Help getting Draft:Ghana Universities Debate Championship accepted

Hello everyone. I’d really appreciate some help, because I’m close to giving up on this.

I’ve been working on an article about the Ghana Universities Debate Championship since 2023. The draft is here: Draft:Ghana Universities Debate Championship

It’s Ghana’s national university debating championship, held almost every year since 2014. The Ghanaian university circuit has produced Pan African champions and a World Universities Debating Championship grand finalist, yet its national championship has no article, and very little about it exists online.

The draft was declined for not showing significant independent coverage. I’ve since rebuilt it around the best independent sources I could find: Citi FM (2016), Citi Newsroom (2019 and 2024), the Ghanaian Times (2022) and 3News (2023). I’ve searched extensively, and honestly, these are all that exist. A lot of Ghanaian student history was simply never written down.

So my question is simple: what can I do to get this accepted? Is there anything in the draft I should change, add or remove, or is there another approach I should take?

For transparency, I coach debate in Ghana and have disclosed this on the draft’s talk page. I just want this tournament to have a proper record.

Thank you so much for any help. ~~~~ Desmondd23 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@Desmondd23: if you believe that the new sources are now sufficient to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, you may resubmit your draft and it will be reviewed again in due course.

If, however, the sources are still not enough, then this subject is unlikely to be notable enough to justify an article, since by your own admission better sources are not available. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Furthermore, I just want this tournament to have a proper record. Wikipedia is not the place to "keep a record" anything in this manner. We don't do posterity here. Athanelar (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

08:04, 25 October 2026 review of submission by Hibus11

• Hibus11 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:H1bs13 (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Denial Hibus11 (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. guninvalid (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Why will it not be considered further? Hibus11 (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Because there isn't (or rather wasn't, now that I've deleted it) slightest indication that you are in any way notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hibus11: ...and please don't write about yourself on Wikipedia, see WP:AUTOBIO; if you want to tell the world about your YouTube exploits, please find a different platform, such as social media. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

08:53, 25 October 2026 review of submission by Sprucedotterel

• Sprucedotterel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Pocket FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Pocket FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article earlier (Draft:Pocket FM) got flagged for LLM use, I have described in an earlier comment where the issue likely stems from (I ran the manual draft through an LLM for final grammar and flow check), since then I have manually rewritten the entire article because it was difficult to guess which part was / wasn't getting flagged. I found it easier to just rewrite the entire thing. I hope the same issue does not arise again. Thank you so much :) Sprucedotterel (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

If you have rewritten and resubmitted, you don't need to post here to tell anyone- the resubmission places the draft back in the review category. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@331dot, thank you. I didn't know this. When submitting there's a box at the very end that asks for a note about what changes, I didn't realise I could leave it blank. Sprucedotterel (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sprucedotterel Looking at your edit here, it seems that when you say you have "manually rewritten" the entire article what you actually mean is that you have "slightly reworded" it. Changing TechCrunch reported that... to A TechCrunch report states... is not a rewrite, and does not solve the AI issue; which is fundamental to the text itself and not a matter of surface-level wording. Ditto with this edit where one of your changes was The company subsequently expanded its use of AI -> Subsequently, the company expanded use of artificial intelligence Come on. You've had ample opportunity to read the AI guideline by now and you're just being obviously untruthful when you say you "rewrote the entire thing" Athanelar (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Athanelar, thank you for your feedback. Here's the problem. I had written the original draft of this article myself and unfortunately ran it through an LLM at the end for a quick grammar and flow check. As such, most of the article was already in my language but the LLM reworded bits and pieces just enough that it now fell into patterns that AI detectors can pick up. Rewriting from scratch does not mean I will rename a zebra to a giraffe, the facts still are what they are, there are only so many ways in which that sentence can be written without becoming incomprehensible. If it is fundamental to the text itself then the veracity of the text is what needs to be in question, tell me if I haven't provided citations for every statement I have written. Currently you are arguing semantics. I'm sorry but before you write a blatant statement like 'obviously untruthful', maybe ask me a question directly? Not everyone is well versed with 100% of wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I am trying my best here, maybe operate with a bit of grace when you are in a position of approving or rejecting? Sprucedotterel (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

the facts still are what they are, there are only so many ways in which that sentence can be written Yes, I get that. But I promise you, we can tell the difference if you fully remove the AI text and start from scratch summarizing the sources in your own words vs when you just superficially reword the AI generated text. Your work was declined twice for AI, you had ample opportunity to read the relevant guidelines and to actially rewrite the text from scratch, and you still kept the AI generated text and merely reworded it. Athanelar (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I spoke with other editors on the IRC chat too, it was recommended that I write perhaps a shorter article of maybe 2-3 paragraphs completely from scratch and resubmit. So I'm working on that now. Do you think that would be the correct action on my part here? Sprucedotterel (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The length doesn't matter much. Find three sources which meet all the requirements of WP:42 and summarise the info they contain. The appropriate length is whatever you end up with at the end of that. If you can't find three such sources then no matter how long or short the prose is we won't be able to accept it. Athanelar (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll be back with the second version of the article in a few days' time. Thank you for providing clarity here, Wikipedia can be a confusing place for a writer. Sprucedotterel (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Rewriting to avoid LLM usage usually means rewriting from scratch. It may help for you to take a look at WP:BACKWARD. If you had really researched this yourself, you can probably rewrite this article as a brief stub very quickly and easily. It's fine for a draft to be short; I've accepted drafts that are only a single paragraph. It just has to demonstrate notability. guninvalid (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @guninvalid, I will take a look at WP:BACKWARD, as I mentioned earlier, the last time I submitted articles here, there were no mainstream LLMs people were using. That was a mistake I made because of which I'm stuck now. Sprucedotterel (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

12:40, 25 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-56984-36

• ~2026-56984-36 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Messikiwispaghetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i make info but im juste hired and got injured in the eye i can barely see i need this page to be accepted so i can get a raisei tried my best im new and i can barely see and i have to make more nich stuff but my boss said it alright if i make it simple ~2026-56984-36 (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. We have no interest in increasing your salary. Your Roblox creation isn't written about by independent reliable sources, such as reviews from professional game critics, so it does not merit inclusion here. I suggest you use social media to do what you're trying to do. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

15:20, 25 October 2026 review of submission by Frosassan

• Frosassan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Firos Assan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the person described in the draft and i have disclosed my confilict of interest . i used ChatGPT for drafting, correcting grammear, and formatting references . al have also shared the conversation transpcript. My draft was declined again on 23 October 2026. Could you please help me understand what changes I need to make to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Frosassan (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Frosassan. We don't allow AI for drafting text. qcne (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Frorassan. Have you read autobiography?

Even if you were an experienced Wikipedia editor, and even if you didn't use AI, your chances of being successful at writing about yourself here are very very very very small.

I recommend that you forget about Wikipedia, and concentrate on your career, promoting it in places which allow promotion (Wikipedia doesn't). ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for Independent Assessment of Revised Academic Biography

I seek assessment of Draft:John R. Woznicki which was declined over concerns about independent secondary sourcing.

I have revised the draft to address the reviewer's suggestion to add independent secondary sourcing. The revision includes the addition of six additional scholarly sources that are independent and published. These sources discuss, apply, and/or critically engage with interpretations presented in the subject's published scholarship on American poetry and literary criticism. They are intended to document independent scholarly reception rather than rely on the subject's own publications.

I am the subject of this draft and have previously disclosed my conflict of interest. I recognize that inclusion must be based on Wikipedia's notability standards. Before resubmitting, I would appreciate an uninvolved editor's assessment of the new sources, the neutrality of the draft, and whether the draft addresses concerns regarding inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Jrwoznicki (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jrwoznicki. You've previously disclosed you used ChatGPT to help with the draft, but the above message also seems to be written by AI. We don't actually allow comments on Wikipedia to be fully generated by AI, it is disrespectful to us human editors. It now makes me think that you also used AI to help write your draft prose, which we prohibit. qcne (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. It is disrespectful to claim that my post is written by AI without providing a basis for your claim. This is ironic.

You are entitled to believe what you will. Your comment, however, produces a chilling effect on whether the article is acceptable on the basis of notability. I write to defend this post and the submitted entry against this charge.

I have made my claim with regards to AI use. I do not believe I need to continue to do so. AI was used to research the reach of scholarship and to organize the findings. The determination of the exact reach of scholarship without the use of AI is limited.

It is not difficult to write in the style for which this encyclopedic format demands. Woznicki can easily write in short declarative sentences. Woznicki can convey facts in an unbiased manner. Woznicki can refer to the subject in the third person. It is easily reproducible.

There is very little opportunity for stylistic variety in recounting encyclopedic information that is free from bias. Writers who write for a living know this to be true. Woznicki has written articles for multiple encyclopedias. Woznicki teaches writing to undergraduate college students. Woznicki uses technology to detect AI in the writing of college students. You may verify this if you choose to do so. It is contained within the article.

There is nothing in the entry that is false, misleading, or inaccurate. The entry attempts to demonstrate the influence of my scholarship. Inclusion in Wikipedia will perhaps lead other scholars to it.

Your comment made in the Teahouse is quite revealing. I am seeking assistance. Your comment to not post in multiple places doesn’t offer assistance. Posting for assistance in multiple spaces does not seem to be a violation of a specific rule, but a violation of a particular issue of yours. Your reply suggests so. If there is a rule that prohibits posting for assistance in more than one space, then it is not a logical one. It is not a friendly one. It is not one that a new user would know or assume.

Your reply also reveals that entreaties and submissions are subject to potential adjudication by those who have their own personal interpretations, issues, and biases that may or may not conform with standards of collegiality and fairness. This includes bias regarding the use of large language models.

Woznicki understands the rules regarding the use of large language models. In this reply, and in the replies to others, gatekeeping against the use of large language models is potentially leading Wikipedia community members astray. The call to fire your LLM is quite prominent in this space. Some of this is undeniably justified. It is likely that some of it is not.

Perhaps you are a bot trained to look for language produced by large language models or to search for multiple postings in different Wikipedia spaces. Your replies seem to be written in the mode of a large language model. This also would be ironic.

I have stated my claims repeatedly regarding conflict of interest and the use of large language models.

I seek assistance. I ask for an unbiased opinion of the entry and the facts laid out therein. I seek whether the evidence meets the standard of notability.

This reply is not personal. It responds to claims that are not true. It is to engage with those who might provide advice and assistance on the question of sourcing and notability.

If you have taken the time to read this in its entirety--thank you.

This reply may seem to have been written by a large language model.

It was not. Jrwoznicki (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all that, @Jrwoznicki. Be concise, and try again. We're volunteers and we shouldn't be subjected to walls of text which may, or may not be, AI generated. qcne (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

This is exact type of bias of which I refer in my reply. Thank you for not taking to read it. Please feel free to ignore the rest of this wall of text, which I can again assure you, is not AI generated, which AGAIN you posit that it may be. Which is the source of what is emerging to be an issue here.

Some might find this interesting.

It supports my point that Wikipedia’s gatekeeping is likely biased and influenced by rules and positions that benefit the gatekeepers. The standards of Wikipedia are apparently not neutral in their enforcement.

And it also demonstrates that you are inclined to be biased against AI usage AS A DEFAULT position. Everything is AI unless its not. This is truly an issue for you and Wikipedia.

Ironically, you had time enough to claim that I used a large language model in my post seeking assistance. You apparently gave as much thought in that reply as you do here.

Your claim of volunteerism and resultant lack of time is shoddy logic. It does not justify your mandate for someone to be concise. It does not justify your not spending the time to read a thoughtful reply to a serious charge. You obviously don’t care about the charge you made, or my attempt to answer it and put it into perspective.

It demonstrates the haphazard approach to review of articles and, ironically, posts that volunteers are apt to take. In this case my post not being taken seriously is justified by the lack of time.

I volunteer my time for many ventures. I do not make arbitrary rules or demands on those for whom I volunteer to make my volunteer time easier. I am guided by the obligations that are in place to fulfill my duties. If I cannot fulfill the obligations of my volunteer work due to lack of time or other inconveniences to me that impact my ability to take seriously my duties, I no longer volunteer. It is illogical to adjust the actions of the user to conform to your personal situation.

You may not realize or have forgotten that your volunteerism is meant to serve me, a member of the general public for which Wikipedia is meant to be accessed. As someone who has submitted a potential entry, your volunteerism is also meant to serve me. I submitted an entry. I was offered initial advice regarding sourcing. I revised the article. I politely sought advice and assistance before re-submission. I actually received some as I was writing this reply.

I am now met with this very interesting response and exposed thread. I thank you for demonstrating the inherent flaws in this system that governs Wikipedia. As a new user and potential entrant, I was unaware of the totalitarianism in what was meant to be a more-democratic, open-source community.

As a cultural critic, this interests me. If you actually took the time to read my posts and entries, you would know that I have great interest and scholarly experience in the subject of totalitarianism in culture. Pulling on this thread may prove more valuable to me than pursuing, for the sake of inclusion, any article regarding me and my scholarship. Perhaps I will write an article. Maybe for the NYTimes op-ed page. Maybe for the Wall Street Journal.

This reply, in case you might not understand, is more so for other users than it is for you. I assume you didn’t read this far, given your demand for me to be concise. It is meant to demonstrate an aspect of this process that is apparently sinister in nature.

It is also meant to demonstrate to those who may actually provide assistance to me, and not make false claims or absurd demands, a perspective that will be useful as they adjudicate my work on the basis of an unbiased standard Wikipedia claims to use. That is if this post actually sees the light of day and remains here for others to read, as, given it doesn’t meet the unwritten rules and personal demands of conciseness, it will most likely be subject to censorship. Jrwoznicki (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

"You may not realize or have forgotten that your volunteerism is meant to serve me, a member of the general public for which Wikipedia is meant to be accessed"; uh, no- we're not here to serve anyone except this project. We're willing to help you, but not serve you.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor do you have any right to have an article about yourself on Wikipedia.

And please don't write about yourself in the third person; it's confusing and makes it seem like someone else is operating your account(it's also a sign of AI use)

Please see WP:AISIGNS; we're not just judging it because we feel like it without evidence. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jrwoznicki I work for a University and I would be genuinely embarrassed if one of my provosts communicated with staff in such a long, meandering, and accusatory way. I hope your University has workshops on communication, and I genuinely hope you take advantage of them.

I am willing to help with your draft, and work with you to see if you meet our criteria for inclusion. Based on some of the sources in the draft, I think you may indeed meet our criteria, due to the volume of critical coverage your work has had.

What I am not willing to do is be exposed to walls of text and accept vague threats of writing an opinion piece in the press. You can either work with us within Wikipedia's norms - or not. Up to you. qcne (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

You are asking for a pre-review...we don't do that, if you want a review you need to submit the draft. And please read Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. THIS is helpful, especially to the uninitiated. I have now been shown reasons for not seeking assistance in multiple spaces and been directed to re-submit. Jrwoznicki (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Also know that virtually no one succeeds in writing an autobiographical article, especially right out of the gate as a new user without prior, broader Wikipedia editing experience. In 15 years I personally have never seen anyone succeed at it, though it certainly may have happened when I wasn't looking. My understanding, though, is that the number of successful autobiographies can be counted on one hand- out of tens of thousands of attempts. It is very, very difficult to set aside everything one knows about themselves, all materials they put out, and all reporting of their mere activities, and limit themselves to summmarizing what independent sources say about them(the good and the bad). Are you the rare person on Earth who can do this succesfully? Possibly, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

17:45, 25 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57014-72

• ~2026-57014-72 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:681 (genre) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know if I had made any mistakes. What mistakes did I make? ~2026-57014-72 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

None of your sources support the content. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Recheck

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently submitted my Draft:Farmaan Hasan Khan for AfC, but it was rejected by Thilsebatti, who cited that the sources do not meet WP:RS. However, I am quite sure that the sources are reliable and independent. I also asked Thilsebatti on their Talk Page, to share their views, and they referred me to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. But according to that, some of the news coverage about the subject does not fall under NEWSORGINDIA. I added those sources to Thilsebatti's talk page, but they simply said, “I don't think that the subject meets GNG.” I believe we should assess the draft based on Wikipedia's guidelines. That's why I'm here, asking everyone to go through the draft and all the sources cited in it. Someone who can read and understand Hindi, an Indian language, may be able to understand the sources even better. The sources include newspapers such as Patrika, Navbharat Times, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran, Hindustan, Hindustan Times, Amar Ujala, Prabhat Khabar, DNA Hindi, News Nation, The Times of India, News18 Hindi, and many more. Detailed and independent coverage includes, , , , , , I believe these sources are sufficient to establish notability. I sincerely request everyone to review the draft and its sources fairly and share their views based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. SilentPolymath (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Fire your LLM, then we can discuss this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 18:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Kindly recheck

I recently submitted my Draft:Farmaan Hasan Khan for the AfC, but it was rejected by Thilsebatti, they cited that the sources aren't WP:RS, but I'm damn sure that the sources are reliable and independent. I also asked Thilsebatti for their views, they just cited to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, but according to that, the subject have some news that doesn't comes under the NEWSORGINDIA, I added those to the talk page of Thilsebatti. They just said, ‘I don't think that the subject meets GNG.’ while here, we have to think only as per the guidelines. So I'm here, asking all of you go through the Draft and all the sources it has. Someone who can read and understand Hindi, a language of India, can understand it even better. The sources are in newspapers including Patrika, Navbharat Times, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran, Hindustan, Hindustan Times, Amar Ujala, Prabhat Khabar, DNA Hindi, News Nation, The Times of India, News 18 Hindi and many more. Detailed and independent coverages like , , , , , and are enough to establish Notability.

Kindly check all those with honesty, Thank You. SilentPolymath (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

We cannot guarantee that a Hindi speaker will review this matter.

You have just described his work, you have not said what is important/significant/influential about his work according to independent sources that have offered critical analysis and commentary about him.

Are you associated with this man in some way? 331dot (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:REFBOMB and note that The Times of India is not a reliable source, did you use AI by any chance? There are some hallucinated sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll fix the issues, as per REFBOMB, just read your comment in the Draft. I haven't used AI in creating the Draft in any way. I searched and got these references which I have cited in the Draft. SilentPolymath (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I just added what was there in the sources, nothing else, I'm a beginner here on Wikipedia, so learning new things everyday, just started with this subject. Also, I'm not associated with the subject in any way. Just saw their work and created the Draft. SilentPolymath (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hiya @SilentPolymath. Three or four strong sources is much better than 40 sources that might be average or poor. It's quality over quantity. qcne (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure, Thank you for the suggestion. I'll try to edit the Draft, based on the suggestions I received, as soon as possible. SilentPolymath (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SilentPolymath.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

04:16, 26 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-56977-07

• ~2026-56977-07 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:CycloGen AI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking guidance on improving the CycloGen AI draft to meet Wikipedia's Articles for Creation requirements. I would appreciate advice on whether the existing references, including Whiteford Research Biobase and the British Columbia Corporate Registry, are sufficient and what additional independent sources would be needed to establish notability. I am affiliated with the company and wish to follow Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest and content policies before submitting the draft for review. ~2026-56977-07 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-56977-07. Unfortunately, none of your sources currently prove this company meets our criteria for inclusion. Have a read of WP:Notability basics which explains the types of sources we need. qcne (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

04:44, 26 October 2026 review of submission by DGurumayum

• DGurumayum (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Richard A. Bales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@EaglesFan37: Hi, this follows on from my earlier question about Draft:Richard A. Bales, which was archived before I got an answer to my follow-up. Paid editing is disclosed on my user page and the draft's talk page.

Based on the earlier feedback, I've rewritten the draft to remove CV-style content and non-independent sources. It is now built around independent coverage: a review essay by Christopher Tomlins in Law & Social Inquiry (2021), a review in Industrial and Labor Relations Review (1999), commentary by Theodore St. Antoine and S. I. Strong, and a Fifth Circuit opinion relying on his work. He is also an elected member of the American Law Institute. I've summarised the notability case on the draft's talk page.

Before I resubmit, could someone tell me:

1. Would ALI membership plus this evidence be enough for WP:NPROF, or would you expect more?
2. Does anything in the draft still read as promotional or CV-like?

Thank you. DGurumayum (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@DGurumayum The article looks much better now! I believe that Bales most likely meets WP:NPROF, and the draft does read as less promotional. Feel free to resubmit. I'll let another reviewer handle it. EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

07:58, 26 October 2026 review of submission by Peteroch

• Peteroch (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Howard Lamar (Artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello this article was written by humans, the only use of AI was for the reference markup. Not sure what to do since its hand written already so I cant really fix that. Do I need to introduce intentional errors or use simpler and more basic language? Id really hate to do that but will if its necessary. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Peteroch (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Peteroch I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Need help with non-llm content".

AI use should be avoided- we want people to do the work themselves. Outside of two narrow exceptions, AI use is not permitted on Wikipedia, see WP:LLM. If you need help with referencing, see Referencing for beginners.

One problem with AI is that it will often go beyond what is asked of it. Even if you only used it on the references, the draft is certainly written in an AI style(even if you didn't use AI to write it) because it is just telling of Lamar's activities, and not summarizing what is termed "significant coverage" of him, meaning critical analysis and commentary about him or his work. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

08:50, 26 October 2026 review of submission by Work account2026

• Work account2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Giuseppe Ambrosio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Helpful Raccoon: My draft was declined twice- The first time I fixed any issues to the corrections of the wording, the second issue is not having enough secondary sources. After reviewing the draft can you point me in the right direction as to where and what I could use, because I have used outside articles, where are secondary sources. Work account2026 (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Work account2026 If you wish to address Helpful Raccoon directly, you may do so on their user talk page, User talk:Helpful Raccoon.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE; paid editors without prior Wikipedia editing experience aren't usually successful.

Much of the draft is not even about him, but about his firm. Most of the rest of it merely documents his activities, and does not summarize critical analysis and commentary(termed "significant coverage") about him. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I understand the part of paid editors and can remove myself from this task while still retainingn the wiki account. Do you think it would be a good idea to swap the draft so it is about the firm rather than the person and then resubmit it that way. Any advice is appreciated. There is lots of coverage on Linkedin, does that count. Work account2026 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

No, social media is not an independent source that can establish notability.

The sources seem to be mainly about the company, so they would not merit Mr. Ambrosio an article. Even if you refocus the draft to be about the company, you haven't established the notability of the company, either, because the sources just document the normal business activities of the company without critical analysis and commentary.

The gist of WP:PAIDADVICE is that most companies on Earth are not notable as we define it, and most company representatives fail in their efforts to create articles about them, especially as new users without prior Wikipedia editing experience. A representative is just too close to the company to be able to set aside everything they know about it, all routine reporting, and all materials produced by the company(including interviews and press releases), and limit themselves to summarizing significant coverage, if such coverage exists at all. Are you the rare person who can do this where most everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it. You're free to try, but I fear you're just wasting your time. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Linkedin.com is user edited so nothing of use there. Theroadislong (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

10:22, 26 October 2026 review of submission by MoYOth

• MoYOth (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • The Once and Future World Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:The Once and Future World Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MoYOth (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@MoYOth Who is "we"? You have written a very long, possibly AI-generated, appeal. I actually think the book meets our criteria for inclusion but you're not going to get anywhere quick by accusing volunteer reviewers of racism and start demanding things in a massive wall of text. Try again: reply to me with a short, polite request for a re-review. qcne (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I doubt the article would be accepted in its present state; only one of the sources is actually about the book (two are the book itself and the last is an author bio from an outlet the book's author writes for). I have not bothered to look at/read the rant for the pure and simple reason that its contents are irrelevant here. By the way, AI SPaG checkers don't generally stop at checking SPaG. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 07:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

First, my previous message was not AI-generated. I used AI for translation purposes, not to generate the content or arguments. Also, there is no “we.” The “we” was just the result of how AI translated my original text.

My message is already polite and respectful, as you would have recognized had you read it carefully. It cannot be any shorter, as I need to present and substantiate my case.

Volunteer reviewers can be biased or racist, just like anyone else. The fact that they are volunteering does not make them immune to criticism or place them above scrutiny.

I appreciate your acknowledgment that the book meets Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria, and I am requesting a re-review. However, if you are too busy or unable to review it, I would appreciate it if you could refer the matter to someone else. MoYOth (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Ideally you shouldn't be using AI at all. Translation is one of two permitted uses of AI, but you must carefully review the text produced. AI is a tool, not a substitute. It often goes beyond what is asked of it. We'd rather have spelling and grammar imperfections that other human editors(some of whom enjoy copyediting) can fix than see you use AI. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The book may be notable, but you need to summarize any critical analysis and commentary about the book, not just describe it. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@MoYOth There, that was easy. I have accepted the draft after some copyediting and checking of the sources. qcne (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your help!@Qcne MoYOth (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

10:26, 26 October 2026 review of submission by Baki5560

• Baki5560 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:European Biotechnology Thematic Network Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please delete this draft. Baki5560 (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested. qcne (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

12:11, 26 October 2026 review of submission by LaimonasVil

• LaimonasVil (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Laimonas Vilčinskas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was recently rejected by Helpful Raccoon for "non-independent publicity pieces". However, I respectfully disagree with this assessment.

The provided sources, such as eCommerce Fastlane and TYN Magazine, are independent, highly reputable journalism platforms within the digital media and e-commerce industry, not paid press releases. They provide significant, detailed editorial coverage of my digital media career, standard business metrics (1.1M audience, 32M+ likes), and regional platform restrictions that are central to the encyclopedic coverage of digital creation in Europe.

Furthermore, the third source is a major regional Polish newspaper (Dziennik Wschodni) where I was cited as an independent cybersecurity expert regarding online scams, which further proves general notability completely outside of the marketing niche.

I would appreciate it if another editor could review the draft or guide me on how to proceed, as these are genuine, independent editorial features. Thank you!

LaimonasVil (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Sources which are interviews with you or otherwise based on your words are of course not independent of you. Your own opinion obviously cannot prove you are notable. And both of the first two sources are literally titled Laimonas Vilčinskas on...

Read WP:NPERSON. Athanelar (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with Athanelar. While these are not paid press releases, these are not independent of you. And if you used an LLM to write this -- and if you didn't, I have serious concerns about your ability to accurately characterize coverage of you -- you should not communicate with us using an LLM, as that is not allowed on English Wikipedia. Editors here have, and may continue, to take the time to engage with you using their own words and their own time. It is not unreasonable for you to show us the same courtesy. If something such as language barriers prevent you from discussing things in English directly, there are hundreds of Wikipedia editions in the primary language of the vast majority of people on this planet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

These are paid press releases. eCommerce Fastlane is an SEO site that advertises a range of paid promotion services. The Polish news article is explicitly labelled as sponsored news ("Artykuł partnera"). TYN Magazine offers "content marketing" services but does not label any of its articles as sponsored. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Oops, mea culpa on that one! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

15:43, 26 October 2026 review of submission by Marisa.Bluestone Macmillan

• Marisa.Bluestone Macmillan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Macmillan Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Macmillan Learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, the page got rejected for LLM/AI use, but AI was not used in this version. I'm happy to take any feedback and make any changes, but I'm not sure what to update since AI was not used. I'm hoping for a second opinion and approval, or at the least what part of it looks AI written that I can address. Thank you so much, I appreciate the time ~Marisa Marisa.Bluestone Macmillan (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Marisa.Bluestone Macmillan.

Just looking through your list of sources, it is obvious that many of them are WP:CORPTRIV: these do not contribute to establishing that the company is notable, and in most cases have a negative value for a draft, as they dilute the useful sources, if any (see WP:OVERKILL).

Most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, in that nobody has ever chosen to write in-depth completely independent material about them. (See WP:SIRS)

It is possible that your company is an exception. If so, you want to present just those sources, and the information derived solely from those sources.

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.

Please also read WP:PAIDADVICE#The art of writing for Wikipedia ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

19:31, 26 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-56958-00

• ~2026-56958-00 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Musabay Family Tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI, i am creating The Musabay Family list, their heritage, legacy, and connection 4-5 generation that the family member spread all over the world. first hand i created under title " The Musabay Family Tree" i am putting in Uyghur language what i collected my last 4 decades life in three continents. i will post all in English, but first i want to publish what i collected in Uyghur language. some paragraph already translated to English. ( in future, i will make all paragraph in English thru every day edit. that is why i am asking to Wekipedia to allow to publish " The Musabay Family Tree". thank you your advice and help. ~2026-56958-00 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not intended to host content like this, we do not have original research. It's also not in English; you may wish to consider editing the Uyghur Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-56958-00. I am afraid Wikipedia is not the correct venue to publish this. Please go to a different website. qcne (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

19:39, 26 October 2026 review of submission by Oyova

• Oyova (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jamie Buckingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm seeking guidance on Draft Buckingham, which was declined on October 17 due to concerns about LLM-generated content. I've revised the article, reviewed some of the original references, and replaced broad statements with information supported by historical newspaper articles.

AI assisted with earlier drafting and with reviewing the revisions, including organizing research, suggesting wording, and correcting grammar. Before resubmitting, I'd like to know whether the current revisions rightly address the reviewer's concerns or whether further changes are needed to comply with Wikipedia's LLM guidelines.

Thank you! Oyova (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

AI generated text is not allowed in articles here. Anything the AI drafted must be removed. Athanelar (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The only "further changes" that would be needed is to blow it up, fire the LLM, and write the article afresh from scratch. (Brandolini's law applies to LLM-generated content on Wikipedia.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 07:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

02:38, 27 October 2026 review of submission by KKhuc92

• KKhuc92 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hanoi Archers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@TNM101: I want to explore if there are certain circumstances where an official Facebook page of an authority or governing body can qualify as a reliable source.
In this context, given the limited resources handed to such a niche sport, it has been established norm for baseball governing bodies in the region, including Vietnam, to treat their official page as a news board on official activities, while [their official website] are either left untended or nonexistent, as for the case of Laos Baseball and Softball Federation. In addition, news coverage of tournaments and events are often sporadic, especially end-of-tournament coverage; the only consistent coverage are first-day articles that are irrelevant to the subject matter.
Of course, I would try to replace official Facebook page citation, should an alternative source to the coverage exist. However, I think it would be much appreciated if region-specific circumstances are considered for leniency. KKhuc92 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, if there's little to no independent coverage, and the coverage is limited to a league's own Facebook page, to the extent that they're not even updating on their own website, I think it raises larger notability concerns about the league itself. In any case, if the Facebook page is verified, it could be a WP:PRIMARY source and a source of WP:ABOUTSELF, but if an article relies on primary, self-published sources, I'm not sure it should be on Wikipedia at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

To add to that, being WP:PRIMARY, a Facebook page is not any lesser than the official website. The main problem is that neither of them would count for too much in a Wikipedia article. LkL-70547 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

04:10, 27 October 2026 review of submission by Gkguy1

• Gkguy1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:HiringCafe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've submitted a handful of articles and edits over the years, but never gotten anything rejected. I'm not sure what's wrong with this article. HiringCafe is one of the top 10 most popular job search tools in the US, it's regularly discussed by reputable media outlets, and I added citations to many of those articles.

The original article that was rejected in 2025 was written by someone else, and was not policy compliant. I substantially rewrote this article to remove bias, add reputable citations, and remove unverified/unverifiable claims. The claim that "most of the sources are not independent of the subject" is also confusing. While there is a single mention of HiringCafe's surprisingly large and active Reddit community, every other link and citation is from an independent news outlet or academic institution.

What is still missing from this article? Gkguy1 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately many of your sources still look like WP:CORPTRIV, since many of them are merely basic fundraising. I haven't actually opened any of them, but that's my quick read just from reading the headlines. That being said, @S0091, given this history, would you be willing to un-reject? guninvalid (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Beware of sources based on interviews with the founders - the publisher may be independent, but the article cited isn't independent if it's written using mostly or entirely information from people connected with the company. The Business Insider source is an example of a non-independent source. That's likely what the reviewer would be referring to. Meadowlark (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gkguy1 do have a couple sources that meet WP:NCORP? None of sources currently used in the draft meet the criteria. For example, TNW, Pulse 2.0 and Citybiz are not WP:reliable sources, are clearly based on a press release as they were published on the same day and mostly relies on what those affiliated say so not independent either. India Today is almost entirely based on what the unnamed Reddit user who started the platform says (see also WP:NEWSORGINDIA). S0091 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

07:43, 27 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57302-45

• ~2026-57302-45 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohammed Rashed Alsuwaidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, are you sure I am using a language model? I think it is simple in every aspect. I hope you can take a look at it, or if there is anything wrong, have it modified. ~2026-57302-45 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57302-45: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. That makes the question of whether or not AI was used in its creation somewhat redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

15:07, 27 October 2026 review of submission by Neveranygood

• Neveranygood (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Assistance on recreating biography previously deleted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Editors, I'd like help on recreating, if possible, the Wikipedia biography of Ian Shepherdson, a British economist. To be clear, I am Ian Shepherdson, so I understand there is a conflict of interest, which is disclosed on my user page. I'm not seeking to recreate the previous article, which was deleted by proposed deletion in March 2025. I have identified substantial independent press coverage which in my view was not properly represented, or considered at all, in the original article. Specifically, these sources are:

• Gene Epstein, "Bucking the Trend", Barron's, December 9, 1996, pp25-28. A four-page interview with Shepherdson.
• Jon Hilsenrath, "Top Forecaster: Shepherdson Got Story Right in 2003". The Wall Street Journal, January 2, 2004.
• Kathleen Madigan, "WSJ Survey: Meet Ian Shepherdson, the Most Accurate Economic Forecaster in 2014", The Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2015.
• David J. Lynch, "Heres another thing the pandemic has screwed up" Economic forecasts", Washington Post, January 11, 2002. (This piece carries a substantial discussion of Shepherdson's views on economic forecasting during the Covid pandemic.)

Do these sources justify reconsideration under the general notability guidelines? If so, how would an independent editor prepare and submit a new article?

Nore that the Barron's article is not available online at this time but I can provide a high-quality scan. I can also provide further bibliographic details if required.

Thanks for your help.

Neveranygood (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Neveranygood. Did you or your associates have any input at all into any of those sources (the title of the WSJ piece certainly suggests that the piece is, or is based on, an interview with you)?

If so, then they are not independent of you, and cannot contribute to establishing notability.

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.

Have you read WP:autobiography, which explains how insanely difficult it is is to successfully write about yourself in Wikipedia?

If you are in fact notable, then in time somebody will write an article about you. Such an article will not tell the world what you want them to know - that would be promotional - it would tell the world what people wholly unconnected with you had chosen off their own bat to publish about you, whether you liked that or not.

My advice to you is to forget about Wikipedia, and spend your time on with your own life and career. (Unless you wish to edit Wikipedia in areas unconnected with yourself, in which case you would be welcome). ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine,

Thanks for your reply. You state "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." That's exactly what those sources are. I was interviewed by Barron's because they wanted to know what I thought (no PR firm, no prompting from my then-employer; no personal relationship with the reporter); the two WSJ pieces came about because I (twice) won their annual US economic forecasting competition, so they reached out to me to ask how I approach forecasting; the WP piece came about because the reporter was interested in how economists dealt with the difficulties posed by Covid. He reached out to me because he read my work and was interested in it. I can't see how they could be any more independent of me. Neveranygood (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It's still an interview with you. You are not an independent source with regards to yourself, even if you are approached unsolicited by independent sources. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The first one doesn't; interviews are not reliable.

As for the others, they might be part of a bio, but there's also not a lot of actual biography meat in there. All we know is a few job titles and that you've done very well at making economic predictions on at least these three occasions.

While someone might be able to coax out a stub, writing an article is a very difficult task for an experienced Wikipedia editor. For a novice writing on Wikipedia, writing an article about something with a conflict of interest, it would be like giving a random person a million dollars and having them day trade. It's not just something one can jump in and do even halfway competently. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

16:52, 27 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-51583-94

• ~2026-51583-94 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:GameMill Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’ve checked every game they published and every source I can find on it’s founders, year, and even it’s people. So far, the history is complicated but the games they published are almost out of order. Is there anyway this page can be notable to be on the wikipedia? ~2026-51583-94 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You've just documented the normal activities of the company- most video game companies develop and produce video games. You don't have any independent reliable sources with significant coverage- meaning critical analysis and commentary about the company as to why it is a notable company. Without that, there is no way to show notability.

It is possible for the works of a company to be notable but not the company itself. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

But its a publishing company, not a development company. They didn’t self-developed any of the games they got out. ~2026-51583-94 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Whatever the company is, you don't have sources that describe what makes them a notable organization. Are they particularly influential in the video game publishing industry? Do they employ unique business strategies others comment on? Have they been involved in important litigation? Stuff like that; we need more than "they're a company and they publish video games". 331dot (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:AKON, sometimes you can't force something to be notable when it's not. An AfD already found it probably wasn't, which is the general norm for the vast majority of companies on this planet. My search for them similarly just comes up with press releases and stuff about their games, from which notability can't be inherited. A company has to be noted separately as part of some company profile or other article, plenty of publishers actually have been. It's hard to even say it would make sense as a list, as who published a game tends to be drastically less important than who developed it. There is still Category:GameMill Entertainment games, a valid category purely for sorting purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

18:40, 27 October 2026 review of submission by Punkscribe

• Punkscribe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Harker (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I'm seeking further feedback on the notability of the band Harker following the previous Articles for Creation decline. I understand that the concern was that the existing references may not sufficiently demonstrate notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for musical groups and the general notability guideline. I've since found additional independent reviews, including coverage of the band's third album, *All That Remains*, released in October 2026. I believe the strongest evidence is the substantial critical coverage published across several years and multiple albums, rather than release announcements, interviews or promotional material. Principal independent sources 1. Punktastic — *Axiom* (20 April 2021)** https://www.punktastic.com/album-reviews/harker-axiom/ Andy Joice provides an extensive review discussing Harker's musical development since *No Discordance*, changes in the band's sound, individual compositions, instrumentation and influences. The article contains substantial original criticism rather than simply reproducing promotional information. 2. Visions — *No Discordance* (2018)** https://www.visions.de/review/harker-no-discordance/ Michael Setzer reviews Harker's debut album for the German music magazine *Visions*. The review offers independent criticism of the band's musical style, songwriting and individual tracks. This provides coverage from a separate publication outside the UK, several years before *Axiom* and *All That Remains*. 3. Punktuation! — *All That Remains* (12 October 2026)** https://www.punktuationmag.com/album-review-harker-release-brand-new-all-that-remains-lp-on-disconnect-disconnect-records/ Sonny Tyler provides a detailed review examining the album's twelve tracks, their arrangements, musical influences and stylistic differences. Although the article includes information supplied by the band, much of the review consists of the author's own critical assessment. 4. Maximum Volume Music — *All That Remains* (6 October 2026)** https://maximumvolumemusic.com/review-harker-all-that-remains-2026/ Andy Thorley provides an independently written review, awarding the album 8/10. It discusses individual tracks, songwriting, instrumentation and the contrast between the record's punk influences and more expansive arrangements. Additional supporting evidence Other relevant sources include reviews published by The Punk Site, Full Pelt Music and The Soundboard, alongside coverage in Rock Sound and Sussex Express. Harker's second album, *Axiom*, also appeared on three Official Charts Company specialist charts in 2021: the Record Store Chart, Rock & Metal Albums Chart and Independent Album Breakers Chart. I recognise that specialist chart appearances may not automatically satisfy Wikipedia's national chart criterion, and I would welcome clarification on their eligibility. Request for feedback I would particularly appreciate guidance on whether the independent album reviews above, considered collectively and across multiple release cycles, establish sufficient significant coverage under Wikipedia's general notability guideline. I understand that coverage must be assessed for independence, reliability and depth, rather than simply counted. Conflict of interest disclosure:** I am a member of Harker and therefore have a direct connection to the subject. I am seeking independent editorial assessment rather than assuming the article should be accepted. Thanks for your consideration. Punkscribe (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you using an AI to write this? If so, please don't. We want to hear from you directly, even if your spelling and grammar is not perfect. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Fire your LLM. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 22:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

20:40, 27 October 2026 review of submission by Kaxabdbymu

• Kaxabdbymu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shaffy (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help to get approved Kaxabdbymu (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You don't say what help you are seeking, but the draft was rejected, which is the end of the road. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

can be rearranged? Kaxabdbymu (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Unless and until you can address the concerns here, there's no chance for an article on this artist. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 22:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns and will review the issues raised in the deletion discussion to determine how they can be addressed. I will also work to ensure that any claims in the article are supported by reliable, independent sources and that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before attempting to recreate the article. Kaxabdbymu (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

please don't use AI to communicate with us, it's insulting. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

01:33, 28 October 2026 review of submission by SantiagoEdits

• SantiagoEdits (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Boo! (Naré song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Sulfurboy: It keeps declining my submission request and states that the sources are unreliable but i used Eurovoix which is verified to be reliable and is used for many articles that inclue the eurovision song dontest SantiagoEdits (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SantiagoEdits.

Reliability is only one of the criteria for evaluating a source. It is also required that the source be independent of the subject, and that it contain WP:significant coverage of the subject. The Eurovoix piece has two sentences about the song, which are just giving the title and the composer: that is not significant coverage, which would require at least a paragraph of historical, or critical commentary about the song.

Most songs (like most people, most companies, etc) have not been written about in the required way enough to make them notable. Please see the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Second Opinion on Draft:LilRockit

Resolved

 – The original question has been answered. No further assistance is required.

,Hello

My article, Draft:LilRockit, was declined due to insufficient independent coverage.

However, I would appreciate a second opinion on the newspaper sources, particularly the full-page Scunthorpe Telegraph feature by Nick Cole (29 August 2013, page 28), which the original reviewer confirmed they had not examined because it isn’t available online.

There are also two independent Scunthorpe Telegraph articles from May and June 2015.

Could someone advise whether these sources may satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements and how I can provide the original printed article for assessment?

Thank you. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@BlueOrbit26: the Scunthorpe Telegraph is a minor, hyper-local publication, and given that this LilRockit person is apparently from Scunthorpe, the town's media outlet is likely biased towards featuring her on "local girl done good" basis. So no, I wouldn't say it establishes notability in what comes to inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. In any case, multiple articles in the same publication would only count as one source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, several of the original questions remain unanswered, and I would appreciate some clarification.

Firstly, the 2013 Scunthorpe Telegraph article appears to have been dismissed without its contents being examined. The original question was how to provide a retained copy of this article, which is no longer available online, so that it can be properly assessed. This has still not been answered.

Secondly, there appears to be an assumption that the newspaper’s coverage was likely biased because LilRockit originated from Scunthorpe. However, LilRockit also has connections to Cirencester and was living in Manchester at the time of publication in 2013. The feature concerned her DJ career, appearance at Creamfields, and the loss of her sister, not a hometown performance.

Regional newspapers regularly report on people who originate from their areas. Surely this does not automatically make their reporting biased or unsuitable for establishing notability? Could you please identify the Wikipedia policy or guideline supporting the dismissal of a source on this basis?

You also stated that multiple articles from the same publication would only count as one source. Could you please clarify which Wikipedia guideline establishes this? Separate articles may provide additional significant coverage, even where they originate from the same publication, although their independence and editorial context would still need to be considered.

I fully understand that Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. The concern here is that conclusions appear to have been reached about a source that has not actually been examined.

Could someone please answer the original question: How can a retained copy of the complete 2013 newspaper article be made available for a reviewer to examine?

The intention is not to request special treatment or automatic acceptance of the draft, but to ensure that the available evidence is assessed fairly against Wikipedia’s published guidelines.

Thank you. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@BlueOrbit26 Please do not use an AI chatbot to talk to us. Write in your own words. qcne (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspected AI too, though I got low results on checkers(certainly they're imperfect). 331dot (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Note that this discussion will not be limited to the questions that you pose; we'll talk about any aspects of the draft that seem relevant. That you disagree with the assessment doesn't mean that it was unfair.

What is the general nature of your "personal connection"? (family, friend, employee)

You have documented her work, but not summarized "significant coverage" of her, meaning critical analysis and commentary about her work as a DJ(or other aspects of her life). It's not enough to say a publication "featured" her, we need to know what critical analysis and commentary they gave about her. Is she particularly influential as a DJ? (as in do others emulate her unique strategies or performances, if she has them) Do professional critics evaluate her work?

If this article you mention is not available online, you can't post the text here due to copyright issues. You could possibly make a copy available via email to interested parties, but that shouldn't really be necessary in this case. It is not being claimed that you're inaccurately summarizing the source.

Re "Regional newspapers regularly report on people who originate from their areas. Surely this does not automatically make their reporting biased or unsuitable for establishing notability?" Not completely, but if that's all there is, that is not evidence a topic is notable outside that region. This is a global encyclopedia, while a person does not need to be globally known, they should at least be known outside their local community. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@BlueOrbit26: the "multiple articles from one publication counts as single source" provision comes directly from our notability guideline. We are not counting articles, we are counting sources, and if a source, such as in this case the Scunthorpe Telegraph, publishes ten articles on this person, they're still all from one source.

And yes, a local publication will favour subjects with a local connection, that's just in their nature. My local town rag will report on a sweet shop opening in our small town, but not if one opens in a town five miles away. Likewise, it might report when our resident Very Famous Person gets a new puppy, but wouldn't give two hoots if the neighbouring town's VFP (who might even be – gasp! – more famous than ours) does. Conversely, our county's main paper will not report on any such trifle, let alone a national one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I would like to address the way this discussion has been handled.

I came to the Articles for Creation Help Desk genuinely seeking help, but I have found all of your responses rude, dismissive and unnecessarily confrontational. If this is a community intended to help people understand Wikipedia’s processes, I would expect questions to be answered respectfully rather than met with assumptions and rudeness.

To the comments about AI - Someone’s writing style is not evidence that they are using AI. Would it be reasonable for me to question whether other editors are using AI simply because of how they phrase their responses? I don’t believe so. I would appreciate the same consideration.

Regarding my connection to the article, I have already made a conflict-of-interest disclosure on my Wikipedia user page. I am LilRockit, the subject of the draft. I have not attempted to conceal this connection, and I submitted the article through Articles for Creation specifically so that it could be independently reviewed rather than publishing it directly.

I also want to address the assumptions being made about the newspaper coverage. As I already mentioned the 2013 Scunthorpe Telegraph feature concerns a performance at Creamfields, not a hometown appearance, has connections to both Scunthorpe and Cirencester and was living in Manchester at the time. The suggestion that the “newspaper’s coverage was likely biased because of a geographical connection” is speculative, particularly when the article itself has not been looked at, at all.

My original request was straightforward: I have retained a complete copy of the 2013 newspaper feature from when it was available online, and I wanted to know how to make it available for examination without infringing copyright.

Suggestions about privately sharing the article have now been made, I would appreciate knowing whether an editor is actually willing to examine it.

Like I mentioned before, I am not asking for the draft to be approved automatically. I am asking for the evidence to be considered fairly, for actual help, and for assistance to be provided without personal assumptions or dismissive remarks.

Thank you. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

You came here asking for a second opinion, but when provided, you don't like it, so you started accusing us of being rude and confrontational. And all this while trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourself, which is emphatically not what this encyclopaedia is for. I can't block you myself, because you've made sure with your complaints that I'm now involved, but if you carry on in this vein another admin probably will, sooner or later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, I would appreciate it if you stopped making assumptions about my intentions.

At no point have I said that I disagree with the decision to decline the draft simply because I don’t like the outcome. I came here asking for clarification and help about the sources and how to provide a copy of an original newspaper article for examination.

Only one editor has actually addressed my question about making the newspaper article available. The other responses have largely focused on assumptions about my intentions, my writing style and now accusations that I am attempting to use Wikipedia for self promotion, of which I have already disclosed my personal connection to the subject. I have not attempted to hide it, and the draft was submitted for independent review.

I also find your suggestion that another administrator will probably block me if I continue raising concerns particularly inappropriate. Asking questions, requesting clarification and expressing concerns about how I am being addressed should not automatically be treated as disruptive behaviour. How else is anyone supposed to get help on here if they don’t ask questions on a help forum?…

I am not responsible for your personal frustrations, and I would appreciate it if you did not direct them towards me. I would prefer that you do not respond to me further and I would appreciate any further guidance coming from an uninvolved editor.

I came here looking for guidance and help on Wikipedia’s requirements, not an argument. So kindly stop attributing motives to me that I have not expressed. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@BlueOrbit26 I have taken a deep look at the sources in your draft. None of them provide the evidence we need that you meet our criteria for inclusion. We look for multiple sources (a good rule of thumb is three, distinct, sources) that meet all of these criteria:

1. Independent of you, not based off an interview or an event you are connected with or a streaming service etc. None of your sources meet this criteria.
2. Reliable, not social media or forums. All your sources are reliable.
3. Significant coverage, critique or review or discuss you in an in-depth way. Most of your sources are just appearance credits. The couple of interviews which do provide significant coverage, are interviews, so fail the first criteria.

Based off this, you do not meet our criteria for inclusion at this time and an article would not be possible. Genuine best of luck with your career. qcne (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your assessment and the points you have made. But the original 2013 newspaper article has still not been examined.

Before concluding that none of the sources meet the requirements, could you please confirm whether you would be willing to examine this article?

And if not, could you direct me to an editor who would be willing to receive a copy privately and assess it?

This is the specific assistance I originally requested and have been requesting throughout this discussion.

Thank you. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Even if that source magically meets all three criteria, it still wouldn't be enough to prove criteria for inclusion because we need multiple sources that meet those 3 criteria. But, sure, feel free to email me a OneDrive or DropBox link or image URL containing that source. qcne (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, I have sent that just now. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I have received and read it. My condolences on the loss of your sister. The source unfortunately doesn't meet our criteria; although it is from a reliable newspaper, the coverage of you it provides is solely based off an interview with you with no independent analysis. We generally also want to see coverage in national or international press instead of a local news source. The decline of the draft was therefore a correct one. This does not preclude you from ever meeting our criteria for inclusion. For now, focus on your career and forget that Wikipedia exists. qcne (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read the newspaper article, explain your assessment, and for your kind condolences for my sister. I appreciate it.

I wanted to explain why I’ve been pursuing the Wikipedia article.

There have been issues with people imitating the LilRockit name, and the name is currently halfway through the trademark application process.

Part of the reason for wanting a Wikipedia article was to help establish a clear, publicly accessible record of ‘LilRockit’s’ career and identity.

I understand that this doesn’t change Wikipedia’s requirements for inclusion, but I thought it might help explain the reasons behind the submission.

Thank you again for your time and assistance. Have a good day. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

You were very disingenuous by not saying you were editing about yourself from the beginning. Yet you accuse us of rudeness. No one has been rude to you. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

You say "I have not attempted to conceal this connection" but you did. A "personal connection" could mean anything, and usually means a family member, not the person themselves. It's beyond the pale to say we're the ones who are rude. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I had already disclosed my connection to LilRockit on my user page. I accept that “personal connection” may not have been specific enough, but that does not mean I was deliberately concealing anything, and when asked what my connection was, I disclosed it. If I wanted to conceal it I could have lied, but I didn’t, did I.

I would also encourage you to reread some of the responses. People interpret written communication differently, and what you consider acceptable may come across as rude or dismissive to someone else. This is no different from the assumptions made about my writing style and whether AI was involved.

I came here asking for help, not to argue or demand that the article be accepted. Qcne has now examined the newspaper article and answered my original question, for which I have thanked them.

My concern has been resolved, and I would appreciate no further assumptions being made about my intentions. Thank you. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The reverse is true as well- you're assuming we're being rude when we aren't. We want to help you- we still do- but we need honesty in order to do so. Most people would say, "Hi! I'm trying to create an article about myself and I have some questions....". The way you were circumspect- even if you didn't have a deceptive intent- this comes off as obfuscation even if you didn't intend that. Please just be up front in the future.

I truly wish you luck with your career. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why you're all still entertaining these obviously AI generated replies. @BlueOrbit26 Please don't treat us like idiots. We see dozens of AI generated comments every week, I highly doubt it's coincidence that yours sounds like it could be written by any one of those same people, even down to the complaints about the accusation; which is so common that we have multiple different pieces of advice to help people identify them. Athanelar (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This conversation was over 4 hours ago when Qcne answered my question and I no longer needed help.

Just an FYI, I completed a creative writing course in 2012. Not everyone who writes in a structured or articulate way is using AI, and I find it insulting that people continue to make assumptions about my abilities based on my writing style.

My question has been answered, and I would appreciate this discussion being left alone. BlueOrbit26 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Never heard that one before. Never. Athanelar (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I will just note that Wikipedia coverage will not do anything in a trademark dispute. Even if it did, if you used that to illustrate your use of a mark, an opposing lawyer's associate will find that you wrote the Wikipedia article very quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

15:57, 28 October 2026 review of submission by Thenoise1111

• Thenoise1111 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Thenoise1111/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a declared conflict of interest: this is a draft about myself, which is why I have not submitted it and do not intend to create it directly. Before I submit it to AfC, I would appreciate a frank assessment of whether the current sources meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, and what kind of coverage would be needed. The subject is an author and inventor; current sources include USPTO patents, bylined articles, and a DOI-archived publication series. I understand that self-published, primary and bylined material does not count toward notability, so I expect the answer may be "not yet", and I would rather hear it here than through a decline. Thank you. Thenoise1111 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Thenoise1111: you're asking us to review the draft, before you submit it for review, which is just duplicating the workload. But I will say that anything you're written or said yourself does not contribute towards your notability, and links to Amazon etc. make it overtly promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Please read the autobiography policy. Virtually no one succeeds at writing about themselves here- maybe a literal handful out of tens of thousands of attempts. This is especially the case for new users without broader Wikipedia editing experience. Are you the rare person who can succeed where everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both, that is the frank answer I was looking for. Understood on all three points: nothing I have written counts, the Amazon links go, and an autobiography is the wrong vehicle regardless. I will not submit the draft. If and when independent coverage exists, I will leave it to others to decide whether an article is warranted. Thenoise1111 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

17:51, 28 October 2026 review of submission by Keefesencen621

• Keefesencen621 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Makai Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know how to make this better, other than maybe adding a couple more sources, and while it might be dependent on the reviewer, I have seen lots of other athlete articles get accepted for less, so I'm just sort of confused on what I can do to make it better. Keefesencen621 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were accepted by anyone. This is why we judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles.

If you would like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take action. We need the help, as there are many inappropriate articles, and we are only as good as those who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The notability criteria for athletes (WP:NSPORT) has changed over time; merely playing in a college game doesn't contribute to notability in and of itself. The notability criteria for athletes is no longer a hard list, but a list of what might lead to signficant coverage of a person. Athletes are now treated like any other person- there needs to be significant coverage of them, not just documentation of their career and stats. If you have provided all the sources that you have, then this person doesn't merit an article at this time. That doesn't mean forever; you can keep the draft active if things change(or, if deleted due to inactivity, ask that it be restored via WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the first comment too by the way, Thanks for helping me understand this, I have also asked some editors who are experienced in articles about former and current Hoosiers about how I could make this and other drafts better. Thank you for the input and advice! Keefesencen621 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I can see Jackson becoming notable at some point -- he's probably borderline NFL draft material so should at least show up at a training camp -- but unless there are better sources out there, probably not yet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on Draft:Caulkdraggin

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’m requesting a second opinion on Draft:Caulkdraggin. S0091 rejected the draft on October 24. Since then, I added coverage published by QC Life/WBTV on October 27 and WCCB Charlotte on October 28 and requested reconsideration at User talk:S0091. The reviewer’s response treats the Business North Carolina and QC Life pieces as interviews and considers CineDump an unreliable blog. I would appreciate another AfC reviewer’s assessment of those sources and whether the updated draft warrants reconsideration under WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. My main question concerns Chris Burritt’s Business North Carolina article. Alongside quotations from McGee, it contains the writer’s discussion of the film’s scenes, music and use of Rosie, plus context about North Carolina’s film industry. The explanation at WP:INTERVIEWS distinguishes articles containing quotations from straightforward interviews and recognizes that a source can contain both primary and secondary material. Please assess whether those portions qualify as independent secondary coverage, and whether the sources now cited in the draft collectively establish notability. The previous review notices and discussion remain available. Thank you.

Chadwickthunder (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Using AI to generate comments isn't allowed. We have no reason to believe that you've actually read the relevant guidelines and are basing your argument on them rather than just having the bot spit an argument out for you. Athanelar (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, you have no reason to believe that I’m an LLM that’s just your pure ignorance and assumption without any basis. Nice try though thanks. ~2026-57604-24 (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With that said here is my question AGAIN as I Wrote it. I’m requesting a second opinion on Draft:Caulkdraggin. S0091 rejected the draft on October 24. Since then, I added coverage published by QC Life/WBTV on October 27 and WCCB Charlotte on October 28 and requested reconsideration at User talk:S0091. The reviewer’s response treats the Business North Carolina and QC Life pieces as interviews and considers CineDump an unreliable blog. I would appreciate another AfC reviewer’s assessment of those sources and whether the updated draft warrants reconsideration under WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. My main question concerns Chris Burritt’s Business North Carolina article. Alongside quotations from McGee, it contains the writer’s discussion of the film’s scenes, music and use of Rosie, plus context about North Carolina’s film industry. The explanation at WP:INTERVIEWS distinguishes articles containing quotations from straightforward interviews and recognizes that a source can contain both primary and secondary material. Please assess whether those portions qualify as independent secondary coverage, and whether the sources now cited in the draft collectively establish notability. The previous review notices and discussion remain available. Thank you.

~2026-57604-24 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

For convenience, my response is at User talk:S0091#Request for reconsideration of Draft: Caulkdraggin and also CineDump's About page. If another reviewer disagrees with my assessment, I have no issue with them reverting my reject which would put the draft back in the pile for review or accepting it. I now also notice @DoubleGrazing rejected it but reversed it, I am assuming due to User talk:DoubleGrazing#Request for review on Draft: Caulkdraggin. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a reviewer, but I do believe your assessment is correct. These are not independent sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that constructive feedback. That’s all I was asking for. According to what I understand it to quoting from an interview does not disqualify a article from meeting the standard for notability. Wikipedia states ““significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” When a substantial business news article writes on the subject I would feel as this would be considered a part of said substantiality. ~2026-57604-24 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

An interview is based on what the subject says and so obviously is not independent of the subject. Athanelar (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interviews § Primary or secondary?⁠

“Interviews may combine both primary and secondary material.” ~2026-57604-24 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I do apologize for not being logged in. I have corrected that. Chadwickthunder (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:EGGS. Multiple experienced editors have advised you that interviews are not usually useful for establishing notability. Handwaving at an essay (not even an actual guideline) is not a productive response. Athanelar (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then what about WP:PSTS? That’s policy. It says, “A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one.” Burritt discusses the film’s music, scenes and how Rosie adds humor. That’s the part I’m asking about. Why is the entire article being dismissed as an interview when it also contains the writer’s own commentary? Saying interviews usually don’t count doesn’t answer that question. Chadwickthunder (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Remember that what you're trying to do is demonstrate that Caulkdraggin is notable, not his movie. Even then, what the article says about the movie is very little and wouldn't count as WP:SIGCOV for that either, but it certainly doesn't count as independent significant coverage of Caulkdraggin when it's an interview with him. Athanelar (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we can all see it above by opening the collapse box. There is no need to paste the same AI mess again. Please also remember to log in to your account before commenting. Athanelar (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m sure you’re really fun at your Cat parties, but I just wanna double check since you felt the need to collapse something without any qualifiers by assuming it’s AI. ~2026-57604-24 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

You know it's AI, because you used AI to write it. We know it's AI because we're not idiots and we see dozens of identically-written AI generated comments every week. Athanelar (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

21:28, 28 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57580-09

• ~2026-57580-09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shiloh & Bros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just want some feedback because I’m curious! That’s all, haha! :D ~2026-57580-09 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on the impenetrable wall of huge unformatted text? Sorry, @~2026-57580-09, no.

What I will say is that writing a Wikipedia article is hard.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, this isn't really a Wikipedia article. Wading through it, it's a basic description of a Youtube channel, with a very long intro that's very meta, and then a long section after the description that appears to be your personal feelings about writing a Wikipedia article. Again, points for passion, but this is really not the kind of thing we're looking for, as an encyclopedia. If you're interested in continuing the participate in this project, I recommend you look for smaller edits to make that improve articles while you learn, and also on your own, continuing to develop as a writer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

02:11, 29 October 2026 review of submission by Soudalin

• Soudalin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Carey Zou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am seeking advice about my draft, Draft Zou, which was rejected on 28 October 2026. The reviewer stated that the subject is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I would like to understand the specific concerns regarding my draft and whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability and inclusion criteria. I would also appreciate guidance on what types of independent, reliable secondary sources would be needed to establish the subject's notability and how I can improve the draft in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. I want to ensure that the article is neutral, properly sourced, and suitable for an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time and advice. Soudalin (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

03:31, 29 October 2026 review of submission by ShamarionB

• ShamarionB (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shamarion "Mar" Burton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting assistance understanding the rejection of my draft, “Shamarion ‘Mar’ Burton,” and guidance on what specific changes would be necessary for it to meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards. I would appreciate an independent assessment of the decision and a clear explanation of the concerns that led to the rejection. My Concern: I am concerned that my submission may have been rejected without sufficient consideration of the full content and supporting information. The rejection notice states that the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion and that the draft is contrary to Wikipedia’s purpose. However, I have not received a detailed explanation identifying which portions of the draft were considered promotional, which policies were not satisfied, or what specific evidence was missing. I am particularly concerned about the apparent speed of the decision. The submission status displayed that the draft had been rejected almost immediately after the action was recorded. Given the length of the draft, its multiple sections, and the information and references included, I find it difficult to understand how a thorough assessment of the entire submission could have been completed in such a short period. I recognize that the displayed timestamp may reflect when the action was recorded rather than the full time spent reviewing the draft, but the lack of specific feedback leaves me uncertain about whether the decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation. Why I Believe the Rejection May Have Been Premature: I made an effort to organize the information into distinct sections covering my background, education, school involvement, professional experience, military service, training, and music projects. My intention was to present factual biographical information rather than simply advertise or promote myself. I also disclosed my use of ChatGPT for assistance and acknowledged my conflict of interest as the subject of the draft. I understand that accurate personal information and a well-organized biography do not automatically establish notability under Wikipedia’s policies. I am not asking for the draft to be accepted solely because I put effort into it, nor am I asking for Wikipedia’s inclusion standards to be waived. Rather, I am asking for clarification on how those standards were applied to this particular submission. The statement that the draft is contrary to Wikipedia’s purpose is a serious conclusion, and I would appreciate specific examples of the content that led to that assessment. If the primary concern is promotional language, insufficient independent coverage, inadequate citations, or failure to demonstrate notability, I would welcome clear guidance identifying those issues so I can address them appropriately. Requested Resolution: I respectfully request assistance determining whether the rejection was based on a sufficiently thorough review and whether the decision can be reconsidered through the appropriate Wikipedia process. If the rejection was justified, I would appreciate specific, actionable feedback identifying the policies and evidentiary requirements that the draft failed to meet. My goal is to understand and follow Wikipedia’s standards, not to circumvent them. I am willing to revise the draft substantially, remove material that does not belong, and strengthen its sourcing where appropriate. I simply want a fair opportunity to understand the decision and determine whether a properly sourced, neutral version of the draft could qualify for inclusion. Thank you for your time and consideration.

ShamarionB (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

06:10, 29 October 2026 review of submission by Mharoonakhtar

• Mharoonakhtar (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Carlotta Gagna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have a conflict of interest as I work for the company founded by the subject. I have disclosed this on my user page. My draft has been declined twice. The first reviewer said the sources were not strong enough and the tone was promotional. The second reviewer raised the same concern about sources and also flagged the text as possibly LLM generated. I have revised the draft to address the tone issues. I believe the subject meets notability criteria based on coverage in the Corriere della Sera, La Gazzetta dello Sport, Evening Standard, Hello magazine, Khaleej Times, Women's Fitness, and Forbes Italia (100 Women list 2026). The subject also has a published book with Mondadori. An Italian Wikipedia article already exists. Could an experienced editor please review the draft and let me know if the sources are sufficient, or if I should take a different approach? Thank you. Mharoonakhtar (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't use an AI to talk to us either. Be aware that what may exist on other language Wikipedias is irrelevant here; the English Wikipedia has the strictest criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Webtronaut Innovations — rejected after reformat; asking what would make it pass

• SahilKazi1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Webtronaut Innovations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I am the founder of the subject company; my COI is disclosed on my user page and the draft talk page. I am asking for guidance, not a reversal by volume.

History: the draft was declined for suspected AI text (I rewrote it myself), declined again for too many press releases and primary sources (I removed all of them), then rejected as not notable, with the comment "overly promotional, very likely non-notable, terrible sourcing."

The current draft cites 11 independent editorial sources: TechCrunch (twice, on SueEasy), ABA Journal, United Press International, Los Angeles Daily Journal, BusinessWeek, NewTeeVee, Media in Canada, IndieWire, Product Placement News and Overlawyered, plus the company website once. The acquisitions are stated only as "according to the company" and the draft includes criticism of the service.

Two calibration questions: 1. Is the judgement that this coverage is not significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, or that coverage of a holding company's ventures cannot count toward the company? 2. Two company drafts were accepted this month with thinner sourcing (SecurityPal, accepted with 7 sources including its own website; Kairospace, accepted with a press release still cited). What distinguishes those from this draft?

If the answer is that the subject simply does not meet WP:NCORP, I will accept that. If something specific is fixable, I would like to know what it is. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilKazi1 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:TECHCRUNCH; it is of questionable reliability, particularly in this case where the author is anonymous. You need multiple sources that each meet all of the criteria in WP:SIRS, and the sources should not be WP:CORPROUTINE or WP:CORPTRIV.

There are citations about specific ventures, but very little coverage of the company itself.

Every draft is evaluated on its own merits without regard to what else may exist on Wikipedia, so comparisons with others are irrelevant. If substandard content exists elsewhere, that is a reason to clean up the mess rather than compound the problem by adding more of the same.

It is rare that a company article written by a representative succeeds. Most company articles on Wikipedia were not written by anyone associated with the company.

You may appeal to the rejecting reviewer to allow the draft to be resubmitted for further consideration, if you feel that the sources you provide meet the requirements described in the links I provided above. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Review request: Draft:Igor Ivanovich Kirdoda

Hello! Could a reviewer please take a look at Draft:Igor Ivanovich Kirdoda?

The draft has been waiting in the queue for over a month. The subject is a notable geophysicist and President of Global Energy Azerbaijan Management, decorated with the state Taraggi Medal. The draft is fully supported by reliable independent sources, and the article is already published in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and help! Lado Dvali (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

As the template at the top of the draft says, the wait time for a review is currently 8 weeks or more based on the current backlog. Asking for an early review will not speed up this entirely volunteer-driven process. Athanelar (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Lado Dvali. Are you the subject of the draft? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

12:39, 29 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57681-49

• ~2026-57681-49 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Orkla India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted a draft article about Orkla India for review, but it has not been approved by the editor. I would appreciate guidance on the issues that may be preventing approval and the changes required to bring the draft in line with Wikipedia’s notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view guidelines. I would like to understand how to improve the draft and address any concerns before resubmitting it for review. Thank you for your assistance. ~2026-57681-49 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57681-49 This has been rejected, meaning you can't re-submit for review. This company simply does not meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

14:57, 29 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57343-18

• ~2026-57343-18 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ja-RusingaChula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rejected. The reason given was that the article had no references. However, references are there at the bottom. I humbly request for a review and consideration. ~2026-57343-18 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57343-18: if you wish to continue editing, you must first successfully appeal the block on your account, and that is done on the account's talk page, not here. Until then, you are not allowed to edit logged-out, because the block applies to you as a person, not just to your registered account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

PS: For the benefit of anyone else wondering, the user in question, Ja-RusingaChula, submitted a draft on their userpage. I moved it to Draft:Tom Joel Obengo, and went on their talk to explain. A few minutes later they posted another copy on their userpage, which I reverted. There's clearly some confusion regarding where the content is or should be, hence why they're now linking to their userpage, although there's no substantive content there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

17:23, 29 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57748-18

• ~2026-57748-18 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Jeroniore/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

because you canceled it

~2026-57748-18 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-57748-18. We don't host fictional content. qcne (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

How do I address this?

I wrote this, not AI. How do I address it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:~2026-55546-44&action=edit&section=4

Thank you. ~2026-55546-44 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55546-44 some of the writing style is indicative of AI, in addition many of the links go the site's main page rather than to the specific article which is also indicative of AI so at the very least that needs to be corrected. S0091 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. By my count only 3 of the links were short-form, and I've fixed those as suggested. Also expanded some of the citations with authors and sub-heading. Edited it a bit. Will look at it further. --~2026-55546-44 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

19:18, 29 October 2026 review of submission by Charlie Bauder at Good Shepherd Rehabilitation

• Charlie Bauder at Good Shepherd Rehabilitation (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Good Shepherd Rehabilitation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Ozzie10aaaa: After review, what other types of promotional language are being referenced and should be removed? I am attempting to edit to remove what is considered "promotional" but are still attempting to state services that an organization provides or referencing facts that may speak to the organization's notability within a region.

Also, does notability take into account the region that an organization exists in? The Morning Call and WFMZ are two independent sources that represent the primary media outlets in Allentown, the third-largest city in Pennsylvania. I am just trying to better grasp the notability requirements. Thanks! Charlie Bauder at Good Shepherd Rehabilitation (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, yes you have made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Good_Shepherd_Rehabilitation&action=history several edits that improve the article, I believe that upon its next review it should get a positive response, from the reviewer, you just need to be patient, thank you, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

(ec) If you wish to address Ozzie10aaaa directly, you should use their user talk page(User talk:Ozzie10aaaa).

I don't speak for them, but the entire draft is promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself, its offerings, and its normal activities. This is considered promotional here, you don't need to be actively soliciting or selling something. See WP:YESPROMO. A Wikipedia article about an organization should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what others view as important/significant/influential about the topic, not what it views as its own importance.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE; most organization representatives are not successful in forcing the issue of creating an article, especially as new users without broader Wikipedia editing experience; it is usually best to allow one to organically develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of the topic in independent sources and chooses to write about it, summarizing that coverage. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily intending to address anyone directly, but just use the help desk. I do appreciate all of the feedback! Thank you and my apologies for any unintended breach of etiquette. Charlie Bauder at Good Shepherd Rehabilitation (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

You didn't breach any etiquette, just trying to cut out the middleman if you were trying to address them. You linked to their username which usually indicates the comment is directed towards that person. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Charlie Bauder at Good Shepherd Rehabilitation.

"Promotional" mostly means that it is telling the reader what the subject of the article wants people to know about them. It's not just the language, it's the whole stance.

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.

Have you read WP:BOSS? People in your position are very rarely successful at creating an article. In most cases this is because the organisation in question is simply not notable in the way Wikipedia uses the word. If your organisation is notable,(as one commenter on the draft thought it might be), you still have the problem that creating an article is very difficult for a new editor, even without a conflict of interest. Please also have a look at WP:PAIDADVICE#The art of writing for Wikipedia ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

21:15, 29 October 2026 review of submission by Abuzaralipb

• Abuzaralipb (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ustad Mubarak Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am seeking guidance regarding my declined draft, Draft:Ustad Mubarak Ali Khan.

I previously used AI assistance to help structure historical information and format references in an earlier version of the draft. I disclosed this on the draft page.

I have now shortened the biography and personally written the current article text using information from published newspaper reports. I understand that Wikipedia has restrictions on using AI to generate or rewrite article content, and I want to make sure I comply with the relevant policy.

Could an experienced editor please advise whether I should provide any additional information about the earlier AI assistance, and whether my current draft is suitable for resubmission?

I am also a family member of the subject and have disclosed this conflict of interest. I intend to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rely on independent, reliable published sources.

Thank you for your guidance.

Abuzaralipb Abuzaralipb (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, the previous version was riddled with AI, far more than structuring and formatting. The same stilted bizarre over-formal 2024 AI-speak pollutes the older draft. What's left after removing it isn't much; I don't see the case for notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. I will look for independent sources before resubmitting. Abuzaralipb (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

23:52, 29 October 2026 review of submission by Kathrynleann

• Kathrynleann (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert H. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Thilsebatti: Hi,

I had my draft of Robert H. Hawkins denied, citing a lack of neutral language. I have updated my draft and am wondering if someone may be able to look at it to let me know if you think I may have resolved the issue or if I need to make further edits. I understand this would not take the place of a formal review. Any guidance you can offer would be appreciated, as I do not want my next submission to be denied or deleted.

Thank you, Kathryn Harris Kathrynleann (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

We don't do pre-review reviews, because that duplicates what the reviewer will do, and volunteers have limited time. To obtain feedback, please resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I just resubmitted it. Thank you. Kathrynleann (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

00:24, 30 October 2026 review of submission by Yasherkamal

• Yasherkamal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Triple01s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why Yasherkamal (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The reason for rejection was clearly stated by the reviewer. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

01:48, 30 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57801-34

• ~2026-57801-34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of auto advertising characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Somebody help me make this. ~2026-57801-34 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

As you've been told in the past, the draft was rejected, which is the end of the road unless you can show WP:NLIST notability. It's time to move on to another task. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This is also not the forum to solicit co-editing. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

09:30, 30 October 2026 review of submission by Marvin Wasp

• Marvin Wasp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:This Day in Metal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SK2242: Hi, I’m looking for some help with a draft about This Day in Metal. The draft was declined with a notice stating that it appeared to contain LLM generated text and that I should remove those portions and instead summarize independent, reliable published sources. I understand the concern and I want to follow Wikipedia’s policies properly. I have already found a number of independent published sources that discuss This Day in Metal, and I would like help understanding how those sources should be used to establish notability and how the article should be structured. I also have a conflict of interest because I founded This Day in Metal, so I understand that I should not simply rewrite the article myself and push it through. Could an experienced editor please look at the sources I have and explain what would need to be changed, or advise me on how best to proceed with the draft? I’m not asking anyone to bypass Wikipedia’s policies. I’m trying to understand the requirements and get the article into a form that complies with them.

Thank you. Marvin Wasp (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Remember; if you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort. It is unfair and disrespectful to ask volunteer editors to use their time and effort helping you if you won't even use your own time and effort to do some reading and formulate your own question. Athanelar (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I am mentally disabled and don’t know how to properly do this. I am on long term disability with my doctor because of this. I have trouble processing information and doing stuff. It’s practically impossible to get any help with editors they just wanna reply back and make you feel bad and dumb instead of helping with getting my Wikipedia page published. The articles about my site mentioning Ozzy Osbourne Day and other sites mentioning us is available online. It justs takes a few google searches to find it. I give up. I am disabled and giving up. Honestly you should be helping not making me feel like an ass!! Marvin Wasp (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Marvin Wasp If your disability prevents you from being able to properly understand and process our policies and guidelines, that doesn't make you "dumb" or "an ass" but it does unfortunately mean you're probably not the right person to write a Wikipedia article. It is the unfortunate reality that certain competencies are required to contribute here and we can't necessarily accommodate everybody who wants to contribute. You probably wouldn't hire a guy with no arms to build your roof with his feet, no matter how much he wanted to do it.

Regarding helping with getting my Wikipedia page published you're right that we have very little interest in that. Nobody is entitled to a Wikipedia article, we're not obliged to help you get one just because you want one, and if your disability prevents you from understanding our requirements and writing your article without the help of AI, then indeed you're not going to have an article. Athanelar (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s no big deal if we have a Wikipedia page. It’s ridiculous why editors need to ridicule people. We have over 500k followers on our social media sites and have been mentioned in major heavy metal sites including Blabbermouth, Bravewords and others. Also we had a press release and interview done with BBC about our Ozzy Osbourne Day petition. If that isn’t news and reliable sources I don’t know what is. I must be dumb as you say. It’s not worth the hassle man. The draft will made follows the same patterns as the other sites mentioning who we are and what we do and also provided links to sources. I honestly don’t care if you don’t help. I was basically asking who to go about editing the draft. Your rude response isn’t necessarily. Not even sure what your role is on here but clearly your mother didn’t raise you right!! Later! Marvin Wasp (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

No one wants to make you feel bad. But we must be honest with you. You can certainly designate a representative to create their own account and participate on your behalf.

You may be approached by scammers, please see the scam warning. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

To be honest we have done this in the past and it was still rejected. For some reason it seems like we are not important enough as a media outlet to have a Wikipedia page. Marvin Wasp (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Review assistance requested for User:JSC1961/sandbox

I am requesting a human editor to take a look at my draft at User:JSC1961/sandbox.

The draft was previously declined for containing promotional or LLM-generated tone. I have completely overwritten the entire sandbox text from scratch to enforce a neutral, purely factual encyclopedic tone. All claims are now strictly sourced and cited using high-quality published coverage, including the Taipei Times review by David Frazier, BeachGrit, and Expat Living Singapore.

However, the automated system template is locking up and auto-declining the page immediately upon submission. Could a human reviewer please manually look at the current text body in my sandbox and reset the status template? Thank you. ~~~~ JSC1961 (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Humans have been looking at it, this is not an automated process. Drafts are not automatically declined. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@JSC1961: it has been reviewed by two human editors, that's the only kind we have here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Draft:John Callahan, draft space is the preferred location for submissions. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@JSC1961: Before you resubmitted the draft after the first decline, you stated that you had used a chatbot to "help completely rewrite the draft from scratch". Wikipedia's policy regarding chatbots and other LLMs does not allow that, so I have deleted the draft. If you decide to create a new draft, please do not use a chatbot; find the sources and write the text yourself, please. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

10:38, 30 October 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57961-42

• ~2026-57961-42 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The titanic in trailmakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need my draft to be submitted so I can be the first kid(George Lewis Augustine Flanagan McCabe) to submit something to Wikipedia.

~2026-57961-42 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57961-42: this draft, such as it is, has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If you want to provide commentary on a game, you can do so on social media or some fandom type site. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57961-42 If you want to add to Wikipedia, you should read our advice for young editors. Athanelar (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

10:49, 30 October 2026 review of submission by Rekraft3783

• Rekraft3783 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Reiner Kraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Theroadislong: I have a question for the help desk about which notability guideline applies. My draft was declined under the academic notability guideline. I think this may be the wrong guideline for me. I am mainly an inventor and entrepreneur, not a researcher: more than 110 granted US patents, MIT Technology Review TR100 in 2002, and a profile in WirtschaftsWoche in 2004 that called me the most productive inventor in Silicon Valley. There are also two newspaper profiles from October 2026.

My question: would the general notability guideline or ANYBIO be the right standard here, and do the sources look sufficient under that standard? Before I resubmit I plan to rewrite the draft myself and change the framing: person infobox instead of scientist, remove the publication list, and describe me as inventor and founder in the lead.

I am the subject of the draft, as declared on my user page. Thanks for any guidance. Rekraft3783 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rekraft3783: there is no special notability guideline for "inventors and entrepreneurs", they come under the general WP:GNG one. In this case, I would expect that the first reviewer who declined on academic notability grounds would have also checked that the sources don't satisfy GNG, which is the fallback.

The more recent decline was because the reviewer concluded that this was put together using LLM or some other AI-based tool. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Rekraft3783 Please read the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience. Almost everyone who attempts to write about themselves fails; the number of successful autobiographies can probably be counted on one hand, out of tens of thousands of attempts. I personally have never seen one in 15 years. Are you the rare human who can succeed where virtually everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it.

Please also read about how an article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one. Is there a particular reason you are doing this? 331dot (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You uploaded the picture of yourself and claim the copyright, but it appears to be a professionally taken image, in which case typically the photographer holds the copyright. Even if not, you should not be named as the creator of the image unless you clicked the button to take it. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

12:26, 30 October 2026 review of submission by RCH2026

• RCH2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Richardson Sales Performance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@EaglesFan37: Hi! I accidently resubmitted without making changes when I clicked the resubmit button. How do I fix this? RCH2026 (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@RCH2026: there's nothing to fix, you just carry on with whatever edits you were going to make. There is now an extra decline on record, which has slightly nudged the draft towards an eventual outright rejection, but it's still early days, and as long as you continue to make meaningful progress after each decline, I doubt this will be rejected too soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That said, please read WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

13:33, 30 October 2026 review of submission by LBruti

• LBruti (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Luigi Bruti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am Luigi Bruti, the subject of Draft:Luigi Bruti, and I disclose my conflict of interest. My draft was declined for concerns about AI-generated writing, a résumé-like style, and insufficient independent coverage.

I would appreciate guidance on addressing these issues before resubmitting. I have additional newspaper clippings, including a profile by Gianni Flaiani in Il Marchigiano (18 November 1976), and reports in Italian newspapers from September 1975. Could someone advise how to make these offline sources available for assessment and how to seek help from an independent editor?

ChatGPT assisted me in preparing this help request as well as the earlier draft. I want to be transparent about this and follow Wikipedia’s rules. Thank you. LBruti (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. We would like to talk with you directly, even if your English is not perfect.

Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello 331dot, thank you for your message. I have read the autobiography policy. I need your help to understand how to proceed correctly.

I have also some pictures of news papers that an independent can evaluate.

Best Regards

Luigi Bruti LBruti (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LBruti.

I will give you advice how to proceed correctly.

My advice is: stop trying to write about yourself on Wikipedia, as there is a more than 99.99% chance that you will be wasting your time, and that of the editors who interact with you.

Are you aware that, if there is ever an article about you (whoever writes it), it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, it will hardly at all be based on what your or your associates say about you, but entirely on what people unknown to you have chosen to publish about you, and almost anybody in the world will be permitted to edit it except you and your associates? Please see WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

LBruti The English Wikipedia has different rules than the Italian Wikipedia where you have already been. If your content is acceptable there, that's where you should focus your efforts. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I put an additional warning on the user talk page against AI use.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 00:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

16:38, 30 October 2026 review of submission by Beatleberry

• Beatleberry (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Snow Machine (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would appreciate an independent assessment of the sourcing for Draft:Snow Machine (album), which has been declined for not demonstrating notability under WP:NMUSIC.

My understanding of WP:NMUSIC is that an album does not need to be by a notable artist if the album itself meets WP:GNG, and that a recording may establish notability through multiple non-trivial published works in reliable sources independent of the artist.

Before I created the album draft, the same reviewer had advised me that a standalone album article was effectively not possible unless Snow Machine (the band/project) first had independent notability and its own article, citing WP:A9. I subsequently read the applicable guidance and understood WP:NMUSIC and WP:A9 differently: specifically, that an album may independently satisfy WP:GNG, and that A9 is a speedy-deletion criterion rather than an absolute requirement that the recording artist already have an article. I would appreciate clarification of that point as well.

The album draft currently cites dedicated reviews of the album from:

• SLUG Magazine — Jamila Roehrig, March 2005
• Ink 19 — Aaron Shaul
• Lollipop Magazine — Scott Hefflon, February 23, 2005
• AMP Magazine — issue 15, June–July 2005, p. 224
• Aiding & Abetting — Jon Worley

These are not merely release announcements or passing mentions; each discusses the album's music and/or critical reception, and the draft summarizes that coverage in its "Music and lyrics" and "Critical reception" sections.

Before resubmitting, I would particularly appreciate guidance on whether these sources are sufficient to satisfy the significant-coverage, reliability, and independence requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. If any of the sources are considered unsuitable for establishing notability, I would be grateful to know which ones and why.

I am not asking whether the draft should automatically be accepted; I am trying to understand what specific sourcing or policy deficiency remains so that I can address it appropriately.

Thank you. Beatleberry (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that you're mixing some of the notability requirements together. WP:GNG is a much higher bar than WP:NMUSIC, and reviews that what otherwise satisfy WP:NMUSIC may not be enough to pass WP:GNG. Also, if you're using an LLM here, please don't; nobody here wants to talk to a chatbot, and LLM communications can be hatted and ignored. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

16:59, 30 October 2026 review of submission by Azimmy

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

Hello, I am Andy Zimmerman, CMO of Tamr (paid-editing disclosure is on my user page and Draft talk:Tamr). Draft:Tamr was declined on 29 October 2026 citing WP:ORGTRIV and WP:CHURN. I'm not asking for a re-review at this time, but I have two policy questions. (1) Would a vendor-specific evaluation in an independent analyst report count as significant independent coverage under WP:ORGCRIT, or is it likely to be treated as a listing under WP:ORGTRIV? Specifically, Tamr was profiled (among other vendors) in Gartner's Magic Quadrant for Master Data Management Solutions (December 2021 and April 2026), which includes Tamr's strengths and cautions according to the Gartner analysts. (2) Would a non-sponsored trade-press feature that reports a named Tamr customer's results, with quotes from that customer, be treated as independent coverage of the company, or as churnalism? Thank you. Azimmy (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Azimmy I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Policy question: analyst reports as sources (Draft:Tamr)". 331dot (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Trade publications are usually too closely tied to a company, or too niche, to be an appropriate source to establish notability.

Customer testimonials don't establish notability.

What we are mainly looking for is unsolicited critical analysis and commentary about the company. If an independent report does this, it may help, though it may not be independent if it is from a vendor of the company.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. You are not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without broader Wikipedia editing experience. Most company representatives fail at attempts to write about their companies. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'll read WP:PAIDADVICE and wait on re-submitting anything until we have more notable coverage. ~~~~ Azimmy (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

18:38, 30 October 2026 review of submission by Suvendrini

• Suvendrini (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mr. Emmanuel Muttukumaru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe I need help editing and providing references. Suvendrini (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Suvendrini This is not a place to solicit co-editing, but Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners might be useful to you. Athanelar (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Review request: Draft:Madres Contra la Guerra

Hello reviewers,

I have submitted the draft Draft:Madres Contra la Guerra, which covers a Puerto Rican peace, anti-militarist, and environmental justice organization founded in May 2003.

The article is fully supported by established independent, secondary English-language and academic sources, including:

• The Nation (lengthy feature profile on the organization's history and activism)
• WPLG Local 10 News (investigative reporting by Glenna Milberg)
• The Journal of Feminist Scholarship (sociological analysis by Dr. Guillermo Rebollo Gil)
• Washington State University research repository (doctoral dissertation by Dr. Mary Jo Klinker)
• Secondary Puerto Rican press (Primera Hora) and international coverage (Associated Press, The Militant).

The draft is structured neutrally with proper citation templates. Could an AfC reviewer please review the submission when convenient? Thank you for your time and guidance. Gabriel S. Davila (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted your draft for review. As the template at the top of the draft says, This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,695 pending submissions waiting for review. Asking for a review will not speed up this volunteer-driven process. Please also be aware that generating questions like this with AI is not allowed. Nor is using AI to write your draft, so if you have done so your draft is likely to be declined. Athanelar (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)