Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Feed, Category, Sorting		ShowcaseApply
Participants, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help desk
FAQ		Backlog
drives
Shortcuts
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.

Before asking a question, you might find your answer in our Frequently asked questions page.

  • 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.

If you still need help, click the Ask a new question button below.

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


November 4

Help for Article about The 100 Project

Hello,

I submitted an article about The 100 project - an Australian documentary initiative. In the submission I disclosed that I am involved with the project.

In my submission I included two independent publications to support the article: The Senior and ABC News (Australia's national broadcaster). Both discuss The 100 Project in detail.

I thought that these publications met the three criteria required - i.e. they discuss the subject in detail, are reputable outlets with editorial oversight and are independent. However, the submission was declined on the grounds that these requirements hadn't been met.

I responded by asking the reviewer for clarification as I was wondering why these publications weren't considered sufficient and whether there's something else I need to provide before submitting again. However, I haven't received a response as yet. Consequently, I thought I should seek advice here.

This is my original submission: Draft 100 Project

Regards, JohnSyd JohnSyd (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:The 100 Project
@JohnSyd: two sources isn't quite enough to establish notability, we normally require 3+.
Also just so you know, the draft should not be you telling the world about this initiative you represent, it should summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

10:44, 4 November 2026 review of submission by Integrity231

Hello,

I would appreciate advice about the sources for Draft:Ronen Taieb before investing further work in revising it.

Disclosure: I am employed by AICY (איי איי סי ויי טכנולוגיה), and Ronen Taieb asked me to prepare the draft as part of my paid work. I therefore have a conflict of interest.

The draft was declined for insufficient independent coverage, as well as concerns about AI-generated text and a promotional/CV-like presentation. I am not asking for approval of the current text. My question is whether the available sources provide a sufficient basis for a standalone biography, or whether additional independent coverage is needed before proceeding.

The main sources available are:

  • Calcalist, 7 November 2010. A professional article co-authored by Ronen Taieb and Tal Dolev, with an author biography identifying his BDO role.
  • Calcalist, 29 November 2013. Another article co-authored by Tal Dolev and Ronen Taieb, identifying Taieb as head of the financial risk management group at BDO.
  • Calcalist, 22 May 2015. An article co-authored by Ronen Taieb and Inga Eisenberg, identifying him as chairman of Integrity.

The authored articles are publications by him, rather than independent reporting about him.

Could an experienced editor advise whether these sources, considered together, establish notability, or whether they only support individual facts about his career and publications?

ChatGPT assisted with finding sources and preparing the English wording of this request.

Thank you. Integrity231 (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Integrity231: primary sources, and anything this person has written or said (also, therefore, primary sources), do not contribute towards notability according to our general notability guideline WP:GNG; we need to see independent coverage in multiple secondary sources.
The draft is also very insufficiently supported by referencing, with whole paragraphs and even entire sections without a single citation; this is not acceptable in an article on a living person (WP:BLP), where our referencing requirements are especially strict. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Integrity231.
It is forbidden to use LLM's in writing articles or in communicating on talk pages: see WP:NOAI and WP:AITALK.
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your employer. It is very likely that you are totally wasting your time in trying to create this. ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

10:49, 4 November 2026 review of submission by Richa002

@Spiderone: Draft:Sarfraz_Khan_(actor_)_2 has been rejected. I want to clearly understand the exact main reason for this rejection so that I can improve it according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Could the reviewer please explain what specific changes or reliable sources are needed? Thank you. Richa002 (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Richa002: given that this was already rejected (twice) at Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor), what did you expect would happen when you create a new draft, and submit it without even a single reference? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
I still don't think that you've managed to fully address the concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarfraz Khan (actor). The sources are mostly relating to Kader Khan. Sarfaraz Khan (actor) already redirects to Kader Khan. Same issues as Draft:Sarfraz Khan (actor) - just because he's Kader Khan's son doesn't mean we need an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:55, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
As the topic is rejected rather than merely declined, the topic is deemed not notable enough for Wikipedia. Feel free to add a few sentences about him to Kader Khan in the 'personal life' section if necessary but, at this point, you are encouraged to write about something else. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:57, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

14:25, 4 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57217-81

Can you list the main reasons, why submission was declined... I had made the sources reliable (from well-known news channels) and independent (not relying on the subject's own website or press releases). Now what went wrong? ~2026-57217-81 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57217-81: this wasn't declined, this was rejected outright. The reason was insufficient evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

15:21, 4 November 2026 review of submission by Menchu Ramesh

@DoubleGrazing: why not refreshed the page

Menchu Ramesh (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
@Menchu Ramesh: sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking?
I declined Draft:Menchu Ramesh because it is completely unreferenced.
I also posted a message on your talk page explaining that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Please let us know exactly reason for not publishing i have added the English version also i have submitted Menchu Ramesh (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
I did: because it is completely unreferenced. This means that none of the information can be verified, and also there is no evidence that you are in any way notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

16:10, 4 November 2026 review of submission by Lee-James-Hunter

I believe the user who rejected my new concept either doesnt understand or is doing this on purpose. I have a book written on it and ive also checked it in AI. Its sound, it holds. Lee-James-Hunter (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Lee-James-Hunter: yes, I'm sure they are doing it "on purpose": Wikipedia does not publish original research or new thinking, you will need to get your concept peer-reviewed and/or discussed by multiple independent experts first. We are never the first to publish something, we only ever summarise what reliable sources have already published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Answered at my talk page, @Lee-James-Hunter. We do not publish original research on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
@Lee-James-Hunter As a bit of personal advice, please read about AI sycophancy and AI psychosis. People have been convinced by AI that they are godlike beings, that they're being stalked by government organisations, that they've developed revolutionary breakthroughs in physics or mathematics, and all number of other ridiculous things. Reading your article, it sounds like exactly the kind of random, barely-justified stuff that AI tends to spit out when asked to "check" these kinds of ideas. Athanelar (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

16:38, 4 November 2026 review of submission by Stylomecon

So I'm a bit old as far as Wikipedia goes, and I was wondering if it's now considered necessary to go through the AfC process when creating an article. I noticed that International Group of P&I Clubs has been reverted three times in the past year (seemingly, the exact same article) by @Viewmont Viking for not going through the AfC process, so I was wondering if this represents common practice/expectation. I have a few drafts in the works, so I figure it would be handy to clarify. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 16:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The user that VV has been responding to is "The IGPI", a username which suggests they have a conflict of interest with the International Group of P&I Clubs. All users with conflicts of interest do indeed have to go via AfC to write articles about the things they have a conflict of interest with.
Most editors are allowed to create new articles without going through AfC so long as they're already autoconfirmed. Athanelar (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. :)
The user that VV has been responding to is "The IGPI"
I did notice that, though it seems to have been significantly created by @CardboardSpring. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 17:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
An editor who is not yet autoconfirmed, and as such would also be required to go via AfC to create a new article. Athanelar (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I noticed that the AfC submission backlog is very, very large. I've mostly been hanging around AfD looking for potentially good articles that need TLC, but do you think I should apply as an AfC reviewer? I like diving deep into random articles, looking for sources and finding out what's interesting about a subject. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 18:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
More AfC reviewers is always a good thing; as you've observed, the backlog is large and always growing. Whenever we have a backlog drive we manage to push it down into the mid-hundreds, and then within a couple of weeks it's back up into the thousands. Rinse and repeat until it hits 6-7,000 and we have another backlog drive. If it's something you're interested in and if you have the requisite 500 mainspace edits, go for it. Athanelar (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I had a read over the documentation and I've put in an application. :) • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 21:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
I observe, @Stylomecon, that not a single version in the history of that (currently) redirect has so much as a single citation to a source. Starting to write an article without first finding suitable sources is like starting to build a house without first surveying the site to check that it is suitable to build on: you would at best have to spend time "underpinning" and reworking - and if the site is not suitable, all your work would be wasted.
An experienced editor does not have to go through AFC; but would be well advised to create a draft in draft space, so that they can get it to an acceptable state before moving it to mainspace (which in this case would need to be done by a requested move, in order to move over the redirect). ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Unless one has a conflict of interest, is a non-autoconfirmed user, or is under sanctions requiring the use of this process, AfC is voluntary. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

18:49, 4 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-58569-45

Aht Do I need to do Right now ~2026-58569-45 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Nothing. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Help with translating an existing Italian Wikipedia biography

Hello,

I am Norberto De Angelis, and my Wikipedia username is Cuore d'Ebano.

I have an existing biography on Italian Wikipedia:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberto_De_Angelis

I would like to make this biography available on English Wikipedia while keeping the Italian article unchanged.

I have already created a draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Norberto_De_Angelis

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page.

Unfortunately, I am not proficient in English, and I understand that English Wikipedia does not permit AI-generated articles.

Could an experienced volunteer please advise me on how to request a human-written English translation or help me find an editor who may be interested in developing the article using reliable, independent sources?

I understand that the existence of an Italian Wikipedia article does not automatically establish notability on English Wikipedia, and that any English article must comply with its policies.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Cuore d'Ebano Cuore d'Ebano (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@Cuore d'Ebano: firstly, please do not use LLM or other AI-based tools to communicate. I get that you are not proficient in English, but all the same we do not wish to converse with an algorithm.
Secondly, you should see our policy on autobiographies, WP:AUTOBIO, which explains that they are strongly discouraged here.
As you say – or rather, your AI does – different language versions of Wikipedia are entirely separate projects with their own rules and requirements, and being accepted into one version doesn't mean automatic acceptance into another version. The English Wikipedia's referencing requirements, both in terms of verification of information, as well as to establish notability, are likely stricter than other language versions'. I haven't analysed the sources in the Italian article you mention to see whether they would be enough to demonstrate notability here, but what I can tell you is that there is far too much unreferenced content in that article to be accepted here, with at least a dozen paragraphs unsupported by citations. For that reason alone, this wouldn't be simply a case of translating that article, it would require either research to find sources to support the unreferenced content, and/or editing the content to remove information which cannot be adequately supported.
This section Wikipedia:Translation#If_the_English_article_does_not_yet_exist contains some advice for having an existing non-English article from a different language version translated into the English Wikipedia. That happens outside the Articles for Creation project. I should also mention that requested articles is perennially backlogged, so you shouldn't get your hopes up that such requests are fulfilled any time soon, or even at all.
Now that you've expressed an interest in having an article on yourself published, you may be approached outside Wikipedia by people offering to do so for money. My advice would be to ignore such approaches altogether, since even competent editors cannot guarantee that an article would be published here, and far from everyone making such approaches is competent. Simply put, you may not get what you pay for; see WP:SCAM for more on that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

November 5

00:58, 5 November 2026 review of submission by Charlessmithsentinel

The case was created and written by the author team (ip: 199.239.123.69) at The Computer Arts Society (CAS),http://x.com/Acevedomedia, https://x.com/CathComputerArt,https://x.com/BMV1034 . Please double check the official Social Media for him and his team in avoid of mistaking the subject into the banned list. Charlessmithsentinel (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as sock. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 05:14, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

01:36, 5 November 2026 review of submission by MrCirca

Hello, this article was rejected. Could you help me to fix some issues?

Thank you! MrCirca (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Your draft appears to have been generated with AI, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You'll need to rewrite it entirely without AI; see WP:NOLLM.

03:23, 5 November 2026 review of submission by Tamam Zaeem

Please don't use a robot to talk to us. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

03:49, 5 November 2026 review of submission by Jkitch503

@EmilySarah99: Hello, my draft Draft: 2026 Indiana Hoosiers men's soccer team was denied based on "not having sufficient content", despite the draft meeting notability guidelines ("A season including a post-season appearance" and "For programs considered elite in a sport") and having 24 sources. What other content would be necessary in order to publish the article? Moving some of the information to the main article would unnecessarily remove the vast majority of the information included in the draft such as player movement, ranking over the course of the season, etc.

Jkitch503 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
@Jkitch503: your draft's title says it is about the team, but you are citing the notability criteria for seasons, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_seasons. Whereas for teams, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams_and_clubs says they must satisfy WP:GNG. So I think the first thing that should be clarified is what is this draft actually about.
I'll ping the reviewer EmilySarah99 to comment on the insufficient content decline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
I believe there is a slight misunderstanding. While my article title contains the word team, the article is about the 2026 IU men’s soccer season. This follows the same pattern as other college sport season’s articles (see 2026 Indiana Hoosiers football team for example). I still believe it fits the notability guidelines for both, however. Jkitch503 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

11:02, 5 November 2026 review of submission by Tamam Zaeem

I have updated the draft, fixed the formatting errors, and added inline citations. Could an experienced editor please review my draft and guide me if the current structure meets Wikipedia's basic formatting standards? Tamam Zaeem (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

As the draft was rejected, you first need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly on their user talk page and ask that they reconsider the rejection.
Can you describe your relationship to him? I see you took a picture of him. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
@Tamam Zaeem: this draft has now been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Also, absolutely do not use AI to communicate on Wikipedia, as you did above. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Bleap – source check before resubmitting

Hi, I'm a disclosed paid editor for Bleap Finance (see my user page). Draft:Bleap was declined twice for not meeting WP:NCORP. Before resubmitting, I'd appreciate a view on whether any of these meet the significant coverage / independent / reliable test:

  1. Dinheiro Vivo (Diário de Notícias), 19 Sep 2026 – https://dinheirovivo.dn.pt/empresas/bleap-fintech-de-origem-portuguesa-cresce-e-aposta-no-pix-brasileiro
  2. BusinessCloud – https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/ex-revolut-duo-raise-4-3m-to-rebuild-finance-on-blockchain/
  3. Finextra, 28 Nov 2024 – https://finextra.com/newsarticle/45140/former-revolut-duo-launch-banking-on-blockchain-startup

If these aren't enough, I'm happy to wait until better coverage exists. Thanks! Gabriel Caetano Aires .G (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not normally carry out "notability assessments" about article subjects on request, nor assess the suitability of individual sources. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the notability standard(s) which apply to your subject, and then demonstrate to us that your subject meets those requirements by finding suitable soirces. The "notability assessment" is your job as the article creator to carry out. General information about notability can be found here. The golden rule is a handy rule of thumb; if you can find at least three sources about your subject which meet that golden rule, your subject is probably notable. If you want help determining whether or not a particular source is suitable, please give your own opinion (and I mean your own opinion, don't ask AI to do it for you) of whether you think it is or it isn't and why, so that we can see you've made a good faith effort to assess the sources yourself. Athanelar (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Please read WP:PAIDADVICE if you haven't already. In short, your chances of success here are very low, especially without prior, broader Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
This is my assessment of those sources: WP:CORPROUTINE coverage about funding is irrelevant and doesn't count toward notability. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

15:17, 5 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-56333-87

Hi, I was wondering if you could please provide more information on how we can fix this daft to allow the Original Sacher-Torte page to have a stand alone page? Thank you. ~2026-56333-87 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

The answer has not changed since you asked this question on October 22nd: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2026 October 22#08:04, 22 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-56333-87.
Again, if you represent the manufacturer of this product, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

22:25, 5 November 2026 review of submission by Starla Brown

My draft has gotten declined twice now. I did use an LLM for help with my original draft, but when that was flagged, I wrote the second draft from my own voice. It is still being flagged as being written using an LLM. Can someone please help me understand what about my article infers it was written by an LLM? More specific feedback would be appreciated. Thank you! Starla Brown (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a comment about LLM, @Starla Brown, but what I will say is that the draft is hopelessly promotional.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Your job as a Wikipedia writer is to forget every single thing you know about the center, and write a summary of what independent commentators have said about it. Even if your employers hate what they say.
It's pretty clear, looking at the titles of your sources, that few of them, if any, meet all the criteria of the golden rule: without several such sources, you have no hope of an acceptable article.
Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Please read WP:PAIDADVICE; you are extremely unlikely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without broader Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Hello! I have taken a look at your rewrite and a few things stood out to me.
  1. There are multiple sentences that have not really been rewritten so much as lightly rephrased, for example (my emphasis):
    • previous: In 2022, the Institute received the Dr. James West Quality Improvement Award from the National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers (NAATP), a national trade association for addiction treatment providers, in recognition of its work in data science and outcomes research.
    • current: In 2022, the Institute received the Dr. James West Quality Improvement Award from the National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers (NAATP), a national trade association for addiction treatment providers, recognizing the Institute’s work in data science and outcomes research.
  2. Some of the wording has been kept verbatim, e.g. Cumberland Heights provides detoxification, residential treatment, partial hospitalization, and intensive outpatient programs.
  3. The new version introduces a formatting error that is characteristic of LLM-generated (or "-polished") article text, which wasn't there before.
These points do not inspire confidence that the new version is entirely in your own words. If you want to continue with this article, I would recommend following User:Helpful Raccoon's advice to remove all LLM-generated text before starting afresh. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2026 (UTC)


November 6

01:23, 6 November 2026 review of submission by Sergeant System

I will not be able to publish this article properly because there are not enough independent articles and sources online that I may find, in which I can use as citations. I would still like to post this article if I am able to. Is it possible, on Wikipedia, to properly publish an article in a way that still uses too few independent articles? Are there possibly any other changes I can make to the article that may make it acceptable? Sergeant System (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

No. If there are insufficient independent sources to demonstrate notability, there can be no article. Athanelar (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunate. Thank you for the information and confirmation. Sergeant System (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
I would suggest that you find a wiki-type website (maybe on Fandom) designed and intended to document the existence of video games without the requirements that we have here. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

05:04, 6 November 2026 review of submission by Hevensze

@Absurdum4242: 1. I have revised the article as suggested by reviewer Absurdum4242, and am ready to resubmit. 2. Today, I noticed the 'Si Family Residence' is listed in the Wiki site National Heritage sites of Zhejiang (5-309): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_National_Historical_and_Cultural_Sites_in_Zhejiang 3. Question: How do I indicate my article is directly about this designated heritage site? Thank you. Hevensze (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@Hevensze There are a couple of ways you might do this. If this is actually the main thrust of your article, rather than the genealogy (and to be clear, I think this would be a good way to do this, with the genealogy being a subsection within the main article), you would rename this draft something along the lines of “Si Family Residence” or “Sizhai Villiage” (actually I strongly suggest that you break that into two focused articles, rather than smashing both articles together), and then keep the Si family genealogy as a subsection of the Sizhai Villiage article, or split it off into yet another third article. At the moment, the article you have is kind of unfocused by trying to do all three things, and the title reflects this, being very weak.
My main suggestion is that you maybe leave this draft as is for now, and start a new draft which is ONLY on Sizhai Villiage, as this will be easiest to get approved. Be ruthless, and focus solely on the Villiage, mentioning the historical landmarks including the Si Family Residence in passing, and NOT at this stage the genealogy at all. Then submit THAT draft (giving me a heads up), and I’ll check it for you.
good luck Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions to improve the article. Here are key revisions.
  1. The revised draft focuses on the village of Sizhai which in Chinese translates directly to 'Sze family residence'.
  2. Title of the draft is changed to "Si family residence Sizhai"
  3. A section on History includes subsections 'Origin of the Si surname' and the 'Si clan'. The primary source of the history comes from the Si Genealogy record which has extensive history narratives in addition to family trees. So a short paragraph hopefully clarifies this. Sizhai stands out from other villages because of its unusual history.
  4. In future, an article on the Si Genealogy is considered after more study and research.
  5. Thank you for considering this revision which is being submitted today Nov. 8, 2026.
Hevensze (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

06:01, 6 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51483-79

I was helped over the first season. ~2026-51483-79 (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Did you have a question, @~2026-51483-79? I note that the draft has been rejected for AI/LLM use. Meadowlark (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Berate the responsibility of the reaction. ~2026-51483-79 (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

06:40, 6 November 2026 review of submission by Jkitch503

Hello,

Over the past few months I've gradually been working on an article for the 2026 Indiana Hoosiers men's soccer team. It was declined for not having enough content, so I improved the content and was working on a resubmission. Someone bypassed my submission by moving a different article straight to mainspace, including seemingly copy-pasted work that I had done. I'm frustrated because my months of hard work will go uncredited, due to someone not following the correct process or checking if there was already a draft of the article. Is this a candidate for a history move? The user also created multiple other articles, all with similar content, in a short span of time, and each with only one edit, meaning these could have been significantly produced by AI. I'd appreciate any input or advice. Thank you! Jkitch503 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that they lifted content from your draft and did not provide attribution, that would be a problem(see copying within Wikipedia); I suggest you ask the other user about it. Unfortunately, we cannot prevent others from writing about the same subject another person is, but they certainly cannot inappropriately copy from another article or draft. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

14:30, 6 November 2026 review of submission by Tengis the pro

Please, I'm trying to send it to the Mongolian side. If I'm doing it wrong, please tell me openly. Tengis the pro (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@Tengis the pro: the Mongolian-language version of Wikipedia is at this address: https://mn.wikipedia.org/ . You need to create your article there, not on the English-language version of Wikipedia, because they are two different websites. --bonadea contributions talk 14:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

16:53, 6 November 2026 review of submission by Ehabelshaarawy

Hello, I have addressed the previous decline reasons. I removed all self-published sources (Google Scholar, Scopus) and replaced them with independent newspaper sources (Al-Ahram, Al-Masry Al-Youm, Veto, Rosaelyoussef, Al-Watan, and Horreyati magazine 2004). Could you please re-open the draft so I can resubmit? Thank you. Ehabelshaarawy (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@Ehabelshaarawy The draft has been rejected, which means it's the end of the line and it will not be considered for inclusion. You can ask the rejecting editor, @Sulfurboy, to reconsider, but please only do do if you think you have substantially addressed the reason for the rejection. Athanelar (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
You need to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask that they reconsider.
Have you reviewed the autobiography policy? Virtually no one succeeds at writing about themselves- and by that I mean in the last 15 years the number of successful autobiographies can be counted on one hand. Are you the rare human who can succeed where everyone else fails? It's possible, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

17:27, 6 November 2026 review of submission by 1st Battalion Army

i cant find a subject that matches it to submit it to 1st Battalion Army (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

User blocked, draft deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

17:38, 6 November 2026 review of submission by RealPaulitik

@Sulfurboy: Hi friend! From what I can tell, this should meet Wikipedia's notability standards - the Neer Award is pretty well cited as one of the most prestigeous/respected awards for shoulder/elbow surgery (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12752536/). Dr. Gobezie is also a very high volume shoulder surgeon; the best independant source I can find for this is a PubMed study from 2014 (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6340859/) but I can try to get other independent sources if need be. Excluded it from this version because I didn't want it to sound too self-aggrandizing.

I just want to get an idea of what I'm missing here, or if this is even viable/useful to Wikipedia's audience. Thanks :) RealPaulitik (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

@RealPaulitik: to stand any chance of establishing notability based on an award, that award must be pretty much of the Nobel prize or Fields Medal calibre. This Neer Award doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia.
You need to show that this person is notable via either the general WP:GNG guideline or the subject-specific WP:NPROF one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

17:55, 6 November 2026 review of submission by Granpaturtle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Astoria_Cinema_(Scotland)

I don't even understand what would seem to be LLM generated? It's just summaries and in at least one situation basically word for word identical to the sources which are referenced at the bottom there. Granpaturtle (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Granpaturtle did you use any tool to help you? There are some typical LLM signs such as non-existent templates and categories along with others. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

19:57, 6 November 2026 review of submission by Corbynl1101111

Why was it rejected and what do I need to fix? Corbynl1101111 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how to guide to give advice on product repair, sorry. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

November 7

02:09, 7 November 2026 review of submission by JohnTContreras

@Nixleovel: I have reviewed the past submissions and a broad statement is made about "not being" neutral. Can you please point the specific point(s) that seem to be the issue in publishing to Wikipedia?

I am having trouble trying to figure out how to fix it. Thank you for your time, John JohnTContreras (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @JohnTContreras, at the moment the bigger problem is that the draft still sounds a lot like it was edited by an AI/LLM. Did you use an AI/LLM at any point in creating or revising the draft? They are notorious for wanting to make subjects sound amazing, which usually results in articles about people start to sound like resumes. They also like to add a lot of bold text, which makes text difficult to read and should be removed; see MOS:NOBOLD for more information.
As a last note, since this is a biography of a living person, you'll need to have a reliable source for every statement. If there's no source to be found, you can remove the statement instead. Meadowlark (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

02:41, 7 November 2026 review of submission by Mindprism0

Hello my first page ever, i have information from ai would like to add but some conversation is old from same ip no longer show in ai history baidu and google can i add ai information and declassified information from it? also some information verified from multiple ai missing from other topic in wikipedia could i add? Thank you i will try my best to improve it i have verified information from ai, this is my first simple try in my own words as wikipedia suggested. Mindprism0 (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@Mindprism0: we don't care what AI has to say about anything, nor do we accept Wikipedia as a source or any other of user created writings. We require reputable sources with editorial oversight and independence from the subject. Your draft looks to be more your personal research or hypothesis and if no one else has written about it then it has no place here at this time. So the simple answer is no you cannot use AI to support anything you write, nor use it to write anything. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:50, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

05:53, 7 November 2026 review of submission by Ckirkland.intel

Re: LLM (AI), I believe the usage of LLMs in this draft is part of an exclusion and was thus ommitted from the article submisison. LLM was simply used to assist me in formatting the wiki page (ie. how to make a H1/H2 or headline for the article, and how to cite references). Ckirkland.intel (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

@Ckirkland.intel The more important issue is that this newsroom does not appear to meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies), since it does not cite any independent, reliable sources (Media Bias/Fact Check is not considered reliable). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

06:35, 7 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51483-79

Articles of this season are in need of separation. ~2026-51483-79 (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

That's not a question.
This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

07:40, 7 November 2026 review of submission by APTIMEFN

It's factually accurate and true but keeps getting denied. APTIMEFN (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Deleted as hoax. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Please don't waste the time of the volunteers who work on this encyclopedia. It was a preposterous, unsourced draft that will not appear on English Wikipedia. If you continue to push this, you may face account restrictions. If you'd like to actually edit about real things, with text sourced from reliable, independent publications, we'd be happy to have you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Kaveh Kazemi draft - advice on sources and AI-assisted translation

Hello, I am Kaveh Kazemi, the subject of the draft biography, and my Wikipedia username is AnalogueWanderer.

I am seeking advice concerning the earlier decline of my English-language Wikipedia biography.

The draft has been substantially revised, with additional references to independent international publications, including The New York Times, El País, and Northern Irish newspapers. These sources document my photographic work over several decades, including my coverage of the Iranian Revolution, the Iran–Iraq War, and Northern Ireland.

An existing Persian-language Wikipedia article about my career also provides background information.

I understand Wikipedia's requirements concerning notability, reliable independent sources, neutral presentation, and conflicts of interest. I wish to be fully transparent that I am the subject of the proposed biography.

Before resubmitting, I would appreciate guidance on whether the revised sources adequately address the concerns raised in the earlier review, and whether any further changes are necessary.

Thank you for your time and assistance. AnalogueWanderer (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use AI to talk to us, @AnalogueWanderer. The English Wikipedia has different requirements to the Perrsian-language Wikipedia. We have very strict criteria for notability. The draft has not been edited since I declined it, so it has not been "substantially revised". You have not demonstrated that you meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Was this written by LLM? LLM-written comments are generally ignored as it's unfair to our community to have to discuss things with a chatbot that doesn't understand rules and doesn't understand the situation. In any case, you didn't revise the draft at all; you simply added a sentence describing sources that exist, with no links to the source. You can't use a NY Times source when you're pointing to another source that just says a source exists. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

November 8

Second opinion requested: Draft:Thom Britton

Hello. My draft, Draft:Thom Britton, was declined today by S0091, who suggested asking here for a second opinion. Two reasons were given: the references do not show the subject meets the notability guideline for people, and the draft appears to contain LLM-generated text.

On the text: I understand the concern, and I am prepared to rewrite the draft fully in my own words, summarizing the sources directly. I have AI rewrite things because my spelling is shit.

On notability, I would value a second pair of eyes on the sources already cited: a 2013 Chicago Sun-Times feature, a Chicago Reader review, Time Out Chicago coverage, and a DailyFinance profile. Do any of these count as significant, independent coverage, and if the set falls short, what kind of source is missing?

I have a conflict of interest (I am the subject), which is disclosed on the draft's talk page. Thank you for your time.

FreakShowThom (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Please be clear that you're writing about yourself. It comes off as obfuscation when you say "I have a conflict of interest, I am the subject".
Please see the autobiography policy. Almost no one succeeds in writing about themselves here, especially as new users without prior Wikipedia editing experience; the number of successful autobiographies in the last 15 years can probably be counted on one hand, out of tens of thousands of attempts. Are you the rare person who can succeed where everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it.
Sources need to meet all the requirements of WP:42. They should not be interviews with you or basic profiles, they should offer unsolicited critical analysis and commentary about you. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
ah ok. I get that. Is there ever a path for local folks to make it to the 'big league' of a wikipedia page then? No one exactly busts down my down my door, but I fill theaters for about 30 years now in a VERY competitive market.
What's a small time celebrity to do!?!??! ~2026-59127-66 (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
that was me. Sorry. wasn't logged in. FreakShowThom (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
To find three sources that meet all the requirements of WP:42, and summarize those sources without an LLM. Which, as the autobiography guideline says, is quite difficult when you are writing about yourself.
Wikipedia is not the "big league", in fact, having a Wikipedia article can be a bad thing. With truly impactful work, someone else will take notice and write an article about you - that's how most people get articles about them here. LkL-70547 (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

01:43, 8 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59101-65

@MSK: I dont know which mistakes i should fix, especially with insuficcient "reliable resources"? I dont get it since I wrote the article based on academic published papers. So how could it be? ~2026-59101-65 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inline citations would make confirming what is written much easier--you write Studies on P. apodigitiformis and related species emphasize the importance of understanding the relationships between microbes and aquatic animals but it is insurmisable which studies this is referring to. Also, using AI to generate article prose is prohibited on Wikipedia. Could you explain why you write This was worrying. How far could this pathogen spread and what implications would this have for coral reefs? Diadema urchins are grazers of algae and, thus, important for the balance of the reefs. If there are no diadems, algae could become dominant. This could make it difficult for corals to recover. Again, I need to point out that the association of the urchin ciliate to a specific species has not been definitively proven to be P. apodigitiformis. There is a suggestion of close similarity based on genetic data, but more morphologic and genomic study is needed to define the specific identity. in the article? msk 02:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

02:21, 8 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59105-25

Wishing to create an article but I don’t want to create myself and why Wikipedia give the feature for autobiography articles editing? ~2026-59105-25 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

The WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY guideline is there because dozens of people try to make autobiographies every day without having any idea of Wikipedia's guidelines. Generally speaking, the best way to get an article on Wikipedia is to do things that make you notable, that is, receive extensive coverage across many reliable sources. If you become notable, oftentimes, someone else will try to make an article on you instead. guninvalid (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

02:42, 8 November 2026 review of submission by Szb284

Can I send you links where the person is mentioned online to get this article published? Szb284 (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Please do not "send" us links. I get enough emails as is. But you should indeed add links to your draft to demonstrate notability; see Help:Cite on instructions. guninvalid (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Szb284 We don't just need "links"(and sources do not need to be online). The draft needs to summarize what independent reliable sources have said about this person. You should have had the sources in hand before beginning to write, not writing a text and looking for sources to support it. (which is backwards) Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
it is already added and reliable. NatashaBeddingfeeld (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @NatashaBeddingfeeld. I don't know what your remark above means. What is "added and reliable"? Where?
Your draft does not cite one single source, and therefore has absolutely no resemblance to an acceptable Wikipedia article.
Where did the information come from? If you don't give the sources, then a reader has no way of verifying it.
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) 16:49, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

09:31, 8 November 2026 review of submission by NatashaBeddingfeeld

@S0091: Hey, still uploading this for the SEO of the main website, can you help release it? NatashaBeddingfeeld (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@NatashaBeddingfeeld No. Wikipedia has no interest whatsoever in helping your SEO. I have rejected your draft as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

13:54, 8 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-58829-58

Can you point out to me which paragraphs you think have been AI generated? I wrote the copy myself, happy to alter anything. ~2026-58829-58 (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

We can't, because you haven't provided a link to the draft. You may also have edited this page while logged out. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
I've fixed the link; missing colon. Athanelar (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-58829-58 If you are @Fielder Football, please remember to log in before you edit.
I agree with you that the draft doesn't look like AI. The bigger problem is that it also looks nothing like an actual Wikipedia article. There's a random dump of like 10 sources in the lede, the prose consists of seemingly random and arbitrary mentions of things tangentially connected to the podcast, etc.
If you want to write an article about this podcast, you should find three reliable, independent sources which discuss the podcast directly and in depth and summarise what those sources say about the podcast, and leave it at that. If you can't find enough material to make an article with 3 sources, then that's a good sign your subject isn't notable.
I agree with much of what was said in the first decline, quoted here:
The bigger issue is that this is a draft on a podcast, so for notability purposes we need to meet the WP:GOLDENRULE for the podcast rather than the characters involved/not involved. So there are plenty of drive-by references in the Echo, and a lot of derivative sourcing ("he said x on the podcast and then y happened") but not much about the podcast as a broadcast entity.The tone is also like that of a magazine article, but we really need a more encyclopedic neutral tone - that wasn't a factor in this decline but it needs to be done at some point. Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate all advice. What I would say is that the same person said they felt it was only one article short and then Spark did a very in depth one. I am determined to see it through because I have comitted to it and happy for all advice from the experts. I thought: longevity, exposure on Netflix and very public disputes would see it suitable. I would say most football fans in the country would know it. Fielder Football (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
This was that exchange: "yes that is your best source for notability so far, and if you found another like that then you are definitely OK. With the Special Edition story you are on the borderline really, but you are now quite close in my view, though I can't speak for all AFC reviewers. This is just the Echo, there must be other material in other sources, but you are on the right track now".
I then left it for a while as couldn't find another, then Spark did an article on the podcast so I thought that would get it over the line. Spark is edited by a professional journalism team (I have been told). Fielder Football (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
The problem is if you have a couple of good sources and then bury it in a lot of not so good sources, you still end up with a bad article.
Like I said, my advice would be to clear the whole page and work from only your best sources. Help:Your first article might be of help. Athanelar (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Okay I will redo it, thanks. Would you suggest doing the whole thing then adding all sources at the end, or to be happy to re-use some if the same source covers a different sub topic you are writing about? Fielder Football (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Definitely don't do the whole thing then add the sources at the end; when writing for Wikipedia, the sources come first. Read the source and summarise the relevant information it contains, that's how you build an article. Don't write from the top of your head and then try to find a source to confirm it; that doubles your workload.
Help:Your first article and WP:WRITINGFORWP should help. Athanelar (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I more meant list them all in one go rather than re-use. Thanks for advice, I will re-do it. Fielder Football (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
No, claims should be cited no later than at the end of the paragraph in which the claim appears. For that sort of structural info, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Athanelar (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. I believe sources 1-4 are notable that include the origins of the podcast, including interviews from the creators. Sunderland Echo features more than most but that's usual as the primary/only unique Sunderland news outlet. They get across featuring on Netflix, and source 10 I found is a new one that deemed them notable enough to do a full report on the podcast's response to the owner calling them out publicly. This preiod was an importnat one in the history of Sunderland and all fans aware of the public dispute. Source 1 is re-used a couple of times as it covers all the topics listed in quite a lot of detail.
Any further advice would be appreciated before a republish attempt. Fielder Football (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Be aware that any source based primarily on interviews with the podcast's creator doesn't count for notability because it's not independent. Featuring on Netflix also offers nothing in the way of notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED.
Sources need to follow WP:42 - significant, independent, reliable and secondary. Athanelar (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
The narration is there by the journalist, the interview just colours it in I would say. Do you still think this is short? I was quite confident this time. Fielder Football (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I haven't seen the source myself, so I couldn't tell you for sure. If there's substantial independent commentary which goes well beyond the info given by the interviewee then it'd work for notability. Athanelar (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I would absolutely say it goes beyond interviewee. Thanks for the advice. Fielder Football (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

16:08, 8 November 2026 review of submission by GTheChris

Sup. The draft that I created, Draft:Marak Parak Highway was denied, but I don't use any LLMs. I wrote this completely by myself, though could someone review it or let me know specifically what needs to be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards? GTheChris (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an AI or any tool on the draft in any capacity? (Including translators) 331dot (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Nope. Not at all. GTheChris (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Is new sourcing enough for Draft:Protein Imager?

Hello. First, a disclosure: I'm one of the developers of Protein Imager, an online molecular viewer, so I have a conflict of interest (declared on my user page). Draft:Protein Imager was declined several times for notability, most recently in August 2024, and was later deleted under G13. Before asking for it to be restored, I'd like an uninvolved opinion on whether the sourcing is now enough.

The main new source is a peer-reviewed review in Briefings in Bioinformatics (Leitão & Enguita, 2026, doi:10.1093/bib/bbag373), by authors with no connection to the project. It has a dedicated paragraph on Protein Imager covering its features, design approach and limitations. It also includes a figure of its interface and places it in a history of molecular visualization software.

Other independent coverage:

The original description is our own paper in Bioinformatics (2020, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa009), which I understand doesn't count toward notability.

Would this meet WP:GNG, or should I wait for more independent coverage? Thank you. Molpgraphfan (talk) 18:01, 8 November 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) 23:54, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Hi Athanelar, thank you. Yes, I use AI to help with my English, but I check every sentence myself.
This is the question: the draft was declined for notability and then it was deleted, so I can't see the decline notes anymore. Since then, independent authors published a review with a paragraph and a figure about Protein Imager (doi:10.1093/bib/bbag373) and there is also a blog post from UW Madison: https://bcrf.biochem.wisc.edu/2024/02/06/3d-protein-imager-a-pymol-qutemol-web-alternative/. Is this enough? or should I wait for more sources? Molpgraphfan (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I use AI to help with my English, but I check every sentence myself. I'm afraid that's still not permissible. AI generated content is not permitted in articles or in comments, regardless of whether it has been checked.
No, these sources do not substantiate the notability of your project. I can see you've been at this for years, and I really suggest you drop the stick. Wikipedia is not an avenue to promote your product. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Saqib Jatoi declined — what sources are needed?

Hello, my draft Draft:Saqib Jatoi was declined for notability. It cites a Daily Times profile (30 May 2025), two Urdu newspaper pieces (Daily Crime and Roznama Khabrain, November 2026), and a short CB Herald article. I have removed the music section and the self-sourced sentences. Is one more national newspaper feature enough to resubmit, or does the Daily Times piece not count because it has no byline? What kind of source should I look for next? Thank you. Saqib Jatoi (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Saqib Jatoi Paid-for publicity pieces are not independent or reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Saqib Jatoi Please know it is incredibly challenging to write about yourself here, and virtually no one succeeds at it, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience. In the last 15 years the number of successful autobiographies can be counted on one hand, out of tens of thousands of attempts. Are you the very rare person who can succeed where everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Please read the autobiography policy, as well as about how a Wikipedia article is not necessarily something to desire. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

21:16, 8 November 2026 review of submission by Risksbefore

Are my citations/references correct? Feedback of authority welcome Risksbefore (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

You have resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

23:00, 8 November 2026 review of submission by Dangerman66years

need help following all wikipedia requirements Dangerman66years (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Dangerman66years Your draft has been rejected, it will not be considered for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

November 9

06:27, 9 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51483-79

Articles are in need of separation.~2026-51483-79 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51483-79: could you please stop posting these cryptic one-liners. If you have a question, you're welcome to ask, but this isn't one (nor were your previous comments here). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

07:05, 9 November 2026 review of submission by Lainx20

Sarah Andersen is a webcomic creator best known for her webcomic Sarah Scribbles and I saw her wikipedia and thought I could make one for my personal favorite webcomic creator who is J.L. Westover (creator of Mr. Lovenstein). So I tried to create a wikipedia page for him too. My first draft was declined and I honestly don't understand why and wonder if someone can help me? I would appreciate it! Helpful raccoon said I was using churnalism and I had to look up what that meant, then I felt a little offended. I'm sorry if I'm not as experienced and savvy with providing references, but this webcomic creator is definitely noteworthy and I would love ot be able to get some assistance with this. Thank you. Lainx20 (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lainx20, welcome to Wikipedia. I'll be blunt: you should probably stop here. Creating an article on Wikipedia is a very difficult task for someone without prior experience. In this case, you don't appear to have a conflict of interest, which does make it slightly easier for you. But many editors (including myself!) rush into creating a Wikipedia article on something they care about and get it wrong. If you do want to become more familiar with Wikipedia, I suggest you consider reading through the Help:Getting Started article, or perhaps trying to help at the WP:Task Center. Creating a new article is a very difficult task, and even moreso if you don't have experience. As for your actual question, I'll leave an assessment on the draft's talk page. guninvalid (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I also enjoy his comics @Lainx20. There are a lot of popular creators who unfortunately do not meet Wikipedia's definition of notable because no professionals have written in-depth about their work in reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I'll also add that none of the sources cited help verify the information, as they only point to website home pages and not to the specific content detailed in the citation.
And related to that: did you by any chance use an LLM or similar AI-based tool to create this draft? I ask, because AI has a bad habit of creating exactly the sort of useless citations seen here. Whether you did or not, please see WP:LLM for rules regarding the use of AI (TL;DNR = please don't). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Request on 11:59:05, 9 November 2026 for assistance on AfC submission by ~2026-59416-02


~2026-59416-02 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-59416-02: you don't ask a question, but this draft was deleted nearly eight years ago. If you would like to request for it to be restored, the venue to do that is WP:REFUND. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

14:21, 9 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59707-28

Please move the page of Draft:Micah! to Micah! on wikipedia ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Why? ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Please don't rejected this page ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Your draft contains no references, you used AI to write it, and it hasn't been shown to meet the guidelines for notability. You've been told this before. It will not be considered without significant improvements, no matter how many times you ask. In solidarity, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 14:37, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
oh ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

16:08, 9 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59707-28

A toy company In Canada ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The draft is submitted and pending. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
It reads in a very promotional tone and since there is a connection with the topic and Wikipedia it will need some scrutiny. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

17:40, 9 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59707-28

Come on please I did not used AI just publish the draft ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Your unsourced draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It wasn't rejected for AI use, which you have emphasized several times. We get it. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

17:55, 9 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59707-28

Its a social network based in the US ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes....and it's unsourced and has been rejected elsewhere. Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

18:24, 9 November 2026 review of submission by KrMironova

@Qcne: Hello! Im having some difficulties making my article strong enough for publication. I've found around 17 links mentioning Vasken Demirjian as a professional hair colorist, his achievements and awards. He was also recognized as a rising star by L'Oréal, and I found several videos, old magazine PDFs from the late 2000s, interviews and other publications about his career.

.....Im trying to understand whether these sources are enough to establish his acceptance under Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't want to promote as an add anyone or break Wikipedia rules. I just want to make sure that im using the right sources and presenting the information correctly

Could someone please help me understand what is missing from my draft and what kind of independent sources I should look for? I did my best to put the strongest recorces via references where you can check out. . . and Thank you! Best regards from Kristina KrMironova (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is largely unsourced and VERY promotional, please also read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Hi @KrMironova. One big thing is that you have lots of external links in the body of the text but no in-line citations. We require in-line citations. See Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for the tutorial of how to do this. qcne (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Oki i will try to check up with the rule of both REFB and VisualEditor :3!! KrMironova (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @KrMironova.
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.
Unless you have several sources that meet all the conditions of the Golden rule, there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

18:40, 9 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59707-28

@Bonadea: Please don't delete this draft and please stop ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-59707-28 Please do not submit unreferenced drafts for review, you are wasting our volunteer time. qcne (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I'm really sorry ~2026-59707-28 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

19:21, 9 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-59556-28

Hi. My drafts, Draft:Karin Sherr and Draft:Christian Cerda, were rejected on November 5, with comments about AI-generated text. Karin is my sister and Christian is a close friend; I've disclosed those conflicts on my user page.

Before doing anything further, should I ask the reviewer to reconsider? Could a fresh, human-written draft be considered, or does the rejection rule that out?

For Karin, the sources include a 2012 San Diego Union-Tribune profile and Julie Gallant's November 4, 2026 Poway News Chieftain profile. Are those sufficient independent sources, or what is missing? For Christian, what additional independent coverage would be needed?

Thank you. ~2026-59556-28 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Your drafts were both rejected for being AI, and you decided it would be a good idea to come here with an AI generated question? Athanelar (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Why is everyone so scared of AI? Everything said is and was factual. Really what is the difference? You want to see errors or a human mistake or something? ~2026-59556-28 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
In the general view of the Wikipedia community, AIs don't really understand how this site works. They are very prone to AI hallucinations, which we would rather avoid on Wikipedia.  Gommeh sign 🎮 talk 21:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
We're not afraid of AI/LLMs. We're just tired of endless promotional drafts with citations that don't verify the text, each of which wastes the time of a human being who's chosen to volunteer their time and energy trying to keep Wikipedia an accurate, reliable source of information. There's a lot of reasons why LLMs make terrible editors, and they can spew out garbage much faster than humans can catch and correct their many, many errors.
Humans can make a mistake, be shown how to do something properly, and learn to edit well. LLMs can't. So yes, we'd much rather see some human mistakes instead of LLM mistakes. Meadowlark (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Why is everyone so scared of following a simple rule? Surely you were capable of writing for yourself before ChatGPT went live in 2022. You can do it now, too. I believe in you. Athanelar (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
This is a human edited project and we want humans to do the work. We do not expect perfect spelling and grammar in talk page posts. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, taking little jabs at the people you're hoping will help you is generally not a great way to get that help. However: yes, if you write a draft from scratch, without any LLM input beyond what's permitted (WP:LLM - your English seems more than good enough to not need the basic help an LLM can offer, though), you can appeal to the rejecting reviewer.
Drafts should be a summary of what reliable sources say about a subject. Your first step is to make sure you have three or more suitable sources for your subject. A suitable source meets all three criteria at WP:42. Once you've found those and built the draft on them, you can add in other reliable sources (such as interviews, brief mentions, etc) to fill out more information about your subject.
Writing a new article is arguably the hardest task on Wikipedia, writing about a living person is the hardest kind of new article, and writing about someone you know increases the difficulty further. You are likely to find the process extremely frustrating and disappointing, especially as a new editor. We always recommend doing some normal editing first, so you can get a feel for how to write for Wikipedia - but of course it's entirely up to you.
I would also very strongly suggest making sure your sister and friend actually want Wikipedia articles about them. Ask them to read through WP:ABOUTME, just to be sure. Meadowlark (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

20:29, 9 November 2026 review of submission by CoastalEditor

Hello,

I am a disclosed paid contributor working as an independent contractor for Mustang Survival.

The original Mustang Survival article was redirected to Safariland following an Article for Deletion discussion closed on March 13, 2026.

I have prepared a substantially revised draft intended to address the concerns raised during that discussion, particularly promotional language and insufficient independent, in-depth company coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH.

The revisions include removing the Products and Recognition sections, adopting a more neutral tone, and incorporating additional historical newspaper coverage, academic research, and government documentation.

I have also posted a disclosure and request for independent editorial review on Talk: Mustang Survival.

Before proceeding, could someone clarify whether the standard Articles for Creation submission process is appropriate for this revised draft, or whether additional community consensus is required because the original article was redirected following the previous AfD discussion?

My intention is to seek independent editorial assessment of the revised draft and follow the appropriate Wikipedia review process, respecting the previous AfD outcome.

Revised draft: Draft:Mustang Survival

Previous AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustang Survival

Thank you for your guidance.

CoastalEditor (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
@CoastalEditor Please don't use AI to talk to us. It's not allowed. It's also not allowed to use AI to write your draft, so if you have done so you will need to start over entirely without the use of AI. Athanelar (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the note @Athanelar. AI was neither used to write the Mustang Survival draft nor to communicate with editors. CoastalEditor (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
You and I both know very well that that isn't true. Athanelar (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
I'm guessing they don't want their client to see a public admission of AI use. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is the only way for you (as a paid editor) to have this draft accepted, so if you think you have the required sources and have overcome the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, go ahead and submit it. An independent, experienced editor will then review it and either accept it or give you feedback on what needs to be changed. Just to make sure you know, the criteria you're trying to meet are WP:42 and WP:NCORP. Thank you for disclosing your paid status properly, rather than making us drag it out of you as so many paid editors do. Meadowlark (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Okay, thank you @Meadowlarkfor your guidance. CoastalEditor (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

21:06, 9 November 2026 review of submission by Samslak

Thank you for reviewing my draft. My use of an LLM was limited to checking selected passages, not generating the article. Could you please identify the specific passages that raised concerns so I can address them? Samslak (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tomasz Oszako
Can you explain the process of how you checked selected passages, @Samslak? Meadowlark (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Guidance needed for Roshanak Gerami biography draft

Hello, I am requesting guidance regarding an existing English-language biography draft about Iranian actress Roshanak Gerami: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RyanRG/sandbox The draft was created on October 14, 2026, with the assistance of translation tools and is currently marked as requiring bilingual review. On October 15, I requested a Persian-to-English translation review at WikiProject Iran, but I have not received a response. Could someone please advise me on how to obtain the required bilingual review and prepare this draft for submission through Articles for Creation? For transparency, I am personally connected to the subject of this biography and would like to follow Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest and sourcing guidelines correctly. Thank you for your assistance. RyanRG (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

23:31, 9 November 2026 review of submission by Tramiser11

23:44, 9 November 2026 review of submission by Froggylordking

@Quinntropy: I do not understand why it got denied Froggylordking (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Please see the Biographies of living persons policy All substantive information about a living person needs to be sourced to a reliable source, especially if negative. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)


November 10

00:15, 10 November 2026 review of submission by AakashVyomGoel

Hello. I am Aakash Goel, the subject of Draft:Aakash Goel. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page as well as on the draft's talk page.

The draft was declined on 2nd Nov 2026 and again on 3rd Nov 2026 because the text was LLM generated, and the second time also for lacking inline citations. I have now re-written the text myself and added inline citations.

One source, The Economic Times article on coordinating with Supertech Homebuyers is behind a paywall. The Hindustan Times article cited in the same place supports the same point.

Could someone please take a look at the draft and tell me whether it is now ready to resubmit, or what else should I fix first? Thank you for your help in advance. AakashVyomGoel (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-review reviews, because that duplicates what the reviewer will do. If you have addressed prior concerns, please resubmit. Please also read the autobiography policy and know the chances you will succeed at this are close to zero, especially without other Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. I have read the autobiography policy and understand that the chances are low. I will work on the concerns raised before deciding whether to resubmit at all. AakashVyomGoel (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
@AakashVyomGoel, I notice that in your AI disclosure you wrote Claude was then used only for [...] checking that each citation matches its source. AI/LLMs are very, very bad at doing this. I would really strongly suggest that you redo that work without the use of Claude or any other AI/LLM, checking carefully that each and every statement is verified by the cited source. Meadowlark (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, that's a fair point. If I decide to resubmit, I will go through each citation myself manually, without any AI help and will check that each statement is supported by its source. AakashVyomGoel (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
From the looks of it, you did not rewrite the text. Some of the sentences are rephrased a bit, but the majority of the text has not been rewritten. The changes are largely not particularly productive either; assuming you didn't still use LLMs, you adopted the LLM approach of vaguely reporting that the sources say something rather than directly reporting what the sources say. The sourcing remains generally poor, with unreliable sources, press releases, self-sources, and a lot of WP:CORPTRIV and churnalism.
The article is in a poor enough state that you'll save time by simply blowing it up and starting over rather than trying to fix this on the fly. I'm not sure, from the sources you've used, that you're actually notable by Wikipedia's definition, but I don't think you have a good chance of getting this draft published in Wikipedia with patchwork fixes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Thanks much for the detailed feedback. I understand that the main problem is the sources: several of them are passing mentions, press releases or my own pages. I will re-evaluate if there is enough independent, in-depth coverage and if I continue with resubmission, I will rewrite the draft from scratch myself, using those sources. AakashVyomGoel (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

05:08, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Jomykaitharam

@Theroadislong: I have added details, external links and references as you asked earlier. still they are declining my my page. each time you are saying different reasons. Jomykaitharam (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

YouTube, interviews and The Times of India are NOT reliable sources the reasson for decline is the same. Theroadislong (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

06:06, 10 November 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51483-79

A current list of episodes got full. ~2026-51483-79 (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I've already asked you to stop posting these pointless sentence fragments. If you keep this up, I will have to block you from editing this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

06:35, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Gkguy1

I found this draft article from a few years ago. I had just read about it this company in the news. The original article was quite incomplete and promotional, so I made it objective and added lots of high quality sources. The rejection reasons I'm seeing now don't make sense. For example, "Most of the sources are not independent of the subject or fail WP:CORPTRIV" didn't make a lot of sense, because most of the citations are from mainstream news and universities. Gkguy1 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Gkguy1: universities are primary sources. Routine business reporting and other such corporate trivia (usually based on press releases etc., therefore also primary sources), even when appearing in apparently independent and reliable secondary publications, do not establish notability per WP:NCORP / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Krishanu Roy Draft – Advice Before Resubmitting

Hi, Thilsebatti suggested I ask here about Draft:Krishanu Roy. It was declined on notability grounds, and I’d like some advice before I resubmit.

I found five papers Roy co-authored on cold-formed steel that have each been cited more than 100 times. Wu and colleagues also discuss earlier research in the field and cite all five. Is that enough to make a case under WP:NPROF criterion 1, or would it help to find studies that show how other researchers used his results?

I’m a paid editor for this draft and have disclosed that on my user page and the draft’s talk page. Thanks for taking a look. Komal swera (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Komal swera: five papers cited 100+ times is, not to put too fine a point on it, nothing; that would, in itself, only give an h-index of 5. To satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #1, we would need to see significantly more evidence of impact. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
@Komal swera:Having looked at this a little, you probably need to reflect on the exact words of NPROF criteria 1: :The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - there's probably a bit more needed at the independent reliable source end (e.g. critical notices, book reviews). That an academic has done a lot of papers won't create notability. I can see that the subject has an h-index of 51 so normally that's in the right area, though the h-index is not a formal metric here. But it does indicate that you should be successful in your endeavour. The key aspect is convincing the reviewer that the sources and overall impression of the draft meets the "impact" and "influential" aspects of notability, and at the moment that isn't singing off your text. Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I found a paper by Mahar and colleagues that used results from Roy’s 2018 study to analyse how built-up steel columns buckle. Table A3 in the appendix shows which results came from Roy’s team. Yao and colleagues also discuss what the same study found about where the American design specification overestimated or underestimated column strength.
Would these sources help make the case under WP:NPROF criterion 1? Or should I look for another example of researchers using a different study by Roy before I resubmit? Thanks again. Komal swera (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
@Komal swera: I can't speak for my colleagues of course, but I for one don't intend to do a piecemeal analysis of your sources one by one. If you feel you have sufficient evidence of notability, incorporate it in your draft and resubmit; otherwise, don't.
We're all volunteers here, whereas you're paid for your efforts. As a paid editor you're expected to know what you're doing. The help desk is open to paid editors as well, if you have a specific question about the review process, but it's unlikely anyone here will collaboratively develop your drafts with you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

10:07, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Kajahmuhaideen

Pleas Help me to publish this article Kajahmuhaideen (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

@Kajahmuhaideen This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, sorry. The person does not meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

10:07, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Wikiqui20

Hi, I’m seeking a second opinion on Draft:Applaydu, which was declined with a suggestion to merge into Kinder Chocolate.

I believe the merge is inappropriate. Applaydu is a mobile educational app — it shares a brand name with Kinder Chocolate but has no substantive connection to it as a subject. Merging a digital edutainment product into an article about a confectionery bar would not serve readers of either article.

The draft has the following independent coverage:

Academic: included in the LiFT research project at the University of Oxford, Department of Education Editorial: The Drum, Pocket Gamer, Common Sense Media — all with editorial oversight Certification: kidSAFE Seal Program, an independent child safety body Specialist review: Educational App Store

I also contacted the reviewer directly on 27 October but have not received a response. Can anyone advise whether these sources are sufficient for standalone notability, or what additional sources would be needed?

Thank you, Wikiqui20 Wikiqui20 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikiqui20 I fixed the header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft:Applaydu – standalone notability, merge suggestion contested".
I'm not sure how you can claim that the app has "no substantive connection" to Kinder chocolates; it works based on the toys found with the chocolate products Kinder produces. You write that it's part of a project at a university, but there is no discussion about the reasoning for this or the significance of this(such as findings of the university about the app's particular influence).
I think the content is best suited at the article mentioned by the reviewer. I would suggest that you expand the Kinder chocolate article and then pursue a split of the article rather than submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

10:23, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Letizia Vargek

@Theroadislong: Hi! I was declined two times and I edited parts that were AI supported and paraphrased parts after reading Wikipedia: Words to watch. Can you please give me advice on what to correct in this draft? Letizia Vargek (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

What to correct is your process; you need to start from scratch and write everything in your own words without the use of AI. Grammarly uses an AI now. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling to pass this process and any such errors can easily be fixed by editors who enjoy copyediting.
Please also read WP:PAIDADVICE; in short, you're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. Most events on Earth are not notable events and most representatives of such events fail in efforts to force the issue of article creation and do it themselves, instead of allowing an article to organically develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of significant coverage of a topic in independent reliable sources and chooses to write about it, summarizing that coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

12:09, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Zacy-creggs0402

The draft was rejected for supposed use of LLM generated writing, even though I did not use an LLM to write or edit the draft. Zacy-creggs0402 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @MSK qcne (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

draft:Kurt Coleman (Australian media personality).

Hello,

I’m new to Wikipedia and recently created a draft titled Draft:Kurt Coleman (Australian media personality).

I’m the subject of the article and have already disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page.

The draft was declined because of concerns about AI-generated wording and missing inline citations. I’ve since added several citations from independent published sources.

I’d appreciate some guidance on how to proceed. Ideally, I’d like an independent editor to assess the available sources and help determine whether a neutral biography could be created.

I understand Wikipedia’s requirements around autobiographies and would prefer to have the article written or reviewed independently.

Thank you for your assistance. Colemankurt (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Colemankurt. Did you use an AI chat bot at all to generate any text? This could be tools like Microsoft Copilot (either in Micorsoft Word, Edge, or in the standalone app); Claude, ChatGPT, Grammarly etc? qcne (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

12:26, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Sirjulio

HI, I followed the draft new page wizard and next to the new draft subst was a conflict of interest one inserted as well (subst:AfC submission/coi|$1) even though i declared i have no connection to the subject. Did i complete the wizard incorrectly?

SirJulio (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sirjulio. I don't think you've actually Published the draft yet as I can't see it in your contribution history. Click the Publish page… button at the top to "save" your page, then we'll take a look. qcne (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

12:54, 10 November 2026 review of submission by MaySundAnd

@Guninvalid: Hi,

I'm hoping to get some help understanding why Draft Lodwick has been declined on notability grounds, despite what I believe is substantial independent coverage of his work.

Peter Lodwick is a Welsh composer and musician with a career spanning more than five decades. He has composed original music for numerous productions at major Norwegian theatres, including Nationaltheatret, Det Norske Teatret and Riksteatret, as well as for dance, film and television.His career is documented in national performing arts archives, including Sceneweb and Nationaltheatret's production records. More importantly, his work has received independent critical coverage in established Norwegian newspapers and specialist publications over several decades.

Some examples already included in the draft:Aftenposten, 27 June 1975, p. 7 (ref. 37): An article covering Lodwick's own rhythm and improvisation technique.Arbeiderbladet, 13 September 1979, p. 17 (ref. 19): A professional review of En gutts lykke, a production involving his original music.Klassekampen, 11 June 1991, p. 14 (ref. 27): A review of Poems, featuring Lodwick's compositions.Aftenposten, 29 August 1994, p. 18 (ref. 30): A review of Eva – historier om kjærlighet, featuring his music.Arabesk, 2002, no. 4, p. 33 (ref. 41): A professional review of Lodwick's album Music for Ballet Class, Vol. 1.

These are only a selection of the references. The draft contains additional published articles and reviews, many of which are preserved in the National Library of Norway's digital archive.I believe that Lodwick's substantial body of creative work, together with decades of independent critical coverage, makes a strong case for notability under WP:CREATIVE, particularly criterion 3, and potentially WP:NMUSIC, which includes specific criteria for composers.

However, you state that most of these sources are plainly unreliable. This is what I find particularly difficult to understand. Several references are from established Norwegian newspapers with professional editorial oversight. The National Library of Norway simply hosts digital copies of the original publications.

I understand that not every review of a production necessarily establishes the individual composer's notability. However, there is an important distinction between a source being unreliable and its coverage being insufficiently substantial.

Could someone please help me understand why these sources are not considered sufficient?Specifically:Are the newspaper articles and professional reviews considered unreliable, and if so, why?Is the concern that the reviews focus on the productions rather than Lodwick's individual compositions and artistic contributions?Does the combination of independent coverage, original compositions for established theatres and published reviews meet WP criterion 3, or what specific evidence is still missing?

I have spent considerable time locating these historical sources and improving the draft based on previous feedback. I'm absolutely open to making further changes, but I would appreciate a more specific assessment of the existing references before resubmitting.

I believe there is a strong case for Lodwick's notability, and I would be very grateful if someone could help me understand how the available evidence should be assessed under Wikipedia's guidelines.

Many thanks for your time and help!

BR, MaySundAnd (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. If you are using AI because you aren't confident in your English language skills or your knowledge of Wikipedia's processes, don't worry; we don't expect people to be perfect at either of those, just try your best to communicate with us in your own words. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;
  1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
  2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
  3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

14:09, 10 November 2026 review of submission by DNEditorial

I prepared Draft:MYUS as a disclosed paid contributor. It was declined because the references were considered insufficient to demonstrate organisational notability.

Since the review, the following IRK Magazine feature has been published:

https://www.irkmagazine.com/post/myus-behind-the-wallpaper-and-into-another-world/

I asked the reviewer who declined the draft whether this represented the kind of independent secondary coverage required. The reviewer was unable to reach a firm conclusion and suggested taking the question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The response there was also inconclusive regarding the feature’s independence and contribution to notability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_527#IRK_Magazine_source_reliability

Before revising and resubmitting, I would appreciate clarification on the principal issue with the source base. Is it the reliability of the publications, the depth and independence of the coverage, or the fact that most of it focuses on individual collections rather than MYUS as a fashion house?

In practical terms, which of the existing sources, if any, contribute towards establishing notability? Would adding the IRK feature and limiting the draft to material supported by qualifying sources provide a reasonable basis for resubmission, or would further substantial independent coverage of MYUS itself still be required?

I am trying to understand what material change would be needed before resubmitting the draft. Thank you. DNEditorial (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DNEditorial. That irkmagazine is reliable, provides significant coverage of MYUS, but is not independent of MYUS because it's just an interview with Braden. There is a little bit of independent reporting there, but not enough to make it count as a source for notability, sorry. qcne (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
@DNEditorial, did you use AI to generate that post? GPTZero indicates that you did, although AI detectors are by no means infallible. Using tools like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot to communicate with other users generally runs contrary to Wikipedia's expectations and culture of collaborative communication.  Gommeh sign 🎮 talk 15:15, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

15:12, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Tuckerawesome23

I did not use any AI. I wrote it all myself. It also says you cannot write about yourself. I did not write this about myself. I am not christopher tucker Tuckerawesome23 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Note for others that the OP is likely referring to Draft:Georobotix, which they recently submitted and was declined.  Gommeh sign 🎮 talk 15:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Or maybe not, see below - the post was made as I was typing, lol.  Gommeh sign 🎮 talk 15:18, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

15:14, 10 November 2026 review of submission by Tuckerawesome23

@Kisseran: This got flagged for AI, but I wrote it all myself. It also flagged that I am writing about myself, when I am not! Tuckerawesome23 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Even if not AI generated, your draft is obviously written purely for the purpose of promoting its subject, which is not allowed. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

15:30, 10 November 2026 review of submission by SEAwriters

I would like to clarify that my intention was never to promote or advertise Flavorist. I created the article based on what I believe are notable achievements, publicly available information, and independent coverage of the company.

I understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines, and I respect the importance of maintaining neutrality. However, I am disappointed that the article was removed without giving me a clear opportunity to understand and address the specific concerns.

Could someone please review the article and explain exactly which sections do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines? I am more than willing to make the necessary corrections. My intention is simply to document a notable subject on Wikipedia, not to use the platform for advertising. SEAwriters (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

SEAwriters I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended.
Does more than one person have access to your account? ("writers"). 331dot (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
@SEAwriters Your draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. Please do not spam Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not merely document; that is considered promotional here, see WP:YESPROMO. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
I have no idea why people in your position insist on peddling this obvious lie to us. Obviously your intention is to advertise, why else would you be writing about your business? You said on your talk page My intention was simply to document the story of Flavorist, how it started, who founded it, and what we have been building since 2024. I didn't intend to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Do you actually expect us to buy these AI-generated word games? "I wasn't trying to advertise, I was just trying to tell people about who we are and what we're building!" Yeah, there's a word for that; it's advertisement! Athanelar (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)