal is to have articles that meet our requirements.

There are so many articles for upcoming projects that contain a similar level of information as the one I prepared. See WP:OSE.

I just do not understand what is expected right now? If you can't demonstrate that it meets WP:NFF then there's nothing to be done. Athanelar (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Timw5k We judge each article 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. There are many ways inappropriate content can be on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as those who choose to help.

Something very unusual and extraordinary beyond basic announcements would need to happen for this film to merit an article now; typically it would be some very unusual aspect of the production of the film. For example, Rust (2024 film) merited an article before its release due to a fatal accidental shooting on set. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

How can an upcoming movie that has already been filmed and even already has a release date in one specific country, countless articles and messages from cast and crew confirming it be inappropriate content? Just because not 100% of information is released does not mean it is irrelevant.

I just tried to put in some effort and my own free time to contribute but I guess it's not appreciated. It's been hours and it's nothing but frustrating, constantly making adjustments based on feedback and it's just one thing after another, one moment the sources are accepted and then making another change and suddenly the sources are insuffient again. It's unbelievable. Nevermind then, I am just done with it like this. Timw5k (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

That you believe "countless articles and messages from cast and crew," is what we want for articles about movies here, rather than precisely the opposite, indicates that what you want Wikipedia to be is very different from what Wikipedia is. We primarily cover notable topics by reliable sources, providing significant information, independent of the subject. We care very little what an actor has to say about their film, an athlete has to say about their performance, a scientist has to say about their own research, or what a CEO has to say about their company. You're basically frustrated because the burger restaurant has little interest in baking the pizza you made. While your efforts are appreciated, it doesn't get around the apparent fact that you and Wikipedia want different things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Timw5k We appreciate your interest in contributing; we are trying to help you do so, but writing a new article is the most challenging thing to do on Wikipedia, especially for new contributors unfamiliar with what is expected of article content. I'm sorry that you are frustrated, but we can only be honest with you- just as if you had built a house without a foundation and are frustrated that the code enforcement officer is telling you that what you built is unsafe and will fall down. I suggest that you wait for the release of the film or at least close to it, so that professional critics will have viewed and offered critical analysis and commentary about it. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Timw5k As 331dot says, "critical commentary and analysis about the film are needed". From people who are not part of the production. That's what "independent sources" means. Independent reviewers almost always review films after they are released, not before. David10244 (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

October 4

02:02, 4 October 2026 review of submission by ResearcherGeek

• ResearcherGeek (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Speak Up (organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Sulfurboy:I need help to fix this draft ResearcherGeek (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

ResearcherGeek If you want to communicate with Sulfurboy directly, it's best to use their user talk page. You don't say what help you're seeking. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

02:15, 4 October 2026 review of submission by Jaishriram214

• Jaishriram214 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Vanniyakula Kshatriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Vanniyakula Kshatriya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I created Draft:Vanniyakula Kshatriya and submitted it through Articles for Creation. The draft was declined because I am not currently extended-confirmed, since the topic falls under the South Asia caste-topic restriction. I do not have enough time to wait until I reach the 500-edit requirement. Could an experienced extended-confirmed editor please advise whether the draft can be reviewed or worked on by an eligible editor? I have extensively sourced the draft using government records, inscriptions, census sources, literary sources and academic research. I do not want to bypass the restriction. Jaishriram214 (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you have enough time? Wikipedia has no deadlines, so it can wait until you have extended-confirmed rights or someone else decides to write an article. The draft has already been deleted, but someone is free to try and write an article on the subject entirely on their own volition. You cannot, however, communicate about the topic on Wikipedia in talk pages, and if you get someone off Wikipedia to make the article for you, if it appears they're proxying for you, they can get blocked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Also note that, outside of two narrow exceptions, AI use is not permitted; please see WP:LLM. You wrote that you "I used ChatGPT to help research, organize, and draft the article"; the most you should be doing is checking spelling, but we would rather deal with human imperfection in spelling and grammar than an AI. This is the case even if English is not your first language. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

05:25, 4 October 2026 review of submission by Pranishm

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

VANAKAMSMPs is a Minecraft multiplayer server offering survival and minigame gameplay. The server supports Java Edition and Bedrock Edition through cross-platform connectivity. It includes survival, BedWars, OneBlock, SkyBlock, and PvP gameplay modes.

The server provides an in-game economy and jobs system, a player auction house, skills, custom items, daily rewards, and crates. It uses AuthMe for player authentication and supports communication in English, Tamil, and Tanglish.

The server is operated alongside an online community that includes a website, Discord community, WhatsApp community, Instagram account, and a companion application. Pranishm (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft is blank; there is no content on it.

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

To merit an article, you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage- meaning critical analysis and commentary- view as important/significant/influential about the server, meaning how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

06:56, 4 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53306-80

• ~2026-53306-80 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Digital Emotion Regulation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wrote this article last weekend, submitted it late Sunday, and have made about 48 minor revisions since then as I try to improve some sections.

A reviewer has flagged two issues today: 1) that the article appears to have been written by an LLM, and 2) that reference 15 does not mention 'education'.

I accept point (2). I cited Audrin and Audrin's 2024 paper, but probably should have cited their 2023 paper. Both are really about *evaluating* digital emotion intelligence more than teaching it. But evaluating and teaching are closely related, as the reference list in both papers shows. In the 2023 paper they draw out more clearly their implications for education, referring to training programs in the Discussion section. If regardless this link seems insufficiently implied, I am happy to change the words "education programs" to "evaluation" in the sentence where I cite [15].

Point (1) is not correct. I did not use an LLM to write the article. I don't know how to prove this. I wrote the first draft in Word, and I still have the document. I am an experienced author and don't want an LLM to write for me.

I believe the article is a reasonable summary of the current research literature on this topic. I am familiar with the topic, having worked on 4 of the papers cited. I have cited mostly academic papers, but near the end cited a small number of non-academic but reputable sources where the topic (problematic use of AI chatbots) is quite current and is being discussed a lot outside the research context.

I want this to be a good summary of a topic that I think is important and interesting. I am happy to continue improving the article as required in order to achieve this goal -Greg

REFERENCE CITED

Audrin, C., & Audrin, B. (2023). More than just emotional intelligence online: introducing “digital emotional intelligence”. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1154355. ~2026-53306-80 (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Gregwadley Remember to log in when posting. I've fixed the header so it links to your draft as intended, the full title is needed, including the "Draft:" portion.

Did you use an AI on the draft in any capacity, even just to check spelling? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

No, I didn't use AI on the draft. I have a spell-checker in Word.

I sometimes use an AI chatbot as an "advanced search engine", for example where synonyms are obscure but important. (It's actually useful for this topic, where "emotion regulation" gets called "mood management", "coping" and various terms, which tends to fragment the research literature. (It's called "emotion self-regulation" in Wikipedia and I've suggested it be changed to "emotion regulation" which is more standard.) Greg_Wadley (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps M kuhner can elaborate on what they saw; I think I know, but I don't want to speak for them. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

It was a combination of WP:AISIGNS (particularly bullet lists and the "Future Directions" section), general vagueness and topic drift, and the fact that the very first reference I spotchecked failed to support its claim.

One line that jumped out at me: Studies conducted in the 20th century catalogued how people regulated emotion - unsurprisingly these did not observe digital strategies. It's not actually obvious--I've been in online communities since 1985 and their emotional effects were likely being studied already. It's cited to a 1999 article which can't support "unsurprisingly"--that is editorialization. And it has the LLM tic of saying "studies" but citing only one study.

There is always a possibility that a human author copies the style of LLM-written articles. If that is what happened it is really not serving you well. Also, are you sure that Copilot is not messing with your Word documents? M kuhner (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gregwadley Yes, Copilot is now deeply embedded into many versions of Word. It is possible to resist its suggestions, if you are vigilant. David10244 (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Right now your draft is more of a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. It is largely synthesized "meta-commentary" on the state of research into this topic, instead of just summarizing the contents of the research studies and literature reviews without introducing your own interpretations/generalizations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, studies that do not mention "Digital Emotion Regulation" or an equivalent term are very unlikely to be useful in this draft. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as you are one of the people who introduced the concept of digital emotion regulation, note that you would have to primarily summarize what independent researchers besides you and your collaborators have written about digital emotion regulation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I accept that Wikipedia doesn't want to publish this article. That's fine - I will withdraw it. But I want to respond to some points made during the rejection process.

> WP:AISIGNS (particularly bullet lists and the "Future Directions" section)

WP:AISIGNS doesn't say that bullet lists indicate AI. Bullet lists predate LLMs, are standard in word processors and HTML, and are recommended by style guides (https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/lists/bulleted, https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/style-manual-resources/government-writing-handbook/section-2-write-so-your-meaning-clear/use-structure-make-it-readable-bullet-lists).

Many research papers end with a 'Future Research' section. WP:AISIGNS describes a 'Future Challenges' section, written in a particular style that is not used in the draft.

> the LLM tic of saying "studies" but citing only one study

The cited paper describes 4 studies. Their lit review describes other studies that support the point.

> human author copies the style of LLM-written articles

This is unlikely. I have been writing for decades. I don't read LLM-written articles.

> are you sure that Copilot is not messing with your Word documents?

Yes.

> I've been in online communities since 1985 and their emotional effects were likely being studied already.

Emotion generation was happening, but possibly not emotion regulation, and not at a significant scale. I can't find studies from that era that discuss spontaneous emotion regulation employing the use of online communities. The pre-2000 psychology studies cited don't list digital ER strategies.

> "unsurprisingly" -- that is editorialization.

Fair call - I would remove that word.

> It is largely synthesized "meta-commentary" on the state of research into this topic, instead of just summarizing the contents of the research studies and literature reviews without introducing your own interpretations/generalizations

I have carefully read the draft with the WP:SYNTH policy in mind. I don't think the draft contains anything that isn't already published in peer-reviewed research. However I acknowledge the need to cite carefully in order to demonstrate this. This could be tightened up in places.

> studies that do not mention "Digital Emotion Regulation" or an equivalent term are very unlikely to be useful in this draft

Articles about a research topic often cite papers that do not mention the topic, for various reasons. As topics evolve, authors develop new terms, while building on and citing earlier research that didn't use the term. Sometimes, relevant research is taking place in other disciplines using different terms. For example, the Wikipedia article on emotion regulation (called "emotional self-regulation") legitimately cites papers that don't mention the term, such as Edelmann and Iwawaki (a relatively old paper) and Seminowicz and Davis (on a related concept).

> you would have to primarily summarize what independent researchers besides you and your collaborators have written about digital emotion regulation

The draft cites 34 articles. I worked on 4 of them. This balance seemed reasonable to me, and I didn't want the article to become too long, but it could easily include more research. Greg_Wadley (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

07:45, 4 October 2026 review of submission by Wikishan123

• Wikishan123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Wikishan123/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft got declined by the reviewer, please help me what to edit to get it accepted Wikishan123 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wikishan123: I've corrected the link to your draft, we have no draft titled "Draft got declined, need help".

As the reviewer said, unelected civil servants are almost never notable enough to justify an article. In the exceptional cases that they may be, the onus is very much on you as the proponent to demonstrate that by citing sufficient sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikishan123 You wrote "In September 2026, he participated in a round-table discussion on strengthening government schools and reducing dependence on private education"; what is the significance of this? Did he have a particular influence on public policy in this area? How does that make him important? We are more interested in a summary of critical analysis and commentary about a topic, rather than mere documentation of their activities. As noted, that's very unlikely to exist for all but the top most civil servants. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Kanan Jalilov — advice on sources and conflict of interest

Hello. I am Kanan Jalilov, the subject of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kanan_Jalilov, and I wish to disclose my conflict of interest.

The draft was declined because its sources did not establish notability. I understand that interviews, press releases and brief mentions may not be sufficient.

Could an experienced editor advise whether any of the sources currently cited provide suitable independent coverage, or whether the draft should wait until stronger sources become available? I would also appreciate guidance on how to suggest factual corrections appropriately as the subject.

Thank you. Akiburjuy (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

excuse me? I have been attempting this for almost a year and the same response has been given never have I been given AI excuses but it's always not enough not enough not enough and you said don't give them a hard time if I'm not willing to put in the work excuse me but if you want me to be clear putting this website together and the pages should be the websites job. Yet they asked for $400 to do it you want me to write it but you want me to pay you to publish it.? In what world does that make sense you guys are out of touch if you haven't looked at all of the complaints on this website where everyone is complaining about the same thing then you're really out of touch with your own job. I won't be seeking to get this page live anymore I promise you that and it won't be too hard to prove bad faith practices on this website. You take private information you play with these people trying to do something positive just to decline it. So I'm sorry if you took offense to the obvious facts that every single person in the comments have stated to you guys that there's something here that doesn't seem right with all the rejections.. Wiseone449 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wiseone449 You have been scammed, please read WP:Scam warning. qcne (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that User:Wiseone449 wrote this in the wrong section (meant it to be part of #19:14, 4 October 2026 review of submission by Wiseone449 a few threads later. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

17:10, 4 October 2026 review of submission by Slatersteven

• Slatersteven (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Super intelligence force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Creating a draft just in case this becomes a thing needs help. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Slatersteven.

What's your hurry?

It is a waste of your time and anybody else's to create a draft before you have found the sources to show that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

It may become notable, if enough secondary material gets published about it: what is the advantage to somebody having created an empty draft? And if it doesn't, there was no point in the first place. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Because someone will do it in main space, so let's at least head that off and start a draft. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

How will starting a draft head that off? ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

19:14, 4 October 2026 review of submission by Wiseone449

• Wiseone449 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Kris Elizondo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have spoken to private email to the guy who created this Wikipedia he has offered me publication with a lot less music and work at the time. Now that the singer has gone global with music distributed internationally they're still saying it's not enough when I have seen so many people on this website with practically nothing on their site this page was put together beautifully with many references and it's the same reviewer that keeps rejecting it I'm not the artist but I am a lawyer and this is starting to seem like this website practices bad faith relationships which is a violation of law and if found guilty will shut down Wikipedia.. at this point if you can't publish the page then we won't continue to attempt to get it live but we will launch a suit against Wikipedia for bad faith practices Wiseone449 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Just know %99 a quick block is on the way. Jako96 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

of course you would block it you don't want everyone to see the truth about all the scam here but trust that a suit will be filed immediately Wiseone449 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I am a lawyer and this is starting to seem like this website practices bad faith relationships which is a violation of law and if found guilty will shut down Wikipedia.

I can't imagine a practicing litigator, a retired one, a student in law school, a pre-law student, or even anyone who saw a single episode of Law & Order while high on mescaline, would ever write the words in this sentence with a straight face. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Indef'ed for WP:NLT. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

19:31, 4 October 2026 review of submission by 0add0n

• 0add0n (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daria Khomutsianskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the notability criteria for a tennis player is: 5. Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA.

Apparently, this tennis player participated in a match that was the longest match tie-break in women's doubles (see Longest tiebreaker in tennis). Is this not enough to meet the criteria for an article creation?

0add0n (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

No, by records, the intent is records that consist of a significant achievement of historical note. Records like this are more akin to trivia. Now, trivia itself can be notable, but I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of Khomutsianskaya and this record. She may still be notable, but not because of the longest tiebreaker in a match. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

23:38, 4 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41698-75

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

This article was about to come. ~2026-41698-75 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

No, not really. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

October 5

04:22, 5 October 2026 review of submission by R9giu

• R9giu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ruth Mense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need more time for this, I recently came across an incredible amount of physical materials kept by my late parents (Albert Cohen and Ruth Mense) which I only found now, following my father's death. Once I go over the incredible amount of materials and scan the relevant sources, I will edit this article and provide proofs for everything written in it. Please do not delete this article and allow me more time for it. Thank you R9giu (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's in no jeopardy of being deleted. As long as you edit it at least once every few weeks. Just resubmit when you feel it is ready. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you R9giu (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft will be automatically deleted after 6 months of no edits. But you can always request it be undeleted later. WP:There is no deadline. guninvalid (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you R9giu (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@R9giu You don't need to scan (or submit) documents as "proof". If these are private documents, and not already published by an independent, reputable publisher like a newspaper or magazine, they can't be used as sources for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you should consider another outlet, like a blog or a personal web page, to collect this info.

On the other hand, if these are newspaper or magazine clippings, then you can cite the publications (see WP:REFB) but you don't need to scan or submit them for Wikipedia's use (maybe scan them for your own archives). David10244 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The documents I was writing about are all from very reputable sources like the NY Times and other publications that are as reputable. I am not sure why my mother’s entry was not accepted until now because I see lesser people with far lesser achievements being written about here. My mother was one of the world’s most renowned and respectable pianist-accompanist. She lived in a world before the internet, so Wikipedia is asking for proofs for many facts that I didn’t have online proofs for until now. Now I finally have what is needed and will scan and upload. Again, these are all most reputable, reliable sources such as press clippings, letters from artists and artistic institutions, programs and posters of concerts and more R9giu (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @R9giu. Wikipedia does insist on verification from reliable published, but they are not required to be online, as long as a reader (or reviewer) can in principle obtain them (eg through a major library). So, including full citations (title, author, publication, date, page number, etc - and if the source is not readily available, a short relevant quotation) should be enough. See WP:REFB.

The fact that "lesser people with far lesser achievements" are the subject of Wikipedia articles is not relevant: each article is reviewed on its own merits, not against other articles. Those other articles may in fact be valid articles because it happens that the person has been written about extensively; or they may be deficient articles which would not be accepted if they were submitted today. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has many thousands of such inadequate articles, many of which were created when we had lower standards for inclusion. In an ideal world, people would go through these, improving their citations, or deleting them if the subject was not in fact notable: but this is not a task that many volunteer editors are keen to spend time doing, so they continue to sit there: see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarifications! R9giu (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

05:15, 5 October 2026 review of submission by DMoney1107

• DMoney1107 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2026–27 Washington State Cougars women's basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was trying to resubmit this draft page based off of the missing information I was told to add and I got this message: provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content. Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

I did that, but the draft submission got rejected and now I was told that I can't resubmit it again. Why would somebody reject my submission if I did exactly what somebody asked me to do? DMoney1107 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You only provided one reference that hardly has anything to do with the season as a whole. You were advised multiple times by multiple editors to review WP:NSEASON. You clearly did not. This draft will not be considered further until it is substantially sourced to show an overwhelmingly clear pass of WP:NSEASON. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of sports scores and states. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

07:10, 5 October 2026 review of submission by BrowseTQ

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

Why is the page contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. AD is a fucking legend in Thailand sending corrupt cops and Western paedophiles on the run to prison. And the page has 22 references including the Guardian no less, the #1 journal in the UK, who is in charge of approvals here? It should be reconsidered. BrowseTQ (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Being a "legend" is not a part of the notability criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you even read the page you linked, buddy?

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources.... of which there are 22. BrowseTQ (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It is challenging to write about journalists here, because journalists do not often write about other journalists. This means that there are usually few independent reliable sources with significant coverage to summarize. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources.... of which there are 22. BrowseTQ (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Quantity of sources matter little. Two good sources can sometimes be enough to establish notability via the WP:GOLDENRULE, however you have none, and you were provided ample opportunity and instruction on how to establish notability. I agree with @CNMall41's rejection for tendentious resubmission. You were provided ample opportunity and resources to improve the draft and failed to do so. The draft will not be considered further, barring a reversal by CNMall. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? Which of 22 references on that page are not notable? BrowseTQ (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You're asking reviewers to prove a negative. Which 3 sources do you suggest are the best for proving notability? Athanelar (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Allow me.

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• https://www.andrew-drummond.com/about/ - and anything else on that domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• https://pressgazette.co.uk/archive-content/new-deportation-threat-to-times-freelance/ is borderline at best. The back half of the article's either direct quotes or attributed claims, and the front half is fairly barebones.
• https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jul/06/pressandpublishing.law doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Most of this source is direct quotes from Drummond or opinions from allies supporting him.
• https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/19/ukcrime.childprotection doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). He's credited for the piece.
• https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/rejected-by-vietnam-thailand-and-hong-kong-now-pop-pervert-glitter-finally-agrees-to-return-to-britain-6907798.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). No discussion of Drummond.
• https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/435888/koh-tao-torture-alleged doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Source is directly reporting on what Drummond claims.
• https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/30301884 is a non-sequitur. (The source doesn't use a byline.)
• We can't use https://www.nationthailand.com/perspective/30292067 (too sparse). I will also note that these allegations cannot see the light of day on a Wikipedia article absent a conviction for them.
• https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/18/british-journalist-quits-thailand-after-threats-by-foreign-criminals is borderline. Most of the article is direct quotes/attributed claims from Drummond.
• We can't use https://pressgazette.co.uk/subject/andrew-drummond/ (too sparse). We do not cite search results; you need to cite specific articles.
• https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jul/05/broadcasting.pressandpublishing is borderline. Again, most of the article is direct quotes/attributed claims.
• We can't use https://www.nationthailand.com/life/30307269 (too sparse).
• https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/drummond-celebrates-victory-in-thai-libel-battle/ seems OK, if a bit skimpy.
• https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/most-sued-journalist-living-history-gets-support-british-ambassador-thailand/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Most of the article is, again, direct quotes and attributed claims by him or his allies.
• https://www.smh.com.au/world/veteran-journalist-andrew-drummond-to-leave-thailand-amid-safety-fears-20150119-12t99l.html is borderline. Three guesses why.
• We can't use https://www.nationthailand.com/life/30307167 (too sparse).
• https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/thai-libel-actions-brought-againt-uk-freelance-are-dropped-after-plaintiffs-extortion-conviction/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). Article is about the people suing Drummond, and barely discusses him beyond quoting him.
• I can't assess https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/thailands-culture-of-impunity/ (walled).
• We can't use https://www.chiangmaicitylife.com/citylife-articles/editorial-february-2015/ (no editorial oversight). Op-ed.

Your sources mostly either just quote him or paraphrase what he says. There's barely any discussion of him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Which of 22 references on that page are not notable?

It would seem none of the haters on this page can actually provide an example. BrowseTQ (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I invite you to read the content in the collapsible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 04:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar None of your opinions cited actual Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, policy is:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources.... of which there are 22, including the Guardian, the #1 journal in the UK, and Bangkok Post, the #1 journal in Thailand. BrowseTQ (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Suitable sources must meet all three criteria in WP:42. Jéské has assessed your sources and established that you have provided perhaps one suitable source. The journals may be reliable, but that's only one factor in suitability. You can keep asserting that there are 22 suitable sources if you like, but that's not going to get your draft accepted. The only way to get it accepted is to locate sources that are actually suitable and base the draft on those. Meadowlark (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay brilliant we have established most of the 22 sources are reliable.

Now who can explain why this article is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and wasn't knee-jerk rejected by editors with a personal axe to grind instead of following policy?

Also that is not "my draft" not my circus, not my monkeys. BrowseTQ (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You're the one banging the table for it, so it is your draft in the sense that you are the one pushing it thru.

Be aware that selectively reading people's responces does not help you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

A suitable source must meet all three criteria in WP:42. Reliable is one criteria.

Every review of a draft takes time and energy from a reviewer, all reviewers are experienced editors volunteering to do this, and there are thousands of drafts waiting to be reviewed. Once we reach the point where a draft has been sent back for changes multiple times, and the author of the draft is either unable or unwilling to provide suitable sources - again, a suitable source is reliable and independent and significant coverage - then the draft gets rejected. Either the suitable sources don't exist, or the author cannot find them, and either way that draft cannot be accepted. Going through the process over and over is wasting everyone's time.

Sometimes suitable sources turn up weeks, months, or years later. Once those are incorporated into the draft, the rejecting reviewer can release it back into the AfC pool or accept it themselves if they think it's ready. We're not saying 'this subject can never have a Wikipedia article', we're saying 'it's now clear that this attempt is not going to work'. Meadowlark (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I would consider taking a look but I see there is quite a bit of WP:TE in this discussion that is bordering on WP:PACT. CNMall41 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

7 people in this discussion, not a single explanation yet why this page is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" only passive aggressive and hypocritical comments pretending that the sources are not notable, despite being from multiple of the top journals in the world. BrowseTQ (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You are being paid -- NOPE

The references are not reliable -- NOPE (Guardian, Bangkok Post etc)

Next they will say this page was AI generated.

Goal posts keep moving, Wikipedia policy is ignored, just gate-keeping by overzealous admin if you ask me. BrowseTQ (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Not everyone here is an admin. Yes, we do gatekeep against inappropriate content, and do not apologize for this. You have dived right in to the most challenging thing to do on Wikipedia; creating articles is not recommended before obtaining experience and knowledge by editing existing articles first.

We've told you- source by source- why your sources are inappropriate, but you insist that they are. It would be like building a house without a foundation and being upset with the code enforcement officer who tells you the house is structurally unsound and will fall down.

Consider what is more likely- that you as an inexperienced user are right, or several experienced users all telling you the same thing are right. If you have no conflict of interest, you are free to(in a few days) disregard this process and move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself. But be aware that doing so will almost certainly lead to a deletion discussion and, if the article is deleted, will be harder to recreate later. 331dot (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I see no evidence this page was LLM-generated. That does not mean the page is acceptable given the sourcing woes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

07:31, 5 October 2026 review of submission by Studiofoundling

• Studiofoundling (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dan Pinchbeck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've had the page rejected twice by different reviewers saying they thought it was AI generated. This is absolutely not the case. In both instances I've asked the reviewers to give specific examples of where they think the problem is so it can be edited. Neither have responded. I'm happy to do what editing is required to fix any issues with the submission but makes it impossible.

To be absolutely clear, no AI was used in the page. I can't even work out which sections they are referring to. Is there any appeals process to get someone else to look at it?

And does the community have any guidelines on reviewers rejecting without providing any evidence to back up the accusation that AI has been used? It seems spurious and lazy to just throw that around without being willing to enter into a discussion about it...

Thanks Studiofoundling (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Studiofoundling Using the whole url breaks the header formatting which provides a link to the draft; I've foxed this.

Did you use an AI on it in any capacity?

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

Pinging EaglesFan37 and Sulfurboy. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to Dan Pinchbeck? 331dot (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes I work at Studio Foundling but didn't make the Wikipedia entry. Studiofoundling (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying about the distinction between declined and rejected. I didn't just want to resbumit without clearing this up, as the page states it's likely to be declined again without fixing the issues. Studiofoundling (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - no AI was used at any point on any of the submission. Studiofoundling (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's the same group of users saying the same thing about every question:

Either the page was AI generated, or accusing someone of getting money to write it, or saying the sources are not notable, none of these users are actually following Wikipedia policy. BrowseTQ (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Yep seems the same 3-4 users insult every submission on this page without reading the material. BrowseTQ (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

07:48, 5 October 2026 review of submission by Apalsidhu12

• Apalsidhu12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:A Pal Sidhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have updated the A Pal Sidhu draft with additional career, musical style, discography, and reference information. The draft is currently awaiting review.

Could you please review the updated draft when possible? I understand that reviews may take time, and I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Apalsidhu12 (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to ask for a review once you've submitted a draft. Submission places the draft in a queue. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

We do not accept requests for expedited reviews. It is in the queue and will be reviewed when someone gets to it. Review times can take up to 5+ weeks at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's likely to be declined quickly, as you have no sources.

Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

11:15, 5 October 2026 review of submission by CY Rower

• CY Rower (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Samuel Alexander Woods III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you show me which citations don't meet the requirements? CY Rower (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Which 3 sources do you have which, in your estimation, best meet all 3 of the requirements at WP:42? Athanelar (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

11:54, 5 October 2026 review of submission by CeeJay76

• CeeJay76 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Christian James (director). (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a declared conflict of interest regarding Draft:Christian James (director) (I am the subject). The draft has been declined three times, most recently for not showing that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion for people.

I have revised the draft to remove weaker sources and now cite independent reviews of three feature films, including Kim Newman in Screen International (Stalled) and on his own site (Fanged Up), Eye for Film, Starburst, Love Horror and Dread Central. Freak Out is also documented as a North American premiere at Fantasia 2004. I believe this fits WP:NCREATIVE (a significant work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews).

Could an experienced editor tell me specifically: 1. Whether reviews of the subject's films count here, or whether coverage of the person himself is required under WP:BASIC. 2. Which of the current references are considered inadequate. 3. What additional sourcing would satisfy reviewers.

Thank you for your help. CeeJay76 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

12:35, 5 October 2026 review of submission by Maksiosmf

• Maksiosmf (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Szymon Sidor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have substantially revised the draft following the previous rejection. I removed the promotional and portfolio-style material and reduced the article to information supported by published sources. The revised draft focuses mainly on Szymon Sidor's involvement in Olimpedia and his participation in Check IT 2026, with citations to the relevant sources. Could an experienced editor please review the revised draft and advise whether it now meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, or what further changes would be necessary? Thank you. Maksiosmf (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Your draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered for inclusion; it has also been tagged for deletion for being overtly promotional. Athanelar (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

13:26, 5 October 2026 review of submission by Kaj122

• Kaj122 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Leslie Pick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having trouble finding independent sources about a notable academic. The vast majority of information about her is from the University of Maryland where she works, or her own published work. There are very few news stories about her. Does anyone have any advice for where else to look? She has contributed a lot to the field of entomology so I think it makes sense for her to have a page here. Kaj122 (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPROF. You don't necessarily need news reports. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

So instead of trying to find additional sources, I can delete any sources that do not count as independent, and then the draft should be accepted? Kaj122 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You still need to show that Pick is a notable academic. The awards don't contribute to that unless the awards themselves have articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Grammy Award). WP:NPROF explains how you can show notability. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I was able to link 2 of her honors to Wikipedia articles, so I think she meets criteria 3 for elected member of a society and criteria 5 for being a distinguished professor and a chair. Thanks so much for your help! Is there any other advice you can give or changes that I can make before I resubmit for review? Kaj122 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

14:02, 5 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53473-44

• ~2026-53473-44 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ON Fight School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want this article to get accepted please ~2026-53473-44 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place to advertise or promote what I assume is your fight school. See WP:YESPROMO. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

17:48, 5 October 2026 review of submission by Greydorian123

• Greydorian123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adrian Casados (coachbuilder) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You guys can't tell stuff that has been hand written. Is this what wiki has turned into? Not viable because it's all gatekeepers against AI that can't tell the difference? Greydorian123 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we can tell the difference. Don't lie about using AI on Wikipedia. It was obvious from the first edit on that draft. An AI either wrote it or polished it for you. AI-generated content is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The draft has been rejected, which means stop, the community's valuable donated time is not going to be wasted any further on this. You may appeal to the reviewer who rejected it if you can make a case for letting it be resubmitted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess I wont work for free to make articles on wiki then, oh no! Greydorian123 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Greydorian123: Three of your sources, despite purporting to be specific articles, point to website homepages - and one of those is Wikipedia itself, which we don't cite under any circumstance. AI has a tendency to point to website homepages when it hallucinates a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 03:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The one I investigated turns out to be real! Not even a single mention of Casados, though, so it's useless. Meadowlark (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Good, if your "work for free" involves pasting the output of an AI as you were doing, then we don't need such contributions. It just creates unnecessary work for others to clean up if you don't do it yourself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

19:13, 5 October 2026 review of submission by Tensor.AI

• Tensor.AI (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tensor Auto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tensor is a well established company with many media references. We'd love for it to be on Wikipedia. Is it because it was submitted by a company employee or do you have other advice on how to get published. The links to supporting 3rd party articles are backed up by many other sources. Should I add more sources? Tensor.AI (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

First, you will need to change your username so that it reflects you as an individual. Your real name is not required, must something unique to you. A username such as "JohnDoe of Tensor" would be acceptable. Only a single person should have access to and be operating your account.

Second, you will need to make a formal paid editing disclosure on your user page once your account is renamed.

Regarding your draft, Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its normal business activities, and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary by sources wholly unaffiliated with the company that describes what they view as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as its own importance. Can you see why this is challenging for a company employee to do? Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues; in short, you're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

19:41, 5 October 2026 review of submission by Rooster-James

• Rooster-James (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Morton Buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I'm a paid editor (disclosed on the draft and my user page) working on Draft:Morton Buildings. It was declined on August 19 under WP:NCORP, and the reviewer later clarified that significant coverage was the issue. I'd value a second opinion on my three strongest sources:

"Morton firm builds on ag foundation," The Pantagraph, June 21, 1994, page 21 – a full business feature on the company's history, diversification, manufacturing and national reach

John Throop, "Morton Buildings' success definitely not by the numbers," Journal Star, Sept. 3, 1996, pp. C1, C6 – a two-page feature entirely about the company

Steve Stein, "Refused to be fenced in," Journal Star, August 25, 2013, page 78 – a retrospective on the company's origins and evolution

All three are full-length features in independent newspapers, but each draws partly on interviews with company personnel. Do you think these could meet NCORP? If not, might the shortfall be depth, independence of content, or something else? I have other supporting sources, but these are my strongest. Thank you. Rooster-James (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Rooster-James I fixed the header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft:Morton Buildings – do my three best sources meet NCORP?"

Interviews are not independent sources, so those do not aid notability. Interviews can be used for other purposes, but not to establish notability. Most companies on Earth do not actually meet the definition of a notable company.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. In short, most company representatives fail at writing about their companies, especially as new users without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ~2026-40799-72 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

20:33, 5 October 2026 review of submission by SoniaCurates

• SoniaCurates (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Flávio da Silva Dutka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

SUBMISSÃO REJEITADA Could you clarify which passages or characteristics of the draft led to the assessment that it was based on a Master's thesis in Law? I am genuinely trying to understand the expected format: when factual information is presented, the text can resemble a CV, whereas a contextualized narrative might sound academic or like a thesis. What, specifically, would you consider an appropriate structure and level of detail for a neutral biographical article? Regarding the first draft, as previously stated, I did use AI to check for promotional language, as I wanted to avoid any risk, but the English text was subsequently proofread by a language specialist. For the second version, we conducted another review, also verified by her, and did not use AI at all. Therefore, I would really like to know which parts are considered problematic. SoniaCurates (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SoniaCurates.

What makes you think that somebody has said it was based on a Master's thesis? I can find nothing in either the decline messages or your user talk page that mentions any such thing.

Or is it your AI making things up? ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I would highly advise firing your AI and firing your language specialist. This comment and your draft is 100% AI generated and blatantly obvious at that. When you're ready to be honest about your AI usage and the discontinuance thereof, then we can go from there. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

21:35, 5 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53814-25

• ~2026-53814-25 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:CaseOh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

He is famous youtuber ~2026-53814-25 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Good for him.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, which means the community's valuable time cannot be wasted further on this topic. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

October 6

00:20, 6 October 2026 review of submission by Ducky Durand

• Ducky Durand (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Incendio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Incendio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I got a note before saving this draft that some or one of my references was unreliable. I vetted each one and copied the link from the source and pasted it into the article. I don't believe any of my sources are unreliable or incorrect. They are links from articles written by established papers or organizations. Can I get more clarification? Also if one source is in question is this going to stop the article from being accepted? Thank you for any help you can give me. Ducky Durand (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

As long as your sources demonstrate that your topic meets notability guidelines, the draft can be accepted. Unreliable sources can be removed after acceptance, though it is best if you remove them before. Since they're a band, the notability guideline to meet would be either WP:NBAND or possibly WP:GNG. guninvalid (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

For one, you don't have any in-line references, so it would not be accepted in its current state; you've just dropped the references like a giant heap of laundry at the end of the article. It's also clearly written by an LLM, and the pile of references includes things like digital store listings, which are not references. I agree with Helpful Raccoon; this is messy enough that if you still want to consider writing this article, you should start over and write it appropriately. It's going to be far more work to fix the current article than to rewrite it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

01:50, 6 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53675-19

• ~2026-53675-19 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Maxwell Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MrGeast5096 (December 18, 2008 - July 18, 2026) was an Asian-American Youtuber, innovator, and Musician. Geast was very into online internet, and social media technology, in which he became very good at technology. Geast was very into music in his later days before his passing, and became great with his new Youtube Channel, "Geast Alike". Geast profoundly enjoyed music, especially Musician Oliver Tree Nickell, and inspired Geast to create more music for fun. ~2026-53675-19 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Your draft was rejected and will not be reconsidered at this time. guninvalid (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I just rejected Draft:MrGeast, which was submitted by User:MrGeast123132. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

01:53, 6 October 2026 review of submission by Liryanmapa

• Liryanmapa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ryan Li (李志平) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

They rejected my personal Biography

Liryanmapa (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, your personal biography was rejected. This is an encyclopedia. If you'd like to write your personal biography, a social media site is the proper place for it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

02:49, 6 October 2026 review of submission by JaceMal

• JaceMal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marcus Hays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I worked on the page and tried my best to address all concerns. I have disclosed my COI at the talk page of the draft (please let me know if I need to do anything else in that regard).

The LLM writing: I checked it with an online tool and it showed 0%. I have also ensured everything is verified. To maintain neutral point of view, I have been intentional to include both positive and negative reviews in a balanced way.

May I please request someone to check the draft and my analysis of notability at the talk page. Any feedback will be helpful. There are more sources in print probably and I can find them if needed.

I also see some random text (maybe a broken template). I tried to fix it but didn't want to mess up other notices at top.

Thank you so much !

JaceMal (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You should disclose your COI on your user page too.

It seems you are also relying on the AI's own assessment of the draft it co-authored by claiming "everything is verified", which is false in at least three cases (a source says he's pursuing a degree not that he graduated, a source fails to mention Bob Mack and Coolio for the assertion citing it, and a quote attributed to Sonnet isn't attributed in the source). The prose does some name-dropping of sources, emphasizing that coverage exists rather than simply describing the coverage, which is typical of LLM writing.

We don't accept AI-generated content, period. Really it's best (and easier) to start from scratch. You can use an AI to help you find sources, but you must write the article yourself.

As for the random text, I confess I can't figure out how that's being generated by the template, but it certainly seems something is broken. I'd leave it alone for now; a reviewer isn't going to consider that when reviewing the draft. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist: yeah, that random text is from an AI generated submission template. The submission time (the ts= parameter) is not in the right format. It's possible to fix it, but as you say there's not much point in doing so in this draft. --bonadea contributions talk 06:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Why would you need to check if your own writing is AI generated? You wrote it yourself, did you not? You can just say it isn't AI generated. It's okay. guninvalid (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting that. And that is just me mixing up sources. There are two motor trends and then two Wired. Multiple LA times etc. It has been a bit confusing. I appreciate you taking time to review it though! I will disclose on user page and redo. JaceMal (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

04:37, 6 October 2026 review of submission by MarcelisDub

• MarcelisDub (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:J. O. Patterson Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

that should have gotten the power going MarcelisDub (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. If you think you can make a case for resubmitting it, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

05:10, 6 October 2026 review of submission by Aniabeigel

• Aniabeigel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joseph Kapelyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I am requesting a second opinion or re-review for Draft:Joseph Kapelyan. The draft was previously flagged for automated text filters, but I have since completely overhauled and rewritten the text manually in my own words. The updated draft has been waiting in the review queue for over a month. Could a volunteer please take a look? Thank you so much for your time! Aniabeigel (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted it for review. There are thousands of other drafts, and no queue. You'll just have to wait for a reviewer to get to it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

thank you! I will wait @Anachronist Aniabeigel (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

05:27, 6 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51483-79

• ~2026-51483-79 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of auto advertising characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone could help make this page for me. ~2026-51483-79 (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

No. The draft has been rejected, meaning the community will not spend any more of its valuable time on it. Find something else on Wikipedia to work on. You clearly did not read the reviewer comments or the policies and guidelines they linked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

06:27, 6 October 2026 review of submission by Parimatrix

• Parimatrix (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Ashwani Kumar Mishra (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Ashwani Kumar Mishra (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please help me improve this and what changes should I make? Parimatrix (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You have no reliable sources; we need to know where you are getting your information from. Please see Referencing for beginners.

They would not meet the definition of a notable politician as they do not hold public office/have not won election to public office. You would need to show that they need the broader notable person definition, by summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage- meaning critical analysis and commentary- have chosen on their own to say about them and what makes them important/significant/influential. If you are asserting that they are a notable political commentator, you need sources that discuss what makes them so, sources wholly unconnected to him.(no interviews or press releases) 331dot (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

06:33, 6 October 2026 review of submission by Kefassssss

• Kefassssss (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dannyzee25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why it get rejected Kefassssss (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The notice must remain on the draft.

You have not shown that this person is a notable person, by summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about them. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

13:40, 6 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-53787-99

• ~2026-53787-99 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gary W. Keefe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looking for help with submission ~2026-53787-99 (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

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

You don't say what help you are seeking. The draft was rejected, meaning it won't be considered further at this time, although that may partially be because it was resubmitted without changes. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

13:50, 6 October 2026 review of submission by Dashti08

• Dashti08 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Dashti08/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’d like to learn how to make a proper wiki page on my father as a gift and to improve his career. I apologize if it’s not appropriate or helpful, though it would be a nice touch. Please aid my page in any way. Many thanks -Dashti08 Dashti08 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not for those purposes. Wikipedia has no interest in aiding anyone's career.

Please read about how a article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one, and it potentially would hurt, not help, a career. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

15:44, 6 October 2026 review of submission by SapphireGaming11411

• SapphireGaming11411 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ZTF J1406+1422 B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know what i'm doing wrong. Can I have help? The decline thing didnt explain it very well, and I don't personally see how I can improve my article. This is my first article, and i'd love to get it approved. If i need more reputable sources, there's no shortage of them. And i firmly believe that the smallest known brown dwarf is notable considering the prestige it has. I would love help and I am open to critiscism. SapphireGaming11411 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Have you read through WP:Notability (astronomical objects) which is linked in the decline notices? Athanelar (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

yes, I have. SapphireGaming11411 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Upon re reading WP:Notability (astronomical objects) it does fall into criteria number three as far as I can tell. If there's anything else I can do, Please tell me. SapphireGaming11411 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Of the sources you've provided so far;

1. Gives significant coverage of the "black widow" system as a whole, but doesn't seem to give sufficient focus on B to qualify as significant coverage.

2. Ditto

3. Is just a database entry, no significant commentary as required by criterion 3.

4. Same for 1&2.

Why don't you write an article about the whole black widow system instead of this one specific component of it? The sources seem to give more than enough information to justify that. Athanelar (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, Sure. I'll try that. SapphireGaming11411 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Harrison Healthcare – are these sources enough for notability?

Hello. I'm a paid editor for Harrison Healthcare (disclosed on my user page). Draft:Harrison Healthcare was declined in the past. I've since rewritten it myself, using only independent sources. Before I resubmit, could someone tell me whether these sources meet the notability requirement for companies (WP:NCORP)?

• The Tyee (Feb 3, 2023): https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/02/03/BC-Launches-New-Legal-Action-Privatized-Health-Care/
• CBC News (Feb 3, 2023): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/injunction-sought-against-vancouver-s-harrison-healthcare-for-contravention-of-medical-services-act-1.6735226
• The Logic (Apr 6, 2023): https://thelogic.co/news/b-c-in-talks-with-harrison-healthcare-telus-health-on-billing-models/
• CBC News (Jul 28, 2023): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/health-canada-harrison-healthcare-calgary-alberta-ndp-1.6920247
• The Canadian Press, via Prince George Citizen (Jun 19, 2024): https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/bc-news/health-firm-settles-with-bc-medical-commission-on-extra-billing-for-health-services-9107158

Thank you. Aluisstairs (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You are asking us to review it before it gets reviewed; this will just duplicate volunteer effort; if you would like feedback, please resubmit the draft.

I would suggest that you read WP:PAIDADVICE, though. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I also note that on the 23rd of June you made an edit stating that you "removed all use of LLMs", meaning you are aware of WP:NOLLM. It is curious then that your latest edit once again has signs of being AI generated. Athanelar (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, can you tell me if the sources are notable enough? Aluisstairs (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no point in having that discussion if the prose is AI generated, because AI generated prose can't be accepted. Athanelar (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You can try assessing the sources yourself, using the criteria we use: WP:42 and WP:ORGTRIV. A good source will meet all three criteria in WP:42, and will not be listed in the examples of trivial coverage. An important point to note is that sources based on interviews with people closely connected to the company (founder, owner, corporate team, employees, etc) are not independent and cannot be used as good sources. If you have multiple good sources - usually 3 or more - the draft has a good chance of approval. Meadowlark (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

18:02, 6 October 2026 review of submission by Theman2432323

• Theman2432323 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brock Lewandowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

pls he needs this page to get notabitly from his school website Theman2432323 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

This student does not meet the definition of a notable person. You provide no independent reliable sources like news reports about his importance.

If a school is asking you to do this, I would be very interested in talking to whomever is asking this of you, because they should not be. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

he is notable Theman2432323 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You have provided nothing that indicates that. Why is he important enough to be included in a global encyclopedia of human knowledge? He seems to be a talented and bright young man, but that doesn't make him notable. If you just want to tell about him, that is exactly what social media is for. Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. It summarizes coverage that already exists, it does not lead the way. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

18:54, 6 October 2026 review of submission by John Nasser

• John Nasser (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kevin Stone (Hypnotist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was declined for AI, but the text is two human-written sentences citing the LA Times. Could a reviewer please take a look at the specific text? John Nasser (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

John Nasser I fixed the header so it links to your draft as intended; the full title is needed, including the "Draft:" portion.

If you didn't use AI, okay, but the draft still would have been declined for notability; one source and two sentences is far from sufficient to establish notability. The draft does not need to be 100% complete to pass this process, but there should be at least three sources that provide significant coverage(meaning critical analysis and commentary) about this hypnotist. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the link header and clarifying the notability requirement. I understand that the draft needs at least three independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I will work on finding additional independent media sources to expand the draft before resubmitting. Thank you for your guidance! John Nasser (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance! I have expanded the draft with three independent secondary news citations (including two Los Angeles Times pieces and a Monsters and Critics article covering his work) and resubmitted the draft for review. John Nasser (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources added are useful. The two addition sources are one that just quotes him, and the other simply note in passing that he was visited by people in a TV program. These aren't independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage; the goal isn't just to find mentions of Stone, but where Stone is covered in-depth independently. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

20:46, 6 October 2026 review of submission by SourianBrandy

• SourianBrandy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jake Ehrenreich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft, Draft:Jake Ehrenreich, has now been declined twice for notability, and before revising or resubmitting again I'd really appreciate some guidance. The first reviewer said there wasn't enough independent significant coverage of Ehrenreich himself, although he also commented that Jake's stage show A Jew Grows in Brooklyn was likely notable. I tried to address that by adding more published sources, including substantial independent features about Ehrenreich in the Times Herald-Record, Playbill, New York Jewish Week/JTA, QNS/TimesLedger and other publications. I thought these were the kind of independent sources the first reviewer was asking for. The second reviewer now says I may have gone overboard and included too many interviews or primary sources. I understand that concern and don't want to simply keep adding references. I'm also wondering whether WP:ENTERTAINER applies. The draft documents Broadway productions, an international tour of Beatlemania, the title role in Jonah at The Public Theater for Joseph Papp, and creating and starring in A Jew Grows in Brooklyn, as well as a published memoir and a recording that received professional coverage in Billboard and DownBeat. I sincerely appreciate everyone donating their time, and I'm not trying to argue with either reviewer. I just want to understand the right approach before revising again. Should I focus on the strongest independent sources and remove some of the others? And does WP:ENTERTAINER apply in this case? I look forward to hearing back. Thanks so much. SourianBrandy (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Please delete my draft⁠

Hello, I am the creator of this draft: [Draft:Abdullah Shuaib]. I would like it deleted but I cannot do it myself. Could an administrator please delete it?⁠ Assekoas (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

It has been deleted :) GGOTCC 22:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

October 7

03:23:11, 7 October 2026 review of submission by Communication Dives

• Communication Dives (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!
  • Communication Dives (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this is about your only draft (Rashmi Singh), this has already been rejected, and will not be considered in this form at this time. You were already told on this noticeboard why this was the case last week. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

04:21, 7 October 2026 review of submission by Doikcorridor

• Doikcorridor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jamon Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was denied for having LLM generated content when it was all hand written. If the parts which are suspected of being LLM generated could be identified to me, I can alter them. Doikcorridor (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Further, if there are any other changes that must be made, sources that are unreliable, or if he does not meet requirements for notability (which would be a little disappointing but hey what can you do) then that feedback would also be valuable thank you! Doikcorridor (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

05:28, 7 October 2026 review of submission by BMRayodeluna

• BMRayodeluna (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:International Circus Festival Elefant d'Or (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

A month ago, my draft for the International Circus Festival Elefant d'Or was declined twice based on LLM usage accusations. I have not used an LLM to assist me in any part of the process of creating this article, as it is a manual translation (and restructuring, after being called out on using bullet points to divide the content) of an article that I documented and wrote myself over the course of several months for the Spanish Wikipedia for the Wikiproject Circus of this language, to which I have contributed over the last years with several articles which are similar in depth and length to this one and which, again, are all documented and written by hand: es:Festival Internacional del Circo Elefante de Oro. I have translated it into French as well: fr:Festival international du cirque Éléphant d'Or. I keep both articles up to date with information about new editions of the festival manually. With most of my contributions being to the Spanish and the French Wikipedia, I can understand how posting a draft of this extension in the English Wikipedia might have drawn possible suspicion of LLM usage to it, but it is not the case. I am a licensed translator for these three languages and documentalist in training, and I contribute to Wikipedia precisely to practise my human skills.

Thank you very much for your help and your consideration of this problem. BMRayodeluna (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another; the English version tends to be stricter than others.

I think the issue may be that you are a "documentalist in training"; An LLM will usually just tell what the contents of a source are, and usually not in a good manner. One example of this I've seen someone give is that an LLM might write "contemporary reports describe how Abraham Lincoln was involved in a firearms incident at a public entertainment event" when a human would just write "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theater during a play". You didn't quite write in that style, but your draft largely just names the particulars of the festival. Wikipedia- at least this one- does not just document, it summarizes critical analysis and commentary about the topic.

I would focus less on describing the particulars of the festival and more on sources that describe in their view what makes it a notable event as the English Wikipedia defines one. Some of the draft also has no sources.

I will say that Guinness world records don't contribute to notability; they're usually considered just trivia. See WP:GUINNESS. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)