Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


Skip to top
Skip to bottom


June 22

[edit]

04:49, 22 June 2026 review of submission by Goleisureintl

[edit]

REASONS FOR REJECTION Goleisureintl (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a part of the reviewers feedback you were unsure about? In solidarity, nil nz 04:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia Goleisureintl (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer also left the following, more specific feedback:
We have an article on CT scan. We don't need articles on CT scanning of different body parts, unless there is particular encyclopaedic value in having them. We certainly do not need to have an article on CT scanning of specific body part in a particular location (besides, this draft doesn't even mention Navi Mumbai, so why is it in the title?!).
And to top it off, the sources seem to be hallucinated, since none of them actual return what it says in the citations. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
In solidarity, nil nz 04:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
what do i do now Goleisureintl (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Find something else to work on instead :) In solidarity, nil nz 05:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ok sure will do Goleisureintl (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 22 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34360-03

[edit]

How do I rewrite it in scratch? Could somebody help me on adding more information on this draft? What editors could I definitely invite with? How did you know this is LLM generated, by detection?

"Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism, and the World" ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-34360-03, can you tell us whether you used an LLM to generate the draft? By "write it from scratch" I mean research and write a draft manually, as we've done it for 25 years, by finding and reading secondary sources (there are a few reviews from reliable newspapers and magazines that you can use), then summarising them in your own words. Don't use an LLM at all for Wikipedia tasks. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 05:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I started from Gemini. If I did that, I could start all over again, and add my own analysis to the draft. I already found the sources and references of the book itself. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "started from Gemini"? Can you be more specific? Or share your prompts or chat logs here? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did use prompts from LLMs to create a whole draft Such as Introduction and Author, Thematic Analysis, Summary, Reception, and Trivia. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't want you doing that. See WP:LLM. This is a human written project and we want humans to do the work. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
331dot is right. Keep the sources and delete all the text. Reread the sources, maybe find some more with a search engine or library catalogue, then write the whole draft in your own words. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 12:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no detection too was needed, since it was quite clear that this was text spat out by an LLM/chatbot. In addition, even if you do completely rewrite the article yourself, we absolutely do not want your own analysis added. Wikipedia reports dispassionately what independent, reliable sources have said about notable subjects; we absolutely do not connect any dots ourselves, nor do we provide any independent analysis ourselves. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs @ClaudineChionh @331dot What I might do instead? ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Claudine Chionh's first response to you: research and write a draft manually, as we've done it for 25 years, by finding and reading secondary sources (there are a few reviews from reliable newspapers and magazines that you can use), then summarising them in your own words. --bonadea contributions talk 21:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 22 June 2026 review of submission by Rosan.Meyer

[edit]

Hi. My submission has been rejected due to unreliable resources, however all publications are peer reviewed and none have been included that are in the list of "unreliable resources". Please help, as in order to re-submit I need to have reliable sources, but all of them are. Kind Regards Rosan Rosan.Meyer (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a professional interest in this area, so I wouldn't want to review the article. However the problem appears to be WP:MEDRS. There is the allergen issue, and then there is the scoring technique. These can't be completely divorced from each other, clearly, but here rather a lot of the source material is based on the allergy side, and relatively little on the Score technique. Then the sources used for the allergen factors go rather heavily not to meta studies but to primary sourcing: original research on cow's milk allergic responses. See sources 9, 10 (but not 11) and 12. I would suggest you just focus on CoMISS itself, and not delve so much in to CMA. The sourcing for specifically CoMISS probably could do with some improvement, I can see 2 sources there, but again you need to focus on second stage analysis rather than original research. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosan.Meyer: just to add, as the most recent reviewer already commented, the draft should be more thoroughly referenced; that is what the first part of the decline reason "not adequately supported by reliable sources" refers to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the reply. I appreciate it. This is confusing factor for me, the article by standards for somebody that has published more than 150 peer reviewed articles in journals is adequately referenced. We have 21 references of peer reviewed publication, of these publications 12 are specific to CoMISS (so more than 50%). I can of course reduce the references on allergy side and just include the ones on CoMISS, but there are couple of associations (i.e. ESPGHAN ad DRACMA for example) that recommend using this tool, which will not be tool specific. Rosan.Meyer (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosan.Meyer Writing for Wikipedia is very different from academic writing. Journal articles are usually expected to contain original research and often rely heavily on primary sources, while Wikipedia articles should mainly summarize what secondary sources written by people unaffiliated with the topic have said about it. At first glance a lot of your sources about CoMISS are non-independent since they were written by the original developers of CoMISS, as well as primary since they present the results of new experiments; these non-independent primary sources should only be used sparingly. At the very least you need to replace the "citation needed" tags with citations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is very helpful Rosan.Meyer (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 22 June 2026 review of submission by Mountroof962

[edit]
Dismounted: draft deleted, editor blocked for making promotional edits. (non-admin closure) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like assistance in reviewing and submitting a draft article about Mount Roofing and Structures Pvt Ltd. The article aims to provide encyclopedic information about the company's operations, manufacturing capabilities, industry recognition, and contributions to India's building materials sector, supported by reliable sources. Mountroof962 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft G11'd, user blocked) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

15:26, 22 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34028-35

[edit]

Is he notable enough for the English Wikipedia? German editors seem to think he is notable enough for their wiki.

The German version is at de:Ulrich Meierfrankenfeld. At de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/22._Juni_2026#Ulrich_Meierfrankenfeld, the editors say he is influential enough.

According to WP:NACADEMIC, I think he is notable enough for the English Wikipedia due to #1: "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". ~2026-34028-35 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-34028-35 - if you think C1 applies then this needs to come out better in the draft, and be sourced accordingly. I can see what he has done, and how, but no evidence that this has had a significant impact. Comparing Wiki language versions doesn't really work. Each Wiki has its own rule and own interpretations, it's quite normal that someone may qualify in one language and not in another. Under English wikipedia, if there isn't a clear-cut pass on WP:NACADEMIC then we need general notability criteria to apply, so the WP:GOLDENRULE as mentioned in the previous decline. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just resubmitted; I have lots of good evidence that his work should easily fulfill C1. ~2026-34028-35 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 22 June 2026 review of submission by GordafardiKaveh

[edit]

All sources are reliable sources. I am assuming the nature of the source might be the issue. Would you be kind enough to provide more details so we can better understand how to improve? Thank you. GordafardiKaveh (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GordafardiKaveh is that the royal "we" or are you representing the subject via an organisation? The flat requirements here are the WP:GOLDENRULE and the need for inline reliable sources for every fact that can be questioned, not a heap of less-than-relevant sources at the end. So you need to read WP:YFA, then WP:BLP, then WP:REFB. It is not a 10 minute job, but you need truly independent and reliable sources (journalists, academics, writers) discussing the subject with significant coverage. And journalists don't like writing about other journalists, on the whole. If you don't have that to begin with, then you should consider other ways to help out Wikipedia. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GordafardiKaveh: Who is "we"? What is the nature of your association with Mahyar Tousi?
Many of your sources are not reliable. We don't cite Wikipedia, for example. And you have a lot of YouTube sources, for which reliability depends on who uploaded it.
Inadequate citations are grounds for a reviewer declining a draft. Right now you have zero citations, just a bibliography list at the end. See WP:CITE for instructions on citing sourced properly. Also as GhrysGalley wrote, you need multiple sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule.
And don't use AI to write for you. That isn't allowed on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 22 June 2026 review of submission by KyleSettlemyer2000

[edit]

What do I need to edit before submitting again? Thanks! KyleSettlemyer2000 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, rejection is the end of the line for a draft. If you are able to address the concerns raised by prior reviewers, you may edit the draft to do so and then ask the rejecting reviewer directly to reconsider the rejection. You have not demonstrated that this band meets at least one aspect of WP:BAND, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources- for a band that should involve critical analysis and commentary about the band's music. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @KyleSettlemyer2000.
The draft was rejected, after five failed submissions: the rejecting editor evidently felt that if you hadn't met the various requirements listed (and linked) in the decline notices, you weren't going to be able to.
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.
What stands out for me about the draft is the endless list of people they have performed with. Notability is not inherited, and the lists look like somebody trying to substitute quantity for quality. Wikipedia doesn't care who they performed with, unless somebody wholly independent wrote at some length about it. You would need several sources which each met all the criteria in WP:42.
If you have several such sources, then an article may be possible, and you would then need to approach the reviewer who rejected the draft and ask them to reconsider. I suspect that if you have such sources you would need to nuke the entire draft and start again, summarising what those sources said, and little else. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

[edit]

time I found a little more reliable source showing she is recongizable. https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/cosmic-princess-kaguya-netflix-anime-streaming-debut-trailer-1236624308/ https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=137736 https://www.anime-expo.org/talent/ryan-bartley-3/ https://toonamifaithful.com/toonami-faithful-interviews-ryan-bartley-at-anime-expo-2019/ The subject clearly meets the criteria outlined in WP:PERSON and WP:ENT. She has received significant secondary coverage in high-quality, reliable, independent sources with Variety is the strongest evidence. this is to create a page for Ryan Bartley, American voice actress. ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how you are supposed to be propose an article? ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-36361-89: you don't 'propose' an article, at least not here; you draft one, and then submit it for review. Start by going to WP:YFA, where there's a wizard which takes you through the draft creation process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What wizard? @DoubleGrazing ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The one that starts by clicking on the big blue button with the text "Create your draft with the Article Wizard!", approx half way down the YFA page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2026-36361-89.
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.
Of the three sources you mention above, the first simply contains a mention of Bartley, and says nothing in depth; the second is a bio that almost certainly comes from her or her agents, and so is not independent, and the third is an interview, so is not independent.
None of these three will contribute in any way to establishing that she is notable, which depends on sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Until then no article will be created, how many reliable sources do I need to show proof? I would also like to get help finding the sources to help create Ryan Bartley. @DoubleGrazing @ColinFine ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get involved in researching sources or drafting content here at the help desk. On a more general note, if you want to write a draft about Bartley (whoever that may be), you will have to put in the work; no one is going to do that for you, unless maybe by some miraculous coincidence you happen to find another editor with an interest in this person specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @~2026-36361-89.
You need several (normally at least three), not just reliable sources, but independent, secondary, reliable, substantial sources. Again, see WP:42.
And as DoubleGrazing says, it's you that wants an article about her, so it's you that needs to do the work. Absolutely your first task should have been finding the sources, because if you cannot find them, that's a pretty clear sign that she does not currently meet the criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She is an American voice actress, Ryan Bartley. ~2026-36361-89 (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

[edit]

03:31, 23 June 2026 review of submission by Schenr

[edit]

Can I please submit this draft for review? Schenr (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Schenr: you can, and you may; just click on the blue 'submit' button. However, that will be pointless at this stage, because the draft only cites the company's own website as a source, which contributes nothing towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do I have to do to get this successfully published? What information is required, or what is currently missing?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Schenr (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Schenr I suggest you read WP:Advice for paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Schenr: the process for drafting based on appropriate sources is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. And the notability guideline which your draft, and more specifically the sources it is based on, is WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Schenr You write that you are "affiliated" with the company; if you are employed by the company, you need to say this specifically according to the paid editing policy; employment is considered paid editing due to the general salary, you do not need to be specifically paid to or instructed to edit. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 23 June 2026 review of submission by JoeyS31

[edit]

I have followed advice about description and citations however this page continues to be rejected. This is a key contributor to the vacation club industry with an interesting, entrepreneurial background which is why the history should be published and set straight. I would appreciate any help to share a factual version. JoeyS31 (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Also see WP:PAIDADVICE. These explain why most company representatives fail in their efforts to write about their companies. You are just telling of the routine business activities of your company, not significant coverage- meaning critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by others wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about the company- in other words, how it is worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Most companies on Earth do not meet that definition. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 23 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-36240-01

[edit]

I'd like to know specifics of why my article was declined. We have had genuine coverage in the media, and are a regionally significant organisation. What sort of citations etc do I need to provide? ~2026-36240-01 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-36240-01: I can find no article Culmex Construction or draft Draft:Culmex Construction, and you have no prior edit history under this temporary account, so I cannot do much to help – could you please check the title of the draft or article you're referring to?
And/or if you have a registered user account, please log into it and post a reply so I can look into that account's edit history. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I found it at User:JPWMoore/sandbox (presumably this TA is JPWMoore) Athanelar (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well done, thanks @Athanelar!
@~2026-36240-01 / @JPWMoore: your draft cites only one secondary source, and that appears in a hyper-local publication and doesn't really provide significant coverage about the company; the rest of the citations are all to primary sources. None of these contribute towards notability per the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually click on the citations your will see that the other source if the Federation of Master Builders website, which is a secondary source, and a very reputable one within the industry. The other secondary resource is in reference to the company's involvement in a nationally-televised program, albeit from a local media publication. I found nothing in the notability guidelines that said local publications are not acceptable as sources - in fact Wikipedia has many thousands of local citations. To call it hyper-local is also to misunderstand the nuances - this publication is the biggest in our immediate region. JPWMoore (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JPWMoore: thank you for explaining our notability criteria to me, I do appreciate it.
The Federation of Master Builders may be a third party source, but it isn't a secondary one; nor are the others, apart from the Tiverton Gazette piece.
And no, there is no rule against using local sources, but if all you have is local sources, the presumption of notability is at best borderline and quite easily rebutted. In any case, a single secondary source is not enough to satisfy the WP:NCORP guideline, we need a minimum of three, of which at least one, ideally more, should be regional or national media outlets. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you represent Wikipedia then I would expect more professional conduct than using sarcasm. It was your error in the first place to call what you are now explaining as a "third party" source a primary source, when it is not. The local publication did provide significant coverage, but it is kept behind a paywall on the website cited. JPWMoore (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "represent" Wikipedia any more than anyone else. I volunteer my time here, like most editors do, that is those who aren't here to promote their business.
I normally try not to play the 'experience card', but I do find it remarkable that you, with half a dozen edits to your name, presume to lecture us on what is, or isn't, a primary source. Especially considering that you don't seem to understand the concept.
Anyway, I'm done here. Someone else will deal with your queries going forward. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone responding to you is a volunteer, spending their own free time to improve Wikipedia. The FMB is a third party source, and also a primary source. DoubleGrazing's assessment was not an error.
You need to find sources which each meet all three criteria of WP:42, and which also do not fail WP:CORPTRIV. Sources based on interviews are not considered independent, so the Tiverton Gazette doesn't help you (it's also not in-depth; it tells us basically nothing about the company). The FMB is not significant, in-depth, or independent coverage. The Scaffolding Association also fails all three criteria of WP:42.
We understand that this is not what you want to hear. No doubt your company is important to you, and very notable from your point of view. But you simply do not have the sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. 99.9% of the companies in the world never qualify. It's not a value judgement on you or your work. It's an assessment of what you've presented against the requirements hammered out by the Wikipedia community (again: all volunteers) over 20-something years. Meadowlark (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JPWMoore There's also the matter of WP:SIGCOV/WP:CORPTRIV. The FMB source merely confirms that the company exists and lists some of its everyday business activities; this does not rise to the standard necessary to demonstrate notability as outlined in the WP:CORPDEPTH section of WP:NCORP
All other issues aside, the fact of the matter is that your reason for being here is obviously not out of a passionate desire to contribute to this encyclopedia, but rather because you want to tell the world about your company; that's a form of promotion, which is explicitly not allowed on Wikipedia, and so it's very hard for any amount of sources or 'neutral' writing to overcome the fact that your reason for being here is at odds with the purpose of the project. I suggest you read (and heed) my advice for paid editors. Athanelar (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many people carry "a passionate desire to contribute". I disclosed my connection, and was creating a page to show the company's notoriety around its involvement with a nationally televised program. If Wikipedia is gate-kept in such an unprofessional and abrasive manner, then it is not a platform that I'd like to be involved with. JPWMoore (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one has been unprofessional and abrasive with you. We're being direct and honest to avoid misunderstanding. Do you want us to tell you what you want to hear, or do you want us to be honest? Please know that we have a very broad definition of promotion here, broader than in common use. We consider a company telling about itself and its routine activities to be promotional.
Conflict of interest editing is not recommended at the first task a new user performs; you're finding out why- it usually leads to frustration and anger. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you walk into a Starbucks and ask them to sell you some patio furniture you're likely to be met with the same "abrasive gatekeeping". Yes, I am "gatekeeping" to the extent that I'm explaining to you that Wikipedia is not the place to do what you're trying to do.
As for how many people actually have a passionate desire to contribute; everybody responding to you here is a volunteer. I have just shy of 6,000 edits to my name. 331dot has over 200,000. You're not the first paid editor I've seen who struggles to believe it, but yes, most of us are in fact here just because we want to be. Athanelar (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All you've presented is sourcing that the company exists, not that the company is notable. Being a member of the Federation of Master Builders isn't some special achievement of note, there are some 1300 different affiliated businesses in the UK in just roofers alone. This may very well be an excellent construction company, but Wikipedia is not going to have a half-million Wikipedia articles for every excellent construction company in this world.
If you want an article for this company, you need to find independent coverage of this company, that is reliable, and provides significant information about the company. That doesn't mean database entries or passing mentions or local tidbits. If these things can be found, an article can be written. If not, then one can't be. There's nothing wrong with not being notable; almost every company and every person on the world is not Wikipedia-notable, and that includes billions of good people and millions of good companies. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 23 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-36468-26

[edit]

I've done all things right. Tell me what i'm doing wrong and what needs to be done right and how i can do it. I want this article published ~2026-36468-26 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The reviewers have already told you what was needed; if you've done everything you can, then this man does not merit an article at this time. Rejection is the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:11, 23 June 2026 review of submission by Aramhayr

[edit]

Dear Guninvalid, thank you for reviewing and commenting. I am not going to appeal or resubmit this article anymore. Just curious: "Why Philip Hartman is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia?" Aramhayr (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aramhayr: That article was never drafted. (First edit 2012/Mar/29; WP:ACPERM is from 2018.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Object Class: Drygioni 18:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Aramhayr. See other stuff exists. I have tagged that article for its lack of secondary sources and possibly failure of notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hartman has a far stronger claim to passing WP:NPROF than Grobman; he won a Guggenheim Fellowship (explicitly listed as award that passes WP:NPROF#C2) and wrote a widely used textbook Ordinary Differential Equations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, @Helpful Raccoon. Obviously I only thought about WP:GNG, rather than the Academic criteria (which I don't really understand). I see you therefore appropriately removed my {{notability}} tag. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, WP:NACADEMIC is a completely different beast from the GNG, and it's mainly because academics don't generally make the news barring egregious misconduct or ethical lapses. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Object Class: Drygioni 16:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point was in favor of approving article on Grobman, rather than questioning Hartman's eligibility. They lived in a completely different worlds and in those worlds operated in completely different environments: Hartman in academia, Grobman - in computer engineering (but continuing his research in differential equations). His contributions to technical diagnostics and early computer programming (still considering the environment) is somewhat in par with his contribution to the theory of differential equations (which is not just my subjective opinion as I tried to convey in the article). However, I understand the importance of formal eligibility requirements. Aramhayr (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

[edit]

05:18, 24 June 2026 review of submission by Hindiedits

[edit]

When my article get review? 

Hindiedits (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hindiedits: your draft was reviewed on the 9th. It won't be reviewed again, until you resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 24 June 2026 review of submission by BioEditor2026

[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review this draft.

I understand the concerns regarding notability. However, I would like to respectfully note that the article is based on multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, including a feature published by *The National*, as well as coverage from *Al Bayan*, *Al Ittihad*, *Emarat Al Youm*, *Khaleej Times Arabic*, *Al Ain News*, and other independent publications.

These sources discuss Dr. Abdul Salam Al Belushi's professional career, his involvement in robotic-assisted spine surgery, and the recognition he has received within the medical field. In addition, the draft includes references to peer-reviewed academic publications and independent media coverage spanning several years.

I am continuing to improve the draft by refining the sourcing, formatting citations properly, and ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's notability and biography policies. I would therefore be grateful if the draft could be reconsidered or allowed additional time for further development before any final decision is made.

Thank you again for your review and guidance. BioEditor2026 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BioEditor2026: please don't use AI to generate your talk page comments, drafts, or anything else for Wikipedia. Nobody wants to read blurb cobbled together by some text-prediction-algorithm.
Your draft has been declined again, as you probably noticed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello , Thank You for your respond. I am a beginner at this field i need to learn more about this field sorry for inconvenience BioEditor2026 (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BioEditor2026 Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, it is not recommended as the first task a new user performs. Please see the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity(and can be restored if deleted, via WP:REFUND), simply edit your draft at least once every six months to keep it active. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Thank You for your cooperation and understanding BioEditor2026 (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell your connection to this man, you took a professional looking image of him where he posed for you. Please see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to inform you that my account is personal and I am interested in blogging and enriching content, my mother tongue is not English, I am currently a beginner in this field and I am trying to learn how to write content and link pages My goal of working on this character and why I chose it is a challenge for myself to show new content and introduce the works of characters who have distinctive works but they are obscure and do not highlight them although they have many contributions and have an international award. I know this Dr from a friend but i don't have any relationship with him i take all information from social media and search engine. Even his picture i choose one without copy write for free use. BioEditor2026 (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an image "without copyright". Images can have the copyright released, or one compatible with Wikipedia's, but they cannot be without one. Where did you obtain the image? It must have an explicit statement of copyright, you cannot assume. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 24 June 2026 review of submission by KingOfUNESCO

[edit]

What is the difference between this draft page (rejected) and the currently extant pages (see, e.g., Design Cities (UNESCO) and City of Music (UNESCO) ] KingOfUNESCO (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KingOfUNESCO I fixed your links, the whole url is not needed.
We judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. See other stuff exists. Your only sources are the organization itself, not independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 24 June 2026 review of submission by Acaeton

[edit]

This article was rejected because the "major themes" section needed citation; but there are citations that support that section. What can I do to help fix this so that this article can be accepted for publication? Acaeton (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.
You wrote "Exordia has received generally positive reviews from various authors and publications" and cite it, but you don't say what those reviews specifically said. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 24 June 2026 review of submission by Connectbcbswy

[edit]

My submission was rejected because it read too much like an advertisement. I do work for BCBSWY and did disclose that in my submission. I modeled our entry on the one that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has published. I felt like our version was more thorough, with better sources, and unbiased. Could you please advise on how to proceed? Thank you! Connectbcbswy (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header to link to the draft as intended.
The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or draft 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.
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about themselves, their offerings, and their routine business activities. A Wikipedia article about an organization must primarily 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. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues, and see WP:PAIDADVICE.
You need to change your username so it represents you as the account operator, not your company. Please go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Your real name is not required. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan didn't publish anything. Independent editors wrote an encyclopedia article about Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. And as as model, while it's not exactly a great article (if you must use a model use WP:GA or WP:FA articles that have received high levels of scrutiny) it is quite superior; you're confusing promotional cruft with thoroughness, and the Wyoming draft reads like a pamphlet that would be issued by the subject. Two of the cites are to the organization itself, a third mostly quotes people from the organization and isn't about BCBSWY, and while the big blue boot looks cool, coverage of it is literally half the independent, reliable sourcing about BCBSWY.
In other words, the draft is too promotional and the sources are too sparse. I think you may have written the article WP:BACKWARDS, meaning that you wrote the article -- though I also suspect an LLM did some heavy lifting, which is not allowed on English Wikipedia -- and then slapped on sources. That's not a good way to establish notability. Start with only the sources that are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about BCBSWY and then write only about what they say. Once notability is established, only then ought you be carefully adding uncontroversial facts in primary sources, and very carefully. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 24 June 2026 review of submission by MaryG art

[edit]

Assistance requested: Draft:Vassiliki Theodorakidi (Resume tone resolved) Hello, My draft for Draft:Vassiliki Theodorakidi was recently declined by reviewer Helpful Raccoon because it "read like a resume".

I took the feedback very seriously and have just completely overhauled the draft to address these concerns: 1. I converted all the promotional-looking bulleted lists (exhibitions, awards, media) into strict, neutral encyclopedic prose. 2. I removed the promotional-sounding conceptual headings to ensure a neutral point of view (NPOV). 3. I have officially disclosed my Conflict of Interest (COI) on the draft's Talk page, as I am assisting the artist with the technical layout. I believe the subject meets the Notability criteria for artists, supported by independent secondary sources like the detailed profile in the South China Morning Post. Could an experienced editor take a quick look to verify if the resume tone has been sufficiently resolved, or guide me on any further adjustments needed? Thank you for your time and help! MaryG art (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews, for feedback, please resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for the reply, i will resubmit it. MaryG art (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page as well, for greater visibility(User:MaryG art). If you are employed by her or otherwise editing as part of your job, that makes you a paid editor which you must specifically disclose if applicable. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

[edit]

01:24, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Barbara1494

[edit]

I created this article because I am interested in the K-beauty industry and found that there was no English Wikipedia article about APR Corporation.

As the company has received coverage from major international media outlets and has participated in global industry events such as The Business of Fashion (BoF) Global Forum, I believe it is a notable subject that would be useful for readers seeking information about the K-beauty sector. Barbara1494 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara1494: that's good to know. Did you have a question in mind?
That the company has "participated in global industry events" has no impact on their notability or otherwise. If they have been featured in media, then you need to summarise the coverage they've received and cite the sources.
Please do not remove the earlier declines from your draft, they must remain there until the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

02:42, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Fun81

[edit]

I am terrible at adding tables, episode guides and templates. I can edit them but I'm terrible at setting them up. Fun81 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fun81: okay. That's not a question, though – did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a newer editor and still getting to know wikitext and templates, I copied and pasted templates and tables from other articles and tried to figure out how the source code corresponded to what readers see. That could help you, possibly. What specifically are you struggling with? In solidarity, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:24, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Freelancerimranov

[edit]

Hi NeoGaze,

I completely understand and respect your decision regarding the draft based on its previous submission history. However, I wanted to kindly let you know that I have just integrated a fresh, highly significant secondary source from The London Free Press (published June 11, 2026) that directly covers Stiven's current coaching role and career.

Given this new, reliable independent media coverage, could you please review this specific addition before making a final rejection? I would sincerely appreciate your guidance on whether this fulfills the required sports inclusion criteria. Thank you for your time. Freelancerimranov (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Freelancerimranov: that LFP article is not about him, it's about the club, and much of it is him talking. There are a couple of short paragraphs about him, but that's at best borderline significant coverage. Also, you only tagged on that source to the last, short paragraph of the draft, which already cites two other sources, without editing the content at all, therefore the draft isn't even based on this source in any real sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 25 June 2026 review of submission by DoradcaSmaku1

[edit]

Good afternoon,

I am writing to you with a request for help and specific guidance. I am submitting an article about the Kucharek brand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kucharek_(brand) for the second time, and unfortunately the text still does not meet Wikipedia’s requirements. Could you please indicate, for example, specific passages that I should remove or change so that the article can be accepted?

I am also trying to understand the mechanism behind how this type of article works. Why, for example, was Kamis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamis) accepted with only three sources? The first source comes from the Wayback Machine, and the second article is already quite outdated. Moreover, there is an error at the very beginning, because Kamis has not been a Polish brand for a long time.

Similarly, McCormick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_%26_Company), which largely uses archived sources from its own website, even though one of the arguments for rejecting the Kucharek text at some point was not to use any references in any way connected to the company.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081029055837/http://www.mccormickcorporation.com/Corporate/layouts/companyHistory1950_1969.aspx

https://web.archive.org/web/20081029055842/http://www.mccormickcorporation.com/Corporate/layouts/companyHistory1970_1979.aspx

https://web.archive.org/web/20081029055857/http://www.mccormickcorporation.com/Corporate/layouts/companyHistory2000_present.aspx

Kamis is also listed in the category of Polish brands, which is also outdated, as the brand has a branch in Poland but is owned by McCormick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Polish_brands

Regards DoradcaSmaku1 (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. The draft process is not required of all users, and has not always existed. The Kamis article was created as a redirect in 2008 and made an article in 2011, long before current standards and processes. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to exist, even for years. We can only address what we know about. This is why we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. Please see other stuff exists.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. This is considered promotional here, see WP:YESPROMO. 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 as to what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand it. However the Kamis article was last edited on 16 March 2024, at 19:43.
Could you analyze this article Draft:Kucharek (brand) and show me specific fragments which I have to remove or change? When it comes to sources, it would be also great. It is hard to believe for me that the whole article is unsuitable. DoradcaSmaku1 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DoradcaSmaku1: you should remove pretty much all content which was provided by primary sources, with the exception of a limited quantity of purely factual, non-contentious information such as year of launch, ownership, etc., which can be supported by eg. your company's website. I'm not sure how much that will actually leave there, but that's the answer to your question. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable and entirely independent secondary sources have previously published about a subject. They are not your opportunity to tell the world about your product, or pull together churnalism, advertorial content, etc. from flaky sources. If you cannot find sufficient (in quantity and quality) secondary sources to summarise, then it isn't possible to have an article on this subject published in the English Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help! DoradcaSmaku1 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're writing about a Polish company; I don’t know if you are Polish(and you don't need confirm or deny if you are), but if you understand Polish, you may edit the Polish Wikipedia regarding this company. Each Wikipedia is a separate project with their own editors and policies, and what isn't acceptable on one may be acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it, thank you! DoradcaSmaku1 (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Kristan2025

[edit]

Several rejection of article by Wikipedia even after diligent editing and overall restructuring. Please kindly help me edit the article. Kristan2025 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. None of the text in your draft contains any proper citations, which are mandatory. Athanelar (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
can you assist me in the citation crafting and everything. Please Kristan2025 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The guide I linked is very thorough. If you have no idea how to cite properly, you shouldn't be writing new articles right now. I'd suggest you get some experience on Wikipedia first. Athanelar (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Je3ffW

[edit]

Found another secondary source--is it enough?

Sorry for the delay...after multiple requests and a goose chase or two, I got the info referenced in a Florida State U PhD dissertation... 

In 1942, Aletha M. Bonner, National Muisc Research for the National Federation of Music Clubs, wrote a book "Music and Musicians of Tennessee" published by Lellyet & Rogers, Nashville, Tennessee. A brief profile of May F. Lawrence is noted in that book among the ~100 musicians and composers as follows:
   Lawrence, May F. (Mrs. W. W.)—Composer, Organist. B. Cleveland, Ohio.  Home address, Nashville, Tenn. Composes in varied form, with many works for children and sacred writings. Some representative scores are: "Rainbow Cycle" (a song album), "The Lord’s Prayer," "Salvation Belongs Unto the Lord," and other anthems, etc. Lorenz, Schuberth & Co. and other publishers.

Do the above secondary source along with the previously presented 1928 Nashville Tennessean article qualify Lawrence for an article? It is the case that her first organ compositions are published in 1920, the year American women were allowed to vote AND very few American women had their organ music published before that time. Thanks! Je3ffW Je3ffW (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Je3ffW.
I would say that that is not significant coverage. So, while it can be cited to verify the information that it gives, it does not contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will keep looking for further possible significant coverage of May F. Lawrence. Je3ffW (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Kuwikitake

[edit]

I'd appreciate a source check on Draft:Lindauer (search firm) before I resubmit.

It was declined on 4 March 2026 under WP:NCORP, and rather than resubmit blind I'd like to know whether my strongest sources actually clear the significant-coverage, independence, and reliability bar.

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest with the subject and have added the required paid/connected-contributor notices to my user page and the draft's talk page.

My four strongest sources, with my own tentative read:

  • Boston Business Journal (21 May 2026) – feature on AI skills in executive search;

quotes a Lindauer SVP as an industry expert. Reliable outlet, but the piece is not about the firm, so I suspect it fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

  • Staffing Industry Analysts (Dec 2025) – reports Lindauer's acquisition of Pearl

Street Collective. Independent trade outlet; unsure whether this is routine acquisition coverage or counts as significant.

  • Hartford Business Journal (May 2026) – covers a new CEO at the Hole in the Wall

Gang Camp, a search Lindauer ran; the firm may only be mentioned in passing.

  • Forbes America's Best Executive Recruiting Firms – a ranked list; I believe

listicles are excluded under WP:ORGTRIV.

My question: do any of these meet WP:NCORP, and if not, what kind of source would? Thank you. Kuwikitake (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your specific question. But you have done little more than list the clients of your client. Instead, you should be summarizing what independent sources say about your client, this should involve critical analysis and commentary. Why does it make your client important that particular organizations hired them? (Rhetorical question). Unless their thought process in hiring them is documented by an independent source, there client list does not establish notability, see WP:ORGDEPTH. Please also read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client. You're very unlikely to succeed at this, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Most companies on Earth don't meet the criteria for inclusion here. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it's your job to manage their "Wikipedia presence", I frankly think they're going to be disappointed. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look, and for the candor – prefer to hear it straight than waste reviewers' time. Point taken on WP:ORGDEPTH. I've read WP:BOSS as well. Given that, I'm going to hold off rather than resubmit something that doesn't meet the bar. If truly independent, in-depth coverage of the firm emerges down the line, I may revisit it then – with the right sources first. Cheers. Kuwikitake (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Silkyspidersurfer55

[edit]

Have submitted various times, all rejected and would like some insight on why/what can be done to be approved. Silkyspidersurfer55 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something specific unclear about the information in the decline notices and the comments below them? Athanelar (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Silkyspidersurfer55.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
If sources matching that description do not exist, then the club (like the great majority of clubs, organisations, companies, and people, in the world) does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 25 June 2026 review of submission by MKCYP

[edit]

Hello,

I recently submitted **Draft:Julio Kompoloi**:

Draft:Julio_Kompoloi


I would be very grateful if anyone has time to review it or provide feedback.

The draft is about a Cypriot rapper, songwriter and visual artist whose work has received coverage in independent newspapers, peer-reviewed academic journals, an academic book, and cultural publications. It also documents festival appearances, awards, and educational initiatives.

If there are any issues with sourcing, notability, or Wikipedia style, I would sincerely appreciate any advice on how the draft could be improved.

Thank you very much for your time. MKCYP (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MKCYP I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended; I also fixed the link you provided, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Julio Kompoloi]].
You have submitted it for review and it is pending, a reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was deleted as LLM-generated. Please see WP:NEWLLM. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Stevetroydickerson

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I am seeking a second opinion and assistance regarding a persistent dispute on Draft:The Cross Road (Brian Barrett Song). It has been repeatedly declined by a single reviewer over secondary coverage, but I believe the subject clearly clears the baseline for historical musical importance under the spirit of WP:NSONG.

The song achieved the following verified milestones: 1. It was officially nominated for a 1995 GMA Dove Award (Country Recorded Song of the Year), which is a major industry accolade. 2. It logged a historical chart peak on the Cashbox Christian Singles Chart (July 30, 1994, No. 2 Christian Singles Chart), verified via the WorldRadioHistory archives. 3. It was a formal release via Star Song Communications (1994 self-titled debut album).

The current reviewer is taking a hyper-rigid stance, treating these major industry benchmarks as "routine announcements" and demanding deep-dive journal articles that simply do not exist in digital formats for mid-90s niche genres. A Conflict of Interest (COI) has been fully and transparently declared on the draft.

I would highly appreciate a fresh set of eyes from an experienced editor or members of WikiProject Christian Music to look at the verifiable data provided and help guide this draft to approval. Thank you! Stevetroydickerson (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stevetroydickerson I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Review dispute: Draft: The Cross Road ( Brian Barrett)".
Please declare your COI on your userpage, for better visibility.
You say "persistently declined" but there has only been one decline. The reviewer is correct that the sources you used are not reliable sources. Sources do not need to be online. User-generated sources like YouTube lack fact checking and editorial control. This is not "hyper rigid". 331dot (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Actually, there have been two declines, the author erased the first decline when they made changes for resubmission. I've looked over it and I agree with the decline. The notability claims boil down to a link to being nominated for an award (as opposed to winning it) and position on the chart. Note, I'm updating the link on the draft to go directly. Doesn't make it more notable, does help make trying to research less frustrating for other reviewers.Naraht (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONG only offers those factors as guidance that a song may be notable, not that those factors themselves make the song notable. There has to be more significant coverage than simply chart placement, and this article just has nothing there otherwise. There's no requirement that the deeper coverage must be on the internet; if you have specific publications in print that provide that coverage, you can -- and should -- source the relevant text with information about the publication and the page numbers. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 25 June 2026 review of submission by Fluoreditor

[edit]

The full article is not appearing . There must be a broken tag/template or something causing this. Can you fix the problem? Fluoreditor (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluoreditor I removed most of the article because it was evidently LLM-generated or LLM-assisted, apologies for not informing you. Please don't use LLMs to edit on Wikipedia, this is not allowed by Wikipedia's LLM guideline. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpfulRaccoon: I understand your concern regarding the current LLM guidelines. I would like to clarify my workflow and the experience that I bring to this project.
I am a retired professional print journalist with more than 40 years of media experience, an advanced degree in journalism and two books published to date. I researched and worked on this article for nearly four months, including identifying all of the references and citations and talking with three of the individuals who played a principal role in the development of the Mini C-Arm. I also had access to the pre-online era (1975-1995) archives of print articles, including some of the cited NASA Spinoff articles, from one of the developers – all of which were verified if cited. I wrote the original draft of this article myself and verified every source that I cited.
My use of AI was only to format the verified references and citations correctly and to put my original draft into wikitext format to comply with the requirements for submission. I worked very hard to ensure that every statement in the text is supported by independent, reliable sources. No factual claim was made without verification from a cited source.
If there are specific statements that appear unsupported or inaccurate, let me know and I will either clarify them, provide additional sourcing or remove them.
Thank you, Fluoreditor Fluoreditor (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fluoreditor Thank you for describing how you used LLMs. Unfortunately, LLMs can rewrite text on their own even if simply asked to format it, introducing vague and superficial analysis such as The technology is documented across peer-reviewed studies in orthopedic, hand surgery, foot and ankle, pediatric, and emergency medicine journals. For formatting help, see Help:Introduction to VisualEditor (this does not require you to use wikitext syntax) and Help:Referencing for beginners. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon: I appreciate you identifying a specific passage. That's helpful. The sentence you pointed to -- ‘The technology is documented across peer-reviewed studies in orthopedic, hand surgery, foot and ankle, pediatric, and emergency medicine journals’ -- is a topic sentence that's immediately followed and supported by four concrete examples of that statement, each with its own citation. That’s a structural device that writers use. It is not ‘vague and superficial’ given what immediately follows it. I’m taking ownership of that sentence. It is possible that an LLM could rewrite content while performing other duties but that is not what happened here. This sentence, like the rest of the wording, was included in my original draft. Is it the way that I would write for fiction or even non-fiction, which are typically more prose-like? Of course not. You’re right: It’s tough to write for Wikipedia because every word has to play a concrete role and be fully supported without embellishment.
Please feel free to check any of the references. And: Is this the only passage of concern or are there others? If not, can you please restore the article? I have personally put a lot of work into this and I’d like to see it to completion.
Thanks also for the Visual Editor tip. I’ll definitely keep that in mind going forward as it would remove any question of authorship in the future! Fluoreditor (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, the draft appeared to be LLM-assisted because it was full of over-emphasis on describing the sources (WP:OVERATTRIBUTION) instead of summarizing what the sources say about the subject. Additional examples of this include The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery confirmed the device's role in both pediatric fracture care and radiation safety optimization, or Documentation of the Mini C-arm in foot and ankle surgery dates to 1993, when an article in Foot & Ankle International titled "The Fluoroscan Imaging System in Foot and Ankle Surgery" described its use, or an entire table redundantly describing the sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But I will restore it anyways pending more targeted cleanup. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring the page and for your helpful suggestions. Much appreciated. I am doing some fine-tuning. The Visual Editor is helpful. Thanks. Fluoreditor (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

[edit]

01:47, 26 June 2026 review of submission by JohnLaurens333

[edit]

On this draft and Draft:3rd Street Garage Radio Show, the AFCH helper script declined the draft twice, notified the user twice (on Promega Integrated Services it caught itself), and logged it on my AfC log twice. I reverted it, but why is it doing this? Has anyone else experienced this, and is there a way to fix it? In solidarity, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Talk • Contribs) 01:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnLaurens333, WT:AFC is where reviewers can talk amongst ourselves about technical and procedural issues (I haven't seen this issue myself). —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry! I'll post there. Thank you! In solidarity, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Talk • Contribs) 06:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

03:24, 26 June 2026 review of submission by Dwayne.towell

[edit]

Part of the requirement to approve a new page is independent coverage in secondary sources; I understand this. I have found several that I believe "count". However, I am unsure what to do with them. They do not necessarily belong in the text of the article, I think. Can you give me some specific suggestions about how to proceed? Dwayne.towell (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the text of the article.
A Wikipedia article should primarily be a summary of information available in reliable, independent sources about the subject. We don't write the stuff we think is important and then look for sources to verify it; that's called writing backwards. You find sources that meet the requirements and then summarise the information available in those sources. Athanelar (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 26 June 2026 review of submission by Budew1234

[edit]

I need help for the properties section in the draft! I'm trying to make is similar to the property section on -2, but it keeps getting declined. What do I need to do to? Budew1234 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Stuartyeates as the last declining reviewer. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First up, Budew1234, you need to recognise that it may not be notable, that is it may not qualify for a wikipedia article, there is no real way of knowing without going to the effort of trying. Secondly, the 'Properties' section of -2 and it's several subsections are an order of magnitude longer than those of -3. Basically you need more content, supported by more sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well okay Budew1234 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 26 June 2026 review of submission by LeenaJaiswal

[edit]

Hello. My draft Draft:Sucheta Bhattacharjee was declined for notability. Before I resubmit, I would like a second opinion on whether my two strongest sources count as significant independent coverage under WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC:

Indiatimes, 19 December 2017, a feature profile on the subject and her husband and the music school they founded in Shillong and Tura in collaboration with the Government of Meghalaya. Mid-Day, 6 January 2018, a Sunday feature on the same couple and school. Both are independent of the subject and discuss her work in some detail. The rest of my sourcing is mostly interviews where she is mentioned (with Aamir Khan and Manjari Fadnis) and album database listings, which I understand carry little weight for notability.

My questions: Do the two features above meet the bar, or do they fall short? If they fall short, what specifically would the article need to qualify? I would rather find out now than resubmit prematurely. Thank you LeenaJaiswal (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LeenaJaiswal I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Notability check before resubmitting Draft:Sucheta Bhattacharjee"
We don't do pre-review reviews, as this duplicates what the reviewer will do; if you feel that you have addressed the concerns of the previous review, you should resubmit the draft to obtain feedback. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;
  1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
  2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
  3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
  4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing it out and I did use AI to draft my thoughts and the questions I did it so that it is better understandable. For this draft I first did all the research I could, checked existing similar Wikipedia biographies and then submitted for the first time which got declined. I then followed the instructions, took AI help and submitted the 2nd time and it got declined as well because I used AI. Next I rewrote only relevant article in my own words and that got declined again, this time for notability with a warning that if i resubmit and if it gets declined again, the draft will be deleted. This is the reason I reached out here. From the previous declines, I used them as benchmark and analyzed all the material I could get hold of from internet and as per my own analysis, I felt the interviews published in independent 3rd party media do not carry much weightage and that leaves the 2 links I have on Sucheta Bhattacharjee which I have mentioned above (Indiatimes, 19 December 2017, a feature profile on the her and her husband and the music school they founded in Shillong and Tura in collaboration with the Government of Meghalaya and a Mid-Day, 6 January 2018, a Sunday feature on the same couple and school.) Apart from these all other links are either signing of MOU with Govt. of Mizoram or Interview of Mr Aamir Khan and Manjari Fadnis's Wikipedia biography where they have mentioned Sucheta Bhattacharjee as their vocal guru.
    Now, in the context of above, could you please advise me if I should resubmit or should I forget this draft and work on a new subject? Every time I rework and resubmit, I spend a lot of time which I am ok to do but if since past almost 3-4 months, it keeps getting rejected for different reasons, I really want someone to guide me if I should resubmit again or should I just move on to another person/article or keep contributing.
    I understand I got AI to write the above question which I am really sorry .Requesting your guidance to help me with my query please LeenaJaiswal (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you using AI because English is not the main language you use to communicate? You may feel better editing the Wikipedia of your primary language instead. We do not want you to struggle to understand or to be understood. The Wikipedia of your primary language likely needs the help much more than we do, and it also likely has looser standards for what they deem acceptable content. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India is questionable reliability due to publishing sponsored content as journalism. Based on discussions I see on WP:RSN, the same may hold for Indiatimes. You aren't doing yourself any favors by citing them.
Also, using AI for communication or article writing is prohibited on Wikipedia. You can use AI to help you with research, but you absolutely cannot use AI as an author of any text. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given that notability is not inherited, the fact that Bhattacharjee has been associated with notable people does nothing for her own notability. The fact that she was someone's teacher isn't relevant for the lead section. Your lead paragraph makes claims that might fall under two notability guidelines: WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NPROF. Which of the criteria do you believe Bhattacharjee meets? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Really appreciate. This actually helped me understand much better. WP:NPROF does not apply to her as she is not an academic and with Indiatimes reliability issue she does not meet WP:MUSICBIO clearly with only one Mid-Day feature. And I also accept being a teacher of well known people does not qualify her for notability and it should not be in the lead. So instead of resubmitting and risking deletion, I am going to set it aside for now and do some more research. Shall only come back to it if I am able to find proper independent article about her. Thank you all once again for very helpful guidance. This will also help me pick the right subject in future. LeenaJaiswal (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no risk of unrecoverable deletion unless you're using an AI chatbot as an author or if your draft is unambiguously promotional, and neither seem to be the case here. Even if the draft is rejected rather than declined, you can always appeal to the reviewer who rejected it to explain that you found new information that would confirm notability, and the reviewer would typically let you resubmit it for another review. If there is no activity for six months, it will be deleted automatically, but the draft can always be restored for further improvement by making a request at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 26 June 2026 review of submission by Viannej704

[edit]

I want to know how I can improve my article. I believe there is something wrong with it and I have fixed some parts but there is still something off... it would be a great help to have some insight, all in good faith!

I do also believe that my subject is notable enough to be on wikipedia, Al Dhafra Private Schools are popular schools that most people in the UAE know a thing or two about. I also believe that there is enough coverage regarding these schools. Viannej704 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are laboring under two significant misconceptions:
  • The popularity of a school is irrelevant to notability on Wikipedia.
  • The number of sources you can find is also irrelevant. We need multiple sources that each meet all of the criteria in WP:SIRS: the source must be reliable, independent of the school, and provide significant in-depth coverage. None of your sources qualify.
WP:CORP is the notability guideline for organizations. Your sources are either not independent of the school, or don't constitute significant coverage. Routine inspection reports don't count. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying! If this is the case, then this article is not suitable for wikipedia, though I do still think that some of my sources are independent of the school. Either way, I cannot find any reliable sources that fit this criteria. If a source that is appropriate can be found now or in the future, I will rewrite the article.
Again, thanks for educating me on this as I am new to wikipedia. Viannej704 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources would those be? Remember, an independent source also needs to be reliable and provide in-depth coverage. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. After I replied, I rechecked my article and found that none of the sources qualify as reliable and independent like you said. Viannej704 (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 26 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-36873-83

[edit]

Dear, I would really like to publish this article. Could you give me some exact pointers on what to change so this article could be accepted? Thanks in advance for your reply. Best regards,

TheNobleKnight1 ~2026-36873-83 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.
If you work for this company, that must be specifically stated. See WP:PAID and/or your user talk page.
You have no sources at all. You also just tell of the routine activities and offerings of your company. 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. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself or a description of its activities and offerings, but in critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company. Most companies on Earth do not have such coverage, and as such cannot be included here. Also see WP:PAIDADVICE. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

[edit]

Self premotion suspicion

[edit]

I have came across Draft:Lavrutov (where I tried to improve the article) but the user who made this might be self premotion/spam across multiple languages here is a discussion in Spanish that wraps it up well. I don't know what to do in this situation so I'm bringing this up to you. Wobs100 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

French one [1] Japanese one [2] Wobs100 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blog post: [3] Wobs100 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On his account on Commons [4] he refers to the artist's pictures as him as seen here. Wobs100 (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish deletion discussion and the blog post are pretty damning. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Wobs100 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask do you think user Ym9837054 is Lavrutov? if possible what should happen? Wobs100 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 27 June 2026 review of submission by Froginthepail

[edit]

I do not understand how the reviewer concluded that this draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria?. This draft provides multiple secondary sources (from reputable newspapers, magazines, universities, professional reviewers from major publications, Canada First Novel Award web page...) How does this draft not provide significant coverage? How are the interviews lacking independent analysis from reputable outlets when The sources are provided with references to all the reputable newspapers that wrote these articles? Please ,,, Help me understand this. -Will Froginthepail (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Froginthepail.
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.
I don't see a single source cited that meets all the requirements of WP:golden rule. Nobody doubts that the newspapers are reliable, but if the piece is mostly based on the words of the subject or their associates (eg in interviews) then it does not contribute to notability, because it is not independent.
The reviews are independent, and might contribute to establishing that Parade on an Empty Street is notable, but they do not contain significant coverage of Gane. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there may be reasonable evidence that the novel is notable, but there's very little about Gane her. The only cite that really talks substantively about Gane herself is an interview with her; most of the cites are her works themselves (which can't establish notability), and reviews of the named novel. Interviews are not independent. The actual biography part of the biography article has exactly one cite to the award nomination.
Is there some WP:COI involved here that needs to be disclosed? There's some specific information provided her that doesn't seem to be in the sources. Even if not, it's useful to ask. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 27 June 2026 review of submission by Margschu

[edit]

After the list of issues needed to be corrected on my declined submission, it clearly says, "If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. However, there is no edit" button available, only ""view source." This tells me, "This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it." So, what can I do to keep editing? Please advise. Thank you. Margschu (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Margschu In short, you don't. @Bearcat placed the page under extended confirmed protection with the following note; Protected "Draft:Margaret A. Schuler": keeps getting persistently readded to categories, despite WP:DRAFTNOCAT, even after the creator has been warned TWICE that drafts cannot be in categories Athanelar (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After the second time that I had to remove categories from the draft on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds today alone, I advised you on your talk page that drafts cannot be in categories. But you proceeded to put the draft back into categories again within minutes. So I advised you again that drafts cannot be in categories, quite bluntly this time, and yet you put the draft back into categories yet another time shortly after that. You were also advised the first time that page protection was a possible consequence of disobeying the rule that you persisted in disobeying, because that's part of the standard template for that kind of notification, so it can't come as a surprise that there were consequences since you were told that there would be consequences. So what you do, firstly, is familiarize yourself with the rules and obey them. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

[edit]

08:45, 28 June 2026 review of submission by RaRa023

[edit]

This page does not exist. Tried creating a draft, cited all sources, tried following guidelines (using the official website, it's press releases, launch details, all event and results from the main source), and still got rejected. The IDL is a major stepping stone within the dance community as it propels dance crews and establishing an international and global competition than previous other dance shows and competitions. I'm wondering what I can do or change to get it published. Thank you. RaRa023 (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted if the issues can be addressed.
As noted by the reviewer, all the sources you provided are not independent reliable sources; they are either the organization itself or social media. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it is notable in a Wikipedia sense, like a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary that goes beyond just telling of the activities of the organization or what it views as its own history. Sources must be independent of the subject- not interviews, press releases, or other materials from the organization. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where would I need to get the information? Have you checked the source itself? What criteria did the source of idl.pro did not meet the criteria? The information came primarily from the source itself of the organization itself and its social media? There was no pulling of interviews or press releases. RaRa023 (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RaRa023: we have a core requirement for including any subject in the encyclopaedia, called notability. The subject cannot make itself notable. For that, we require multiple secondary sources, as already explained. And even more than that, the draft must be based on summary of what those sources have said, not what the subject has said about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what we are looking for. We are not looking for what a topic says about itself or what those associated with it say about it. Those are primary sources that can be used under certain circumstances, but never to establish notability. To do that you need independent reliable sources, sources wholly unaffiliated with the topic. For example, the Donald Trump article does not say what Trump or his staff and supporters want it to say, it says what others say about him. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:03, 28 June 2026 review of submission by Joefhaddad

[edit]

Hello.

I am referencing everything in my articles.

What is specifically blocking them? Joefhaddad (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefhaddad: no, you're not quite referencing everything. But the bigger problem is that even when you are referencing, the sources you're citing are mostly not reliable or not independent of the subject. And even bigger problem is that your drafts do not demonstrate that the subjects are notable, a point I've already explained on your talk page, which you said you understood. Is there something in all this which you do not understand? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your gentle explanation. I regularly come across articles on Wikipedia that not only are not referenced at all but are written in a language that parades as English. I write English properly and I reference as much as possible everything I write because I do not take Wikipedia for a playground. Please let me know what in particular is problematic and I will fix it. Is there something else that you do NOT understand? Regards. Joefhaddad (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bad articles exist, and were never approved or reviewed by anyone. Low-quality articles existing does not justify the creation of new, low-quality articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Many articles you're creating are not adequately sourced, many not even coming close, and there comes a point at which doing this repeatedly can result in removal of your ability to create drafts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:22, 28 June 2026 review of submission by Leojacksoncleary

[edit]

I admit I have used MS copilot to help me generate this article as I am not very good with words. Everything contained in this article is true and accurate, as the founder of the NUCUF myself, I have done all the work, copilot simply summarised the work I have done, and helped me structure it. I do not think that it is fair to write of LLM's when a human can verify that the work that has been summarised has been completed by the person using the LLM. I have attempted to reword the history part of the page, but as everything is accurate, what do you want me to do? Leojacksoncleary (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Leojacksoncleary: most of this draft is completely unreferenced, so while you may believe it's all "true and accurate", how is the reviewer or reader meant to verify that, when you don't say where the information has come from? And if it has come from you, as the founder, then that is simply not acceptable here – in fact, it is not only unacceptable for provenance reasons, it is also considered inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO).
And the section which is referenced ('Media coverage') only tells us that some publications have said something about the subject. This is very typical of LLM, but isn't at all what we want. We don't want to know that publication X has mentioned the subject, we want to know what publication X has said about it.
Unfortunately LLM is rubbish at creating Wikipedia content (and doesn't seem to be learning too quickly, either), and you should really give it very wide berth indeed.
Finally, as the founder of this outfit you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI) which needs to be disclosed. I'll post instructions on your talk page shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to know what publication x has said about the subject, cant you click the link to find out. I have been working on this campaign 12 hours per day, every day for over a year. I am trying my DAMDEST to get word out there. Why is no one interested. I have seen that you are interested in US politics, this should matter to your country too, seeing as your government are failing carers just as much as mine. Leojacksoncleary (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how it works. It's not enough for you to say, effectively, that the readers should read the sources themselves; your job as the author is to summarise their coverage, that's the whole point of Wikipedia.
Also, your trying to "get the word out there" is pretty much the definition of promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I did disclose my conflict of interest. Leojacksoncleary (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. When the Article Wizard asked you if you're writing about a subject connected to you, you answered yes. That inserts a canned message into the draft, which mostly informs us that you have a conflict of interest (COI) so we can query it further. That message gets deleted if/when the draft is accepted, whereas your disclosure needs to be permanently visible, hence why you need to post it on your userpage, or on the draft talk page, or both. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but that is not my fault. you asked me if I have a COI and I said yes, if your system deletes that when I produce the page, how am I to know unless your SYSTEM tells me. Leojacksoncleary (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it's anybody's fault, I explained how the system works. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer your ideas for improving the system at the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you understand, this is not about promotion, this is about showing unpaid carers that there is support out there for them and that there are organisations out there campaigning for better support. Do you not think it is right that people should be made aware of that. I have an understanding that you claim to be a human being, but how do i know that. I dont, the same as you dont know that the work I have put into this is worthy of publication. What do you want me to do to allow this page, assuming you are a human being and not an AI model yourself. Leojacksoncleary (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you think so or not, you are here to promote your organisation, and that is against our policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything on my page that is promotional. I am telling the WORLD what the NUCUF is, how it operates, what its aims are, and how to find out more. That is not a promotion. You claim to be an online encyclopedia but you are actively refusing to accept my page, which follows your policies as closely as possible. Yes I may have used an LLM at points in my page, but the work has been done by me. if you want to refuse my page, go ahead, just know that I will take it further because you are sanctioning my Freedom of Speech and Expression. I believe thats what the orange baby in your country is trying to do to you. Leojacksoncleary (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a very broad definition of promotion, broader than in common use. See WP:YESPROMO. You don't have to be actively soliciting, selling something, or talking up the subject. When you wrote "I am telling the WORLD what the NUCUF is, how it operates, what its aims are, and how to find out more", yes, that is considered promotional on Wikipedia. We don't want to know what an organization says about itself, we want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with it say about it. It's usually very difficult for an organization representative to do that. You should tell about your organization on its own website and social media, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
wow... I dont know how you propose that someone can know about anything unless there is some form of self promotion. When people talk about earthquakes happening in Venezuela, what do you think the overall aim is, it is to HIGHLIGHT the situation in venezuela, it is to PROMOTE support that is desperately needed and to INFORM people of the devastation. That is the whole premise around discussion. I dont know where you think as an organisation that you have THE RIGHT to determine what is promotion and what is not. How many organisations do you have mentioned on this page, and how many have mentioned they have a COI. if you dont allow pages that have a conflict of interest, YOU SHOULD MAKE THAT CLEAR. Not tell me that I have to tell you i have a COI and then actively discredit my page just because I have used an LLM to help ME (A HUMAN) PROVIDE STRUCTURE TO WHAT I WANT TO SAY. Leojacksoncleary (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the article about the earthquakes is not to promote relief efforts. It's to summarize what has been said about them. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the English Wikipedia community gets to decide that is promotional and what is not. That is the right. And your use is promotional, period. And the community has also decided that we don't want LLM-authored content on our encyclopedia.
You do have rights here: you have the conditional right to edit Wikipedia under the rules that are set by the community, as you agreed to when creating an account on Wikipedia. And you have the unconditional right to leave Wikipedia, and post your promotional content elsewhere. But you do not have the right to edit English Wikipedia in ways the English Wikipedia community does not want you to. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Leojacksoncleary if you want to refuse my page, go ahead, just know that I will take it further because you are sanctioning my Freedom of Speech and Expression. Legal threats like this are grounds for your account to be immediately blocked from editing. Please retract this threat. Athanelar (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this user for WP:LEGAL. They can retract on their talk, if they wish. (And if they do, at that point we can then consider the IDHT, COI/UPE, SPA, etc. issues.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a privately owned company and you are editing on a privately owned server. You have no freedom of speech in this context. You are certainly free to take it further, but you will lose, and pay a lawyer (and probably not a particularly competent and/or ethical one consider how ludicrous a free speech claim is here) a great deal of money in order for you to not get your way. And you will be blocked, meaning that there's no chance for you to edit any content on English Wikipedia if you started doing so properly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Benjamin Cass

[edit]

Hello,

I am requesting assistance with a neutral review for [[Draft:Richard Benjamin Cass]].

The draft previously received rapid feedback regarding [mention the main issue they had, e.g., tone / sourcing / formatting]. I have since thoroughly revised the text to ensure complete compliance with Wikipedia policies and addressed the COI issue. The article is written in the same manner as my other bios:

  • Neutral Point of View: The tone has been neutralized to strictly encyclopedic language.
  • Notability & Sourcing: The draft now relies on independent, high-quality, secondary reliable sources (such as [Airways Magazine] and [Dallas Morning News 2]) that provide significant coverage of the subject.
  • Prior Feedback: All specific actionable items requested by previous reviewers have been fully implemented.

Because the draft is currently in the general backlog, I would greatly appreciate it if an independent reviewer could look over these updates to ensure the previous concerns are satisfied.

Thank you for your time and assistance. ~~~~ Mmb777e (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mmb777e.
You have resubmitted your draft. That is how you will get feedback. We don't do pre-reviews on request.
You should not have removed the decline notice and comment, even if you have blanked the text and started again, and I have restored them.
But I can point out that several of your references are misformatted, and I suggest you correct those.
Please don't use an LLM to talk to us here. We want to talk to you, not to your energy-hogging plagiarism machine. ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The draft previously received rapid feedback regarding [mention the main issue they had, e.g., tone / sourcing / formatting]
I'm really glad you managed to address the feedback regarding [PLACEHOLDER] and you were able to [EXAMPLE SOLUTION] to feally [DESIRED OUTCOME]. Athanelar (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 28 June 2026 review of submission by AcademicEditorIN

[edit]

I would appreciate feedback on my draft before I resubmit it for AfC review.

The draft concerns an academic whose notability I believe should be evaluated under WP:PROF, rather than the General Notability Guideline. Previous reviewers noted the lack of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage, while another editor commented that the subject appeared to satisfy WP:PROF.

Since the previous review, I have substantially rewritten the article in my own words, removed or replaced unsupported and promotional wording, corrected references, and verified factual statements against reliable sources. The draft now relies primarily on verifiable institutional records and independent publisher sources where available.

Could an experienced editor please review the current version and advise:

  • whether the remaining sourcing is sufficient for evaluation under WP:PROF;
  • whether the AI-generated template is still appropriate after the extensive rewrite; and
  • whether there are any remaining issues that should be addressed before I resubmit the draft.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. AcademicEditorIN (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AcademicEditorIN I fixed your use of the template so it doesn't tag this page as AI generated.
We don't do pre-review reviews; if you feel you have addressed the concerns, resubmit the draft.
Note that WP:PROF is narrower than the general notability for people; this person wouldn't meet NPROF without meeting the broader criteria. PROF is simply what might make a professor or academic meet the broader criteria. PROF can be a bit wonky for reviwers because the sources aren't sources used in articles about broader topics- academics aren't typically front page news. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that you need to be more specific with your userpage notice than " In some cases, edits may involve subjects with whom the editor has a professional or academic connection." You need to specifically state what conflicts of interest you might have- especially if you receive anything at all for editing. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that both this oddly weaselly COI declaration as well as the request you sddressed regarding "assessing the draft under NPROF rather than GNG" are both glowing neon AIsigns. AI still doesn't seem to have quite worked out how notability assessing works on Wikipedia and thinks it's some kind of selective process where we pick a set of criteria to check the draft against. It's very common for AI-generated responses to reviews to protest their belief that the draft was assessed against the wrong notability criteria.
And that's aside from the fact the whole comment above stinks of AI use in general. I'm reaching a point where when I see AFCHD posts like this I can guarantee with 100% certainty that the draft is AI generated. Athanelar (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1361602029"