Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Aug 2026

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

July 16

03:22, 16 July 2026 review of submission by SDbluepencil

• SDbluepencil (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brent Schrotenboer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI, my draft was declined because the initial reviewer felt there was insufficient significant independent coverage. I've since added four independent sources that focus directly on the subject of the page (a journalist). Could an experienced editor tell me whether these sources generally satisfy the type of coverage expected under WP:BIO? SDbluepencil (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you added one short source (sportingnews) that quotes her, and the source isn't even about her, but about some dispute between two other people. How would that be independent? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

07:04, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Karim El Akel

• Karim El Akel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Youssef tohme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know if there are any updates regarding the article I submitted about Youssef Tohme last month. Karim El Akel (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Karim El Akel: no updates, your draft Draft:Youssef Tohme is awaiting its first review. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,179 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help I was just making sure. Karim El Akel (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

09:55, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Sam orbital

• Sam orbital (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • David Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:David Meyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. My draft, Draft:David Meyer, has been awaiting review for over three months. I understand there is a backlog, but I was wondering whether there is anything I need to address on my end or if I should simply continue waiting. I also noticed the disambiguation notice regarding the title and would appreciate any guidance. I believe I don't need to do anything at this point regarding the title. Otherwise, please let me know. Thank you. Sam orbital (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sam orbital I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Review request for Draft:David Meyer".

There's nothing that you need to do; this is a volunteer driven process and can't be sped up short of finding more people to conduct reviews. Please continue to be patient. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. (Probably "David Meyer (some sort of disambiguation)") 331dot (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sam orbital, the only thing I can suggest is to have a look through WP:42 and the relevant criteria for your subject (WP:NBIO) and see whether you have the best possible sources. Drafts that are really good and really bad get dealt with quickly, because there is little for the reviewer to consider. The better you can make yours, the higher the chances of a faster review - and more importantly, the better the chances of acceptance! Meadowlark (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. ~2026-40493-37 (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

12:59, 16 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-39996-24

• ~2026-39996-24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Koutian Wu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Question on notability sourcing before resubmitting Draft:Koutian Wu

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 the COI-disclosed editor working on Draft:Koutian_Wu, declined on 13 May 2026 by Devonian Wombat on notability grounds — the reviewer noted the cited *People's Daily* articles only quote the subject in passing and don't provide significant coverage.

Before resubmitting, I'd like to check whether the following would meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, rather than risk another decline (or escalation to rejection):

1. ** [Chen, Bin], "深圳零一学院：回到创新人才培养的'农业时代'"**, *China Science Daily* (中国科学报), via ScienceNet.cn, 19 March 2024. This piece discusses the subject across several paragraphs as one of a few student case studies — his academic struggles, his three-person team's project on 3D-chip heat dissipation, and his becoming the first student in the program to pass its senior-researcher project defense. (Also republished by Sina Technology, same date.)

2. **A second *China Science Daily* piece**, "他们是大学里的'异类'，却在这里遇到不想围绩点转的'同路人'" (also mirrored at dutenews.com), which I believe discusses the same student cohort but haven't been able to fully verify the extent of coverage of the subject specifically.

Both are from the same reliable, independent outlet (China Science Daily), which raises a question: does covering the same underlying story across two separate published pieces count as satisfying the "multiple sources" requirement, or would reviewers view these as too closely related (same outlet, same program, overlapping subject matter) to count independently toward notability?

Any guidance on whether this combination would be enough, or what additional type of source would be needed, is much appreciated.

Thanks, Koutian ~2026-39996-24 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39996-24: assuming you're Ktwu01, please remember to log into your account when editing.

If you're trying to establish notability per WP:GNG, two sources wouldn't be enough for that. Therefore, what you're effectively asking us to do is to review these two sources and your draft, which amounts to a full review. We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, you'll get one when you resubmit your draft.

I don't know if anyone has signposted you to our policy on autobiographies, but if not, let me do so now: WP:AUTOBIO. TL;DNR = you shouldn't really write about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

13:26, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Tufflikethat

• Tufflikethat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Durban Preparatory High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I have looked at the notability criteria for schools, and I do think that I have enough reliable secondary sources to go with the on the information on the school website, but the article was still rejected. These reliable secondary sources include several school websites independent of this institution, as well as a government database. Obviously I am missing something, so what else do I need to do? Thanks so much :) Tufflikethat (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tufflikethat: I don't know if you have secondary sources, because how would I know what you do or don't have (!), but at least your draft is not citing any. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Hi! Sorry for my poor phrasing. Since you reviewed my article, I have added (cited) several secondary sources about the subject (and independent of it), as well as information about it from a government database. The draft was still declined, so I was just asking what more I need to do, or if I should leave it and move on to something else as there are not enough reliable independent sources about the subject. Tufflikethat (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tufflikethat: which of the sources cited are secondary, according to you? I'm happy to have another look, but scanning through them I didn't see any. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Citation two, from education South Africa. Citation 3 and 6 are from the Durban High School (DHS) foundation, which is independent of DPHS and indeed DHS. Citation 11 (Durban Preparatory High School | Morningside | Contact & Details) is also an independent secondary source. At least, from my understanding, these are independent secondary about the subject, but I may be wrong. These were all I could find. Tufflikethat (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tufflikethat: source #2 is a directory and information portal, not a secondary source; I'm not sure what #3 is, looks like a white paper about QR codes (!), or something like that, and not connected to this subject in any obvious way (that I can see); and as for #6, I can't quite figure out what that is, I don't think I could categorically say it isn't a secondary source, but neither can I say it definitely is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that QR code page is weird. I thought it linked to a South African Government Database, but the South African Government uses a dynamic security system that breaks direct URL downloads, so I deleted that citation, but I guess that meant all the other citations shifted and my whole comment was nonsense. But it should be correct now. Sorry for wasting your time! Tufflikethat (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Presence in databases and government listings do not establish notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I deleted that citation anyway. Tufflikethat (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

14:08, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Arsham azimi

• Arsham azimi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Arsham Azimi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I respectfully request a reconsideration of the draft for "Arsham Azimi". I understand the concerns regarding notability and COI. However, I believe the subject meets the basic criteria for a standalone article for the following reasons: He is an active young Iranian freelancer in cybersecurity and software development with a documented online presence. His personal website (https://arsham-kurddev.ir) ranks #1 for his name in Google search, showing public interest. He maintains professional profiles on GitHub (https://github.com/arsham-azimi) and LinkedIn. As a teenage developer offering services in penetration testing, AI, and web development in Iran, he represents a new generation of young tech talent in the region. I have declared my COI clearly. The article is written in a neutral tone based on available verifiable information from his own published portfolio. I am open to any improvements or additional independent sourcing suggestions from reviewers. Thank you for your time and consideration. Arsham azimi (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Arsham azimi: Thank you for being transparent about your conflict of interest. However, you have further demonstrated that the draft's subject does not meet our notability guidelines. To be blunt with you: a strong Google ranking, an active GitHub profile, and a personal portfolio website do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Under our guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO), a subject must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources (such as major news outlets, reputable tech publications, or peer-reviewed journals; and not interviews and press releases). Primary sources (like LinkedIn, GitHub, and a personal website) can never be used to establish notability, as they are self-published. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion or advertising. Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 14:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

16:36, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Jacktkg

• Jacktkg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bill Baird (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! This is one of the first times that I have created an article on Wikipedia, and am looking for editing tips and help to improve my article to the standard that you require. The article is "Draft:Bill Baird (politician)". I added a good amount of credible sources about the person and edited the language to be straightforward. If you could help me that would be great. Thanks! Jacktkg (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacktkg, has Baird done anything that would mean he now passes WP:NPOL? The other option is to find multiple sources - usually three or more - each of which meets all three criteria in WP:42. That means good-sized sources in reputable publications, with no input from Baird or anyone close to him, that are entirely or mostly about Baird himself. Meadowlark (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark He was the mayor of Lee's Summitt, MO and has held a few other positions in Kansas City, MO, and is now running to be Kansas City Executive. I used around 12 sources, probably a little over half were completely about him, but most were mentioning his accomplishments. I believe he meets the clearance for WP:NPOL because of this? Not sure what else I could do? Jacktkg (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe, from the sources you presented, that this person meets NPOL#2 (and clearly not the first one). Almost all the coverage is fairly run-of-the-mill election-related coverage, so it's hard to say that this is a major local politician with significant coverage. Mayors that would fit in this category are more like Jacob Frey or Barbara Lee or Cara Spencer, mayors who are either mayors of large cities or of particular notoriety, two things that draw a lot of coverage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

18:08, 16 July 2026 review of submission by STMC2421

• STMC2421 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • 2026 Malda violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:2026 Malda violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am unable to write this article properly. I have enough sources which are reliable and verified, but I am unable to frame it as per the article. Please help me accordingly. How can I improve this writing so that it attracts quickly to the administrators, guide me on that also. STMC2421 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Administrators do not have special powers over content; the admin tools are to help the community with conduct issues. Your article was already rejected by the reviewer, meaning it will not be considered further in its present form. If you have any more questions, you ought to contact the reviewer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs You know that there is an article in mainspace and also a draft, right? They both look kind of poor. David10244 (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, they forced it through against the rejection since this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

So, let's get this straight. You're "unable to write this article properly," yet you then pushed it through yourself, without any changes whatsoever? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

18:27, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Joni1971

• Joni1971 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pino La Rossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello , I created a wiki page on a deceased guitar player that toured around Italy and produced Three albums . Unfortunately the page cannot be published, I ask if possible for help for the publication Joni1971 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You have resubmitted it and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

19:11, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Wednesday 0008

• Wednesday 0008 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Simon Roszak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am looking for guidance on how to proceed with the article Draft:Simon Roszak. In all due respect to editor Theroadislong, I do not understand why IMDb is not considered a reliable source for a subject who is an actor in the entertainment industry. I would also benefit for further clarification on the editor's concerns regarding notability. Wednesday 0008 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:IMDB but in short, IMDB is user-generated with little editorial oversight. He does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. He doesn't have multiple significant roles or an extensive amount of commentary and critical analysis of his work. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the editorial comments. It is much appreciated and will help moving forward. Wednesday 0008 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

21:25, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Elisegdk

• Elisegdk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Duncan Cotterill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

I have been told that this article does not have enough 'notable sources', however looking at the other firms in Category:Law firms of New Zealand, the coverage of other approved pages is the same as or less notable than the coverage supplied for Duncan Cotterill - in particular Bell Gully, Simpson Grierson, Wynn Williams & Co and Buddle Findlay. Given these pages have been approved with less notable coverage, I would like another review of the Duncan Cotterill page.

Thanks so much Elisegdk (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. Please see other stuff exists. If you want to tell us what these other articles are, we can take action to remove them. We're only as good as those who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

here are some examples. I do not wish these pages to be removed, simply to demonstrate that in this category, we have significant coverage

Buddle Findlay

Wynn Williams & Co Elisegdk (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It does not demonstrate that your draft has significant coverage in any category; instead, it demonstrates that there are articles in the category that aren't up to scratch and should be improved or removed. Thank you for pointing these two out. One of them has already been tagged for removal. Meadowlark (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAID. You say you're a consultant, but you need to specifically say if this is your client.

Wikipedia is not a place for a business to tell about itself and its offerings. There should be a summary of critical analysis and commentary by independent sources. Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I am a consultant and have worked with this business, but have not been paid specifically to write this article. I noticed it was missing and wanted to try my hand at Wikipedia. Elisegdk (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If they are your client, you are a paid editor even if you have not been specifically asked to edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

if someone else reviews this who is totally independent, will that allow publishing? Elisegdk (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Elisegdk It has nothing to do with who submits it or who reviews it, nor whether other articles exist with the right level of coverage, it's entirely to do with whether the coverage you have provided for your draft demonstrates that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines.

You've already been told your sources aren't sufficient, that means you need to find sources that are sufficient. There is no alternative path around this requirement.

I will copy the comment left by the latest reviewer, which seems to summarise things fairly thoroughly; The Hamilton book is the main reference, and I will assume (WP:AGF) that it was independently initiated, research and published with no editorial control by the law firm. However, there is little other significant coverage (in-depth - more than routine local and legal press reporting of trivia: office moves, mergers, legal listings or other content based on PR/marketing) about the firm in published reliable independent secondary sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking. Look at criteria in WP:ORGCRIT. Athanelar (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

21:25, 16 July 2026 review of submission by Jackoboom2026

• Jackoboom2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Jackoboom2026/sandbox/The Malone College AI social media accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am covering a topic of a thing that happened at a school and this is based off of personal research Jackoboom2026 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jackoboom2026: No sources, no article, no debate. Since this article is essentially accusing living people of cyberbullying (which is an outright crime in some jurisdictions) the sourcing for this needs to be a hell of a lot better than personal research per our biographical policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

July 17

05:33, 17 July 2026 review of submission by Fstreitel

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

Hi there,

my Draft submission was rejected as "appears to contain text generated by a large language model". I assure you that I hand-wrote the text. I did use Gemini to find out how to formulate certain sentences, since I'm not a native English speaker. But the main corpus of the text was formulated by me by hand. The notice that's posted on the article doesn't really tell me what specifically the issue is that the reviewer has with my draft, so I'm stuck not knowing how to fix it :-( Can someone give me some more guidance as to how to evolve the article so it meets standards?

Thanks Fabian Fstreitel (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Also please note my COI notice on the talk page of my draft. I'd also be grateful for input on whether that's a) correctly placed and b) whether I need to improve the article because of my COI. Fstreitel (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In this comment you make three separate claims; that you hand-wrote the entire article, that you used Gemini to "formulate certain sentences," and that the "main corpus" of the text was "formulated" by hand.

AI generated text is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, subject to very limited exceptions that very rarely apply. If any of the text in your draft was generated by Gemini, then this requirement has been broken and that's why your draft was declined. You must write everything in your draft by yourself. It's completely fine if your English isn't perfect. It's much easier to fix simple grammatical or spelling mistakes made by non-native speakers than it is to fix the myriad deeper issues that AI usage causes.

Besides, we do not require that the English in your article be perfect, but we do require that your article not have any AI generated text in it. Athanelar (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you for clarifying this. Then I will rewrite the entire thing by hand from scratch. I did not understand that even asking an LLM "is this correct English" and accepting suggestions for correction is not allowed. My bad. Fstreitel (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

While you don't strictly need to be a native English speaker to edit Wikipedia, competence is required. If you're trying to learn English, you can do it in your sandbox rather than trying to submit an article. Better yet, why not contribute to the Wikipedia in your native language? Every other Wikipedia is smaller than this one, so I'm sure they'd appreciate the help. guninvalid (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

06:40, 17 July 2026 review of submission by Daksh.R2005

• Daksh.R2005 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vimukti Sanstha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just want an assistance for this draft what should I add or edit on the text. Daksh.R2005 (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Your draft would need to meet WP:NORG and/or WP:GNG. guninvalid (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The information you need was given in the text of the first decline notice, which is visible at the top of the draft and also on your talk page. Athanelar (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Daksh.R2005, did you use an AI/LLM in any way to make this draft? Meadowlark (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sir. I did need some help while working on the article, and I understand that I made mistakes. I sincerely accept them.

I am willing to review everything carefully and rewrite the article from scratch in my own words, using my own research and references while following Wikipedia's guidelines.

I would be grateful if you could kindly share some insights or suggestions on where I went wrong and what I should improve. Your guidance will help me create a better article with a higher chance of being accepted.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to rewriting the page and learning from this experience. Daksh.R2005 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I know you have probably been taught that it's polite to call everyone sir, but on Wikipedia it is much more polite to use people's usernames - a lot of us are not sirs! :)

Unfortunately yes, you will need to rewrite the article in your own words. You must find good sources: a good source is one which meets all three criteria of WP:42. Because your draft is about a company, each good source must not be any of the things listed at WP:CORPTRIV. To write a Wikipedia article, you should find three or more good sources and then summarise them. After that you can use less-good sources, like the company's website or brochures, to add uncontroversial information like when it was founded. There are other useful links in the decline notice on your draft. Meadowlark (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

09:59, 17 July 2026 review of submission by StormL00ver

• StormL00ver (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2026 Akçamezra Tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submited my draft 12 days ago and I would be honored if some editor could check it if its good enough to be an article. ⚡StormL00ver⚡ 09:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@StormL00ver: yes, that is indeed how this works – you submit a draft, and we review it. And as you may have noticed, on top of your submitted draft it says "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,073 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for being hasty about this draft.İt took me 2 months to complete the draft and send it. ⚡StormL00ver⚡ 10:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

11:36, 17 July 2026 review of submission by Markhermeling

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

First of all, thanks for the VERY quick review of my draft page on AdaCore.

I very much tried to write the page from a non-marketing, non-promotional perspective. The reviewer still rejected it with: - promotional language: see Words to watch; - personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader; - informal language.

I much appreciate the feedback! I reviewed all the links and I made some minor edits, but I am not convinced I edited it sufficiently. I could really benefit from explicit pointers on which parts of the article do not align.

Note: I am commercially affiliated with AdaCore and have disclosed that. The company is 30+ years old, a big supporter of open source and the Ada programming language, and I thought it deserves a mention on Wikipedia.

Thanks! Markhermeling (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Markhermeling Promotion isn't just about avoiding specific tone or words, it's about your intent, which comes through often no matter how hard one tries to change it.

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

I would suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for your time! Rolling up my sleeves! Markhermeling (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Unrelated to your efforts, I have to say I'm surprised that Ada is still a thing. When I worked for the Department of Defense including a stint in the Pentagon (I changed careers 16 years ago), I knew of no contractor or internal development effort across the Army and Navy that was using Ada for anything, particularly for embedded or real-time applications (weapons control, tracking, etc.) and scientific analysis including image processing and radar signature predictions. Everything was Fortran, C, or C++. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

15:20, 17 July 2026 review of submission by SpinnerLaserzthe2nd

• SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Special Rescue Exceedraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Special Rescue Exceedraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The season is the only Metal Heroes season that does not had a separate article. If you are an editor who is a Tokusatsu fan or a member of WikiProject Tokusatsu or from Japan, please help improve this article. I had not submitted my draft for review yet but this is a call for help.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Rescue Exceedraft

Please ask Aspects and DonaldD23 for more info. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd.

Please note that every draft article is reviewed on its own merits, not in relation to other articles or drafts.

"X is the only Y that does not have its own article" is never of any significance, because notability depends almost entirely on what has been published about the subject and by who, not on what the subject is or has done, and it's perfectly possible that people may have written about some Y's but not others. ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so what solutions can you come up with regarding the show and the draft? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that this isn't the best forum to solicit co-editing; you might try a relevant WikiProject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

15:24, 17 July 2026 review of submission by CraftyHistorian

• CraftyHistorian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Raymon Elozua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. This draft has been substantially revised following two declines. The reviewer concerns regarding sourcing and citations have been addressed, and numerous additional independent secondary sources have been added. It has now been awaiting rereview for over two months. Would someone be willing to take another look? CraftyHistorian (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@CraftyHistorian Currently, your draft reads (unsurprisingly) as an exhaustive list of what Elozua would like us to know about him (or rather, his work.) A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

I would imagine that the way you wrote this draft is WP:BACKWARDS. Presumably, as with most paid editing cases, you were told by Mr. Elozua what information he'd like to see included in the article about him, and you proceeded to try to find sources which discussed that information.

What you need to do instead is find sources that were written by people with no connection whatsoever to Mr. Elozua (which means that anything written by, for example, galleries displaying his art is out the window) and summarise what those sources say about him and his work. That's the core of your article, and that's what demonstrates his notability. Only after that is done can you then add additional information from sources that might be more closely affiliated with him.

I can also see some signs of AI generated text in your draft. This is not allowed, and you must remove and replace any such text. Athanelar (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this draft. I've genuinely found your comments very helpful. Here's my plan: I'll take another look at the article with your comments in mind. I'll work toward restructuring (and concision) so that it better reflects the secondary literature I have found, rather than resources more closely affiliated to him. And overall, I’ll be submitting a draft addressing your concern that this article appears to be written WP:BACKWARDS. I'll re-make a concise draft working with my best three sources.

Before I move forward with these adjustments, I’d appreciate your thoughts on some lingering questions that I have. When you discuss  gallery publications do you also question museum publications? Reading your response, my impression is that such resources are also too closely affiliated to him despite them being research-based scholarly resources with comprehensive citations.

Regarding the topic of neutrality: in this draft do you find my tone to be biased and/or is it the fact that the draft reads as an “exhaustive list”? As I mentioned, my plan is to re-write to demonstrate an “article forward” writing process, but if there are areas where my language seems biased, I would appreciate an example so that I can get a better sense of what to avoid in the future.

As for AI-generated text, I wrote the draft myself. Much like the topic of neutrality, are there specific sentences where my wording raises a concern? While my plan is to do a large rewrite, I’m still interested in knowing which sections stand out to you.

Finally, I hope you don’t mind me mentioning that I’m newer to writing for Wikipedia. I’m a trained curator and craft historian moreso used to writing for the public and scholarly venues, and I admit, it’s been a learning process to switch-up my writing techniques for Wikipedia’s style, policies, and guidelines! I share this just because I want to share that I am genuine when I share my gratitude for helping me improve this draft. So, thank you genuinely for your time, guidance, and patience with me. CraftyHistorian (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Evidence of AI writing is given by an unsourced assertion that looks like pure WP:Synthesis, and another synthesized assertion in Wikipedia's voice cited to the subject's own work. LLM chatbots love to do this sort of thing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist hello! Thanks for your response and the resource you linked! Reviewing the page on WP synthesis I can see that under these guidelines I was guilty of “synthesizing meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources.” That said, that was simply my own naive doing (Not AI) as I was trying to make things easier for a reader to understand. My bad! I do have another question, though, (and my apologies if I seem totally obtuse). What does this sentence mean: “…another synthesized assertion in Wikipedia's voice cited to the subject's own work”? CraftyHistorian (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Breaking down the sentence: a 'synthesized assertion' means you have put together information from multiple sources to state a fact that isn't in either source; 'in Wikipedia's voice' means that you're not sourcing that assertion to a particular person (for example, you could write "Historian Henry Tudor argues that the sky is green" but not simply "The sky is green" - that second one is 'in Wikipedia's voice'); and the source you have given for this statement is the person you're writing about, who is obviously going to be inclined to say good things about their own works. Meadowlark (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You say, in Wikipedia's voice: "Through the 2000s, Elozua continued to explore computer technologies, employing Computer-aided Design (CAD) programs to develop digital prints and templates for steel and ceramic sculptures." This is cited to a work by Elozua. That work may not even contain that specific assertion, but the assertion is an interpretation of the content of that work. That's also synthesis. Even if Elozua explicitly claims this, but that's Elozua's claim and not Wikipedia's. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist@MeadowlarkThank you both for the breakdown and example. Both of you have been very generous and helpful in your explanation and I truly appreciate it. I'll look out for this type of language and synthesizing as I reapproach my draft. CraftyHistorian (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

16:19, 17 July 2026 review of submission by Deposit SGS 1899

• Deposit SGS 1899 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Auto Bahia Foot-Ball Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I'm new to making wikipedia articles (I' ve just started doing it yesterday, and i wanted to make a page for a soccer club that still no one has made a Page off, and i would like to get tips from people who do these types of pages. I'd like to mention that i'm really confused lol and i don't know if you guys can see my draft. Anyways, Bye! Deposit SGS 1899 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The draft is available at Draft:Auto Bahia Foot-Ball Club. Remember, Wikipedia articles are mainly based on secondary sources, so you need to find reliable, independent, published sources who have talked about this football club. And this should be significant coverage and commentary, not a listing in database or a brief mention. And, this is English Wikipedia, so all articles need to be in English. If you wish to create an article in Portuguese, it should be at pt.wikipedia.org, which is the URL for Portuguese Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just figured that out lol, and i do have some experience on doing articles, as i have written two articles and another one that wasn't finished, but those were on a fan wiki, and i have conscience in regards to the need of citing sources and i know what an informative text should have or not have. Anyways, thank you for responding me. Deposit SGS 1899 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Deposit SGS 1899, and welcome to Wikipedia.

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.

If you wanted to learn to be a motor mechanic, would you start by trying to build a car from scratch? ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @ColinFine and thank you for responding me.

I'd like to say that i see what you mean, but still, i would like to create my article (also see what i said up above to the other person that gave me a response), as i came here to register this part of the history of my state's football , but yeah, let's say if i followed your advice by doing editing on existing articles, i think that i actually could get more engaged into writing on the wiki along the way.

I specifically chose to create the page because i actually felt the need of documentating about this club's story as this is like the best place to do this on the internet lol, it's like the definite way of documentating something like that. Anyways thanks! Also, could you delete my draft? Or can i do it myself? Deposit SGS 1899 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Deposit SGS 1899.

Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to document anything. Only if it has already been documented in independent reliable sources should Wikipedia have an article on it.

If a draft is not touched for six months, it will be automatically deleted, so you don't need to do anything. If you are concerned with it sitting around, you can add {{db-author}} (with the curly brackets) to the top, and somebody will come along and delete it. ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine

Thanks for the response, i appreciate it. I think i was kinda being hyperbolic when i mentioned about "documentating" y' know, what i meant is that it was the "easiest" way for the general people on the web to access about this club, and yes, it has actually been documentated before by some other websites, and especially by one i was using as a source for my page, and yes people could just simply click on it, what i was wanting to do was more of adding it on the wikipedia list of the clubs in my state as i think it deserved to be there, as how you said is not the place to document anything, however i would still of course do the work of including more in-depth information, and not adding a superficial entry on the wiki. For the fact that the club actually did something sort of relevant in my state's football, i felt that the absence of a page about it left some sort of "gap" as the wiki also has pages about other similar clubs in my state. But yeah, that was what i was feeling, and i appreciate your response. Thanks! Deposit SGS 1899 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please note that it is very unlikely other editors will consider this source a reputable one. A reputable source on Wikipedia is a published one, with a wide reputation for accuracy, typically with attributed author(s), and an editorial process that confirms facts. This Wordpress site is a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source, and to be considered reliable, the author has to be an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

17:41, 17 July 2026 review of submission by MatuMaKa

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

Hey! I'd like to know how it can be approved. Like what should I add, change or remove. Since this is a semi-known server in the Minehut server list I'd like to see it as a wikipedia page so smaller creators can acknowledge what people went thru to make this and have the courage to do that themselves. MatuMaKa (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MatuMaKa.

However noble your intention, "so smaller creators can acknowledge what people went thru to make this and have the courage to do that themselves" is not what Wikipedia is for. Please see What Wikipedia is not. ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@MatuMaKa: No sources, no article, no debate. Individual Minecraft servers very rarely, if ever, warrant standalone articles simply for want of coverage in news outlets (Minecraft servers are ten-a-penny and man bites dog remains in full effect). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 14:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey! If you feel like this isn’t fit for an article, then I won’t update this. Thanks for sharing your opinion on this. MatuMaKa (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

22:58, 17 July 2026 review of submission by Johnphillie

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

I’m not sure what I need to do here I am a fan of caulkdraggin and wanted to make him a Wikipedia when I didn’t find one for him Johnphillie (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you read through Your First Article, @Johnphillie? That outlines the process of writing a Wikipedia article. But you should know that writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do here, and we strongly suggest that new editors spend at least a few weeks working on existing articles in order to understand our policies and guidelines before trying to create a new article. Meadowlark (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

July 18

04:20, 18 July 2026 review of submission by S7xEG4pi7UeyAKyIh^Jl

• S7xEG4pi7UeyAKyIh^Jl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ShoreVest Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could an uninvolved editor assess whether the Bloomberg Markets 2020, South China Morning Post 2020, and Pensions & Investments 2021 sources together satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SIRS for ShoreVest Partners? I am a disclosed paid contributor. S7xEG4pi7UeyAKyIh^Jl (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The Bloomberg does not. It barely mentions ShoreVest, it's only barely about Benjamin Fanger, in the context of introducing Fanger for his opinion on an issue. Not a source to establish notability for either.

The South China Morning Post one from 2020 is not useful. I can't evaluate the third one. But that source is being cited for something that's not about ShoreVest.

The fundamental problem is that you appear to have a bit of a misconception of what Wikipedia articles are. We're not looking for things said by ShoreVest or people connected to it. We're looking for significant coverage that is primarily about ShoreVest. See WP:CORPDEPTH.

There's also a moderate whiff of WP:LLM involvement here. I really hope that isn't the case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It's more than moderate. This comment itself is WP:AIREVIEW and contains the "I am a disclosed paid contributor" disclaimer that AI generated comments love to add, for some reason. I have rejected the article as both AI generated and plainly below the CORPTRIV threshold. Athanelar (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Also redundant edit summaries. We have "tightened source attribution", "more precise attribution", "closer attribution to independent sources", and "added a sourced company infobox", "added a sourced company infobox" (again), "added a concise company infobox" (wow, three infoboxes added to the same draft?) Athanelar (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you please consider changing your username to something easier for people to type? 331dot (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

15:32, 18 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-40144-05

• ~2026-40144-05 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hits Now New Shows & Season of the Month (September 2026) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2026 ~2026-40144-05 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, Wikipedia is not a place to host your blogging content. qcne (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Draft:Thomas George K. - revised after decline

Hello, I would appreciate feedback on Draft:Thomas George K., which was recently declined by Sulfurboy for insufficient notability references and lack of inline citations.

I have substantially revised the draft to address both concerns:

• Added independent, reliable third-party sources including The Hindu, The Higher Education Review, The Academic Insights, ArdorComm Media, and Careers360
• Added inline citations throughout every section of the article
• The subject holds a Guinness World Record for the "longest business lesson" (72 hours), which is covered by multiple independent media sources

The draft has been resubmitted. I would be grateful if a reviewer could take a look and provide any additional feedback on how to improve it before the next formal review. Thank you! Risvilead (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Risvilead: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk; you have resubmitted the draft, and a reviewer will assess it once they get around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

17:15, 18 July 2026 review of submission by Lucasussex

• Lucasussex (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Federico Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Federico Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

our citations must be in-line. This means that a citation footnote should appear after every statement or piece of information, with the citation linking to the corresponding source that verifies that statement or piece of information. At the moment all your footnotes are bunched at the bottom of the draft. In-line citations is mandatory for biographic articles how do i this? Lucasussex (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lucasussex.

Please see WP:REFB.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Second Review Request - Draft:Ivy Zelman

Hi, I recently submitted Draft:Ivy Zelman and received a decline. I believe the draft meets notability requirements, neutrality tone requirements, and source citation requirements with sourcing from major outlets including Barron’s, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. I would appreciate a second reviewer taking a look. Thank you. IvyBowie (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@IvyBowie: sorry, we don't do "second opinions", otherwise we'd never get anywhere, and we already have a backlog of over 5,000 pending drafts. We trust our reviewers to know what they're doing when they provide the "first opinion". Note also that this wasn't declined for notability, but for non-neutral POV and being resume-like. Address those issues and resubmit, you will then get another assessment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @IvyBowie.

This is not going to happen.

If you address the issues in the decline, and resubmit, another reviewer will in time look at it.

I suggest your read WP:PUBLICITY and WP:BOSS.

Your draft reads in several places as being what your client wants people to know about herself. Wikipedia is basically completely uninterested in this. 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.

Which of your sources meet all the conditions in WP:42? Just looking through the titles, it seems to me that the majority of them are based on her words - that won't do. ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine Thank you SO much for the detailed feedback — this is very helpful and I will work on addressing the citations you flagged before resubmitting. IvyBowie (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

20:41, 18 July 2026 review of submission by Captaintraceydaniels

• Captaintraceydaniels (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Phillip R. Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Phillip R. Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. This draft was declined because it appears to contain text generated by a large language model. This article was written in it's entirety by the editor. Can you please offer examples of what appears to be generated by an LLM, and how that appearance might be addressed and remedied? Captaintraceydaniels (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please use the first person and not "the editor", it comes off as obfuscation.

The "ford wikipedia · TXT" is a good clue.

Did you use an AI to any degree, even just to correct spelling? 331dot (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not. I looked at numerous other existing articles for valid examples, bearing in mind the standards of neutral tone and the use of independent sources. Captaintraceydaniels (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I would note that the bulk of the draft is about his film and not him personally. It is possible thar the film is notable but not him personally. Other than the part about the film, the draft just documents his activities, with little critical analysis and commentary about him.

Please see other stuff exists, it is actually a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles or even Featured articles. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Captaintraceydaniels - did you use some chatbot, some special template or specialist website to submit this draft? ChrysGalley (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

22:19, 18 July 2026 review of submission by Maccoutinho

• Maccoutinho (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Heitor Alvelos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure why my articles are being flagged. Heitor Alvelos is a pretty important name in academia in Porto, he has lectured at FBAUP and ESAD for years and has published lots of scientific papers. Requesting that this page is made live ASAP. Thank you! Andy (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM generated content is banned from Wikipedia, outside very narrow exceptions that this article does not fall under. guninvalid (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

July 19

04:30, 19 July 2026 review of submission by Brandonjc1020

• Brandonjc1020 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Drew Cummings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If you write the profile and use AI to edit the grammar is that not okay? Brandonjc1020 (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

AI SPaG tools often go beyond what is asked of them. Also, we can't link to or cite those PDFs (copyright violation); you should ideally cite them as offline sources, providing the name of the publication, edition, article name, article byline, and pages the article is on. We also do not cite IMDb (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 04:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Brandonjc1020 - there is no requirement for perfect grammar, there is a flat requirement not to use AI, so given that choice you would let another editor sort out any grammar issues later. Copyediting editors will do it better and faster than AI. There is a narrow exception that allows AI to be used for copyedits, but that has to be seen quite narrowly, and unless you know what you are doing you best avoid it. The way I interpret this is that AI has patterns of language and grammar that real humans don't have, so if we can spot the dread hand of AI, given how much AI rubbish we see here, then it's not going to go well. One approach which I believe to be OK is to write up your draft, warts and all on Wikipedia, save it, then in a separate window ask AI to list any spelling or grammar mistakes in a copy/paste action from the draft. This approach will not reword your draft, but you can go back and re-edit any spelling mistakes in the draft window, one by one and manually, not copy/pasting back into the draft. And ignoring any silly suggestions (such as many "comma splices"). Good luck, but challenge your own writing yourself, the end result is more rewarding than a sub-contracted effort. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

11:53, 19 July 2026 review of submission by Denwin D'souza

• Denwin D'souza (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ICYM Mangalore Unit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi yes the current article was written by AI But I have some resource material also I have some references which are not in the website but it's a old book also called handbook. I am unable to add logos or symbols or any photos relevant to this association and I reduce AI usage write another Article can you please guide me or any suggestions you can give for future reference. Denwin D'souza (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Denwin D'souza - thank you for being honest about this and you clearly don't need to use AI, you express yourself very well. Firstly read and understand the WP:GOLDENRULE. I could complicate this, but if you can find three reliable sources, independent of the organisation, that meet that rule then you are in business. If you can't find that, maybe all the sources are linked to the organisation, then you need to think again. And sometimes it's just a matter of waiting and watching until the good sources turn up. If you do have 3 such sources then all you need to do is to summarise them. Don't worry about logos, symbols, photos. They may well make the article more interesting but for this stage of the process it is just the text and sources that matter, not pictures. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

12:24, 19 July 2026 review of submission by Ilianeudecker

• Ilianeudecker (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Heinz Neudecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Heinz Neudecker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have supplied many independent references to this article and hope that it is now sufficiently and adequately referenced to allow for publication. Please advise! Ilianeudecker (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If you feel that you have addressed the concerns, please resubmit the draft. We don't do pre-review reviews. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you Ilianeudecker (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Three whole paragraphs in your biography section have no citations at all. Lots of unsourced assertions. This would be declined again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Ilianeudecker (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

15:45, 19 July 2026 review of submission by Anwar Ahmed123

• Anwar Ahmed123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hira Sommro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I did the reserch and all the facts checks out please pinpoint what i need to change or should i write the whoe page again is there any specifics parts needed to be changed to get the page approved help will be much appriciated i have chosen this article becuase there are much information avaibale for this certain celebrity in pakistani media and television also news articles etc so tell me what should i do its a novice mistake as i am very new at this Anwar Ahmed123 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Anwar Ahmed123.

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

Few of your sources appear to be independent of Sommro. See WP:42 for the kind of sources that are required for an article.

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) 15:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Review request for Draft:Kiddopia (resubmitted after decline)

Draft:Kiddopia was declined in May 2026 for suspected LLM content. The article has been fully rewritten in my own words. Sources include Business Standard, Moneycontrol, Economic Times, Times of India, Common Sense Media and BusinessWire. I have no financial connection to the subject. Would appreciate if a reviewer could take a look. ASharma97 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You've submitted it for review. I restored the prior reviewer history that you removed. There is nothing to do now but wait. Posting here doesn't speed things up. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@ASharma97 You have announced both here and on your user page, apropos of nothing, that you have no connection to the subject.

I find this hard to believe; first of all because making such a statement seems to be pre-empting an anticipated accusation, and secondly because other than working on this draft, your only activity has been adding links to articles using the link suggestion feature, and a handful of copyedits early on that seem to have been done with AI, which is an unusual pattern of editing for most inexperienced editors without any particular incentive.

It's rather like standing next to an expensive vase and suddenly announcing to the room that you have absolutely no intention of breaking the vase. It's a strange thing to mention without prompting.

Please be transparent with us. Conflict of interest editing and paid editing are not against the rules, but trying to conceal it certainly is. Your draft is no more likely to get published whether you are or are not connected to the subject.

Of course, by all means tell me if I'm off the mark here, but if you are affiliated in any way with this company it's important that you disclose this. Athanelar (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

July 20

00:49, 20 July 2026 review of submission by Bruinguy

• Bruinguy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Permanente Cement Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not understand why this draft was rejected for not having reliable sources when I used three reputable newspapers and a highly regarded magazine? Please provide further direction. Bruinguy (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection has a specific meaning for drafts. See WP:42 for guidelines on reliable sources. guninvalid (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Plus, since this is a company, you need to avoid WP:CORPTRIV. Meadowlark (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bruinguy.

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.

Several of the sources you cited, based on their titles, are almost certainly regurgitating press releases, and so are telling us only what the company wants to say. ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing in my article that comes from a company publication nor is there anything in there to so indicate. I thought maybe I was misunderstanding so I went to one of the entities which you listed as being a contributor. I see that of the first five sources quoted about The Broadway Bradford, four are from contemporaneous newspapers and one is from the website of one of the developers of the project. What is the difference? I have quoted from a highly regarded business magazine, part of the Time Life organization and the San Francisco Examiner , the first newspaper that began the Hearst Corporation. Neither of those companies was ever connected to Henry J. Kaiser or the Permanente companies. Also I don't know who Meadowlark is or why it is part of this conversation. Bruinguy (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bruinguy As mentioned already, please click on and read, and understand, WP:CORPTRIV. The draft starts with exactly that, corporate trivia. David10244 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bruinguy Meadowlark is the username of a Wikipedia editor, and I am too. Various experienced editors offer answers and assistance at this Help desk. Meadowlark is the one who advised you to read WP:CORPTRIV, which I echoed because I felt that maybe you had not clicked on that link and read its contents. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

13:30, 20 July 2026 review of submission by A Typical Researcher

• A Typical Researcher (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bon Marché Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been waiting for over 20 days for someone to edit my draft. If anyone can please take time and look at my draft, I would appreciate that. Thank you A Typical Researcher (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @A Typical Researcher. Did you see the message at the top Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order.? qcne (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry no I didn’t read it entirely, I thought they were in order. I just saw the please wait this may be 3 months or longer A Typical Researcher (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In any case, I have reviewed and declined the draft. qcne (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@A Typical Researcher Being reviewed in order or not, I believe there are about 5000 drafts waiting to be reviewed, so it still may take several months. David10244 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

13:45, 20 July 2026 review of submission by A Typical Researcher

• A Typical Researcher (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bon Marché Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello again, I am curious did I not put enough sources or does my sources and draft not follow what Wikipedia wants. I have edited the inappropriate language.

Thanks A Typical Researcher (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @A Typical Researcher. There isn't any indication from the sources that this mall meets our criteria for inclusion. Do you have better sources? qcne (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That was all I could find A Typical Researcher (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Regrettably, this mall doesn't meet our criteria for a stand-alone article, in that case. qcne (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have asked for deletion A Typical Researcher (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

14:23, 20 July 2026 review of submission by Satori

• Satori (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eleanor Plunkett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to understand what's missing. When I compare my draft to existing articles about other tunes such as Carolan's_Welcome, I'm not seeing a lot of difference. I have multiple sources stating that it's a well-known and oft-performed tune in the Irish tradition. I've established that its been performed by several notable music groups. I'm sure there are more secondary sources that I can cite, but I'm not understanding what they need to establish that my current sources don't. -Satori ^(talk) 14:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways that inappropriate content can be on Wikipedia, and this cannot justify adding more. This is why we judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. Though understandable, it's a poor idea to use any random article as a model for this reason, instead you should use articles classified as good articles or even featured articles.

I might suggest that you ask the reviewer directly what their concerns were. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Satori: The article on "Carolan's Welcome" completely predates the drafting process (first edit 2010/Sep/01). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

15:27, 20 July 2026 review of submission by Dunes1987

• Dunes1987 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shelley Calist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is about listing the Filmography of Indian Cinematographer Mr.Shelley Calist. So I've cited news articles that mention the films he has worked on, and has also mentioned him.

My previous versions got rejected saying that the sources don't provide significant coverage. I disagree. The coverage is about his filmography and not himself. Kindly approve. Dunes1987 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dunes1987: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20190716092233/https://www.sify.com/movies/aruvi-director%E2%80%99s-vaazhl-shoot-wrapped-shot-in-more-than-100-locations-news-tamil-thqkEyejfeaif.html doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Calist or his work. (Discussion of Calist's work in this case means critique of his cinematography specifically.)
• We can't use https://www.onlykollywood.com/anbe-diana-team-opens-up-about-perambur-performances-and-the-films-message/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could it doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). No byline, and the source is merely name-drops, no discussion of Calist or his work. (We are sceptical of sources with no/role bylines because they're frequently used to launder actual fake news.)
• We can't use https://www.onlykollywood.com/anbe-diana-trailer-promises-a-wholesome-family-entertainer-ahead-of-release/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could it doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). No byline and the source is a name-drop, no discussion of Calist or his work.
• We can't use https://newstodaynet.com/2026/07/13/anbe-diana-trailer-launch-held-in-chennai/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could it doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Role byline and it's a name-drop that doesn't discuss Calist or his work.
• https://newstodaynet.com/2026/07/13/anbe-diana-trailer-launch-held-in-chennai/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, and despite being billed as a review it doesn't discuss the cinematography what-so-ever.
• We can't use https://newstodaynet.com/2026/07/16/anbe-diana-review/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could it doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Role byline and it barely discusses Calist's work.
• I can't assess https://www.chennaicitynews.net/news/tamilnadu/%e0%ae%a4%e0%ae%ae%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%b4%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%9a%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%a9%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%ae%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b5%e0%af%81%e0%ae%95%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%95%e0%af%81%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%81/ (language barrier). Neither Firefox's or Google's translation services work on this page. Same applies to https://talksofcinema.com/?p=47131 .

What I can assess is no good, and I don't hold out high hopes that the Tamil-language sources are any better simply because the subject is backstage personnel and isn't likely to have sources about them specifically. Coverage of the films they have worked on isn't the same as coverage of the person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have rejected for AI usage. The Chennai City News story is an interview with one of the film's actors (Gopi) and sure he says some nice things about the subject, but not exactly as reported, wording wise, it was a LLM style fuzzy output which neglected to point out that Mandy Rice-Davies applies. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

16:30, 20 July 2026 review of submission by ZaqarHakobyan

• ZaqarHakobyan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Formula X Italian Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am new to Wikipedia and need guidance creating a draft article and learning the editing process. ZaqarHakobyan (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ZaqarHakobyan.

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) 17:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ZaqarHakobyan: Your first task, before you commit to any sort of edit, is to look for third-party news sources with editorial oversight that discuss the subject at length. If you can't find those, you won't be able to write an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks ZaqarHakobyan (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

21:30, 20 July 2026 review of submission by Inpops

• Inpops (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Iveco Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Iveco Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was rejected under the original editor with the assumption the company may not ever be notable, editors are not encouraged to submit. I have tried to make some major improvements to the article, adding more info and using a wide range of sources. There has been discussion on the Iveco article on having a separate article for the group, since the current article is made up of a mix of content relating to the Iveco truck company and its parent, which also has other businesses. I've admittedly worked fairly hard on this draft as an established editor but I wanted to see what others think. I think most of the things that need to be there are there, though context and background is still something notably missing. I was originally confident I could get the draft to go through but now I'm starting to question if I could really do so. I might consider bringing this up to the Iveco talk page since some editors have expressed support in a split. If the draft still is not notable I guess the other option will be to rework the current Iveco article to make the distinction clearer, for example include key details within the "History" section. Inpops (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Inpops, it's not that the company will never be notable - it's that the rejecting reviewer believes that draft could not be made acceptable by the original author. If you've dramatically improved it and think the objections of the (many) reviewers have now been overcome, you could appeal to the rejecting reviewer. They may overturn their rejection and let it be resubmitted, or they may decide to accept it, or of course they may decide the rejection stands and that the draft should be merged into Iveco. That appeal is your best way forward at the moment. Meadowlark (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's bring in @Timtrent: since they last rejected the draft. - I'm aware you don't review drafts under request but I would like you to atleast just have a look at the draft and my improvements so far and see if you think it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Inpops (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Inpops I see you have done substantial work. On that simple basis I am happy for it to be submitted for further review despite my wondering why this is not merged into an article on the group itself. I will remove my rejection, but I will not review it further. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done with the ability to submit at the head. It is not yet in the review pool, and will not be until submitted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks. I think I'm continuing to put in some proper effort for the draft. If I work hard enough hopefully I will have it completed within next week. Inpops (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

22:47, 20 July 2026 review of submission by GarethLathey

• GarethLathey (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:OfficeMax New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am trying to create a stub for the company that I work for. In the articles talk section I have disclosed a conflict of interest. I have modelled the stub on the WINC stub: Winc.

In the last review that declined my article, key reasons that were cited was that it read like an advertisment/ language was promotional and a personal commentary. I have been careful to list only facts of what the business is (similar to the WINC stub) and acted on all feedback received to date.

Please can someone provide me examples of where you feel this article sounds promotional or like personal commentary, because when I compare it to the WINC stub, I am struggling to understand why it is deemed promotional. GarethLathey (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. We judge each draft or article on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can be on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more. It is actually a poor, if understandable, idea to use any random article as a model or example for this reason. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are considered good articles.

A business telling about itself, such as its own activities and offerings, is considered promotional here, see WP:YESPROMO. Wikipedia articles primarily summarize.what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself or its routine activities.

Please see WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. In short, you're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior editing experience. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been good to have this information and context at the begining. Are we able to request changes to this article: OfficeMax I ask because the representation of OfficeMax NZ is incorrect. This article makes it sound as if we are part of the same legal entitiy, which is not true.

Thank you,

Gareth GarethLathey (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@GarethLathey I have changed the section about the NZ branch closures to explain things a bit more clearly. Athanelar (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

July 21

04:51, 21 July 2026 review of submission by Lesley simpson producer

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

not to advertise, but to add as a public figure Lesley simpson producer (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Your actions do not match your words. Please review our policies involving WP:NPOV, WP:GNG and WP:COI Sulfurboy (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lesley simpson producer.

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

Also, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so monumentally difficult that you are strongly discouraged from trying it, as you are likely to be wasting your own time and that of the editors who interact with you. You would need, once you had found the mandatory multiple sources wholly unconnected with you, to effectively forget every single thing you know about yourself and stick to summarising what those independent sources said about you. Even if they leave out things you would like people to know. Even if they discuss things that you would rather people didn't know. Even if they are critical of you. Even if you know that things happened differently from how they describe it. Do you see why this is a task that few people succeed in?

See autobiography. ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

06:25, 21 July 2026 review of submission by Peerharis666

• Peerharis666 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ahad Bab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thank you for reviewing my draft. Could you please explain which specific independent sources would be needed to establish notability? I would like to improve the draft before submitting it again. Thank you.

Peerharis666 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar Can you breakdown the rejection for us? I'm seeing a source that states the subject still has thousands of devotees visit his home every year for seven years running now. This lends me to believing there might be something there. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I can believe there might be something there, I'm just not certain this specific editor understands the requirements they need to meet and is therefore the person to make that article. The article was most recently declined on July 19 by @Theroadislong citing notability, and in response to that (as I stated in my comment on the draft), the editor added two sources, neither of which were any good for notability, and then resubmitted the draft again. That combined with the fact the draft has been declined a total of 5 times already by 4 different reviewers tells me that either better sources are not available or this editor isn't grasping the requirements

I will also note that @Peerharis666' question here has the hallmarks of a boilerplate AI generated AFCHD question, and their draft previously had issues with sources containing ChatGPT UTM parameters. They also posted similarly AI generated requests for review at the Teahouse two days in a row; so there may be an English competency (or just AI dependency) issue which is preventing them from appropriately responding to feedback. Athanelar (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. I totally get the frustration with the editor's actions (and have shelled out rejections for the same reasons), but I'm also afraid we might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you look at the article in it's current state, wholly separate from the page creator's behavior, it's actually not bad (albeit by the attrition of other reviewers). It seems to me at least to be factual, llm free, and all the info is verified by the references. I think notability is established by the fact that thousands go to his house every year, for over a decade now and that got continued coverage. If we go by the standard of "would this likely pass an AfD", I think it would.

Therefore, would it not be better to give this draft a chance in mainspace and monitor the behavior of the editor instead? It'll obviously be on a few of our watchlists, so if the draft creator reverts or adds egregious edits, we can handle that via other avenues instead of punishing the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to create the idea that if you pull the AfC slot machine handle enough times despite doing all the wrong things, you can still get your article through provided it's notable.

I see your point about the "would it survive AfD" argument; but that only applies to rejection. So it could be argued that I should convert my reject to a decline, but I guarantee the inevitable result of that is this editor will once again play the slot machine without meaningfully engaging with the criticism; that's exactly what my reject is aiming to prevent. Case in point; just below they've opened another new, separate AFCHD question, still obviously AI generated. There's a clear WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issue here, and I don't think it's a good idea for me to lift my rejection. Athanelar (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately they lost my support when they created the secondary topic below. No longer really have a dog in the fight after that. Thanks for your consideration though. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

09:43, 21 July 2026 review of submission by Lesley simpson producer

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

the page is from a cited source and has an imdb page. why was the page not approved? there are links of the profile in multiple other wikipedia pages as well. Lesley simpson producer (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

IMDB is not a good source for use, see WP:IMDB. Or other Wikipedia sites, see WP:CIRCULAR, which makes me think that you have not yet a chance to go through WP:YFA to understand the core policies and guidelines for editors. In addition the page appears to have been heavily assisted by AI usage, which is not allowed under WP:NEWLLM. Now if you are related to the subject, or are the subject, (a) you need to declare the COI on your user page (b) realise that it is nearly impossible to write about yourself in a suitable neutral fashion for an encyclopedia, unless you are a professional copywriter. We are not like LinkedIn. See WP:FAQAS for why this would be a thoroughly bad idea. But regardless of all of that, if you were notable this is demonstrated via WP:NCREATIVE and we are looking for independent reliable sources talking about the subject with significant coverage - someone cannot drive their own notability, it comes from other people/sources. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

10:21, 21 July 2026 review of submission by Peerharis666

• Peerharis666 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ahad Bab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Athanelar,

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for your feedback.

I understand your concerns regarding notability and independent sources. Since the rejection, I have continued searching for additional reliable sources. I have found a The Times of India article from 22 June 2006 covering the attack on Ahad Bab, and I have also located a published book, Shadows of Azadi: Women's Lives in the Crucible of Kashmir, which mentions Ahad Bab. I realize that these sources may or may not be sufficient on their own, but I wanted to ask whether they would change your assessment, or whether the available evidence is still insufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline.

If the sources are still not enough, I would appreciate your advice on what type of independent coverage would be required before creating a new draft in the future.

Thank you again for your time and guidance.

Kind regards, Peerharis666 Peerharis666 (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

_{Courtesy ping @Athanelar} qcne (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is already being addressed two topics above this. Creating another topic about it really isn't doing yourself any favors. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

11:48, 21 July 2026 review of submission by Mlazyjj

• Mlazyjj (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cincinnati Sports Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As the user who is submitting an Article of Creation, where do I place my conflict of interest disclaimer? I had placed it on my userpage but during the first review process, the response indicated that I did not have a disclaimer. Thank you. Mlazyjj (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Your userpage notice is sufficient. The tag simply is to draw attention to independent editors.

Please see WP:PAIDADVICE. In short, you are not likely to succeed at this. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

11:49, 21 July 2026 review of submission by Erespia2

• Erespia2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rayco García Cabrera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am requesting a secondary review of Draft:Rayco García Cabrera to lift the 'reject' lock. The previous reviewer rejected the draft on notability grounds (WP:GNG) and left a WP:COI warning.

First, for the record, I have zero personal, professional, or financial relationship with this individual. I am editing strictly as an independent volunteer and have no COI to declare.

Second, I have located high-quality, independent secondary sources from major Spanish publications that provide significant, in-depth coverage of his career as a sports executive, specifically his operational control of CD Tenerife and his international sports management in Saudi Arabia. I believe these satisfy WP:GNG:

• https://diariodeavisos.elespanol.com/2025/12/rayco-garcia-maximo-accionista-cd-tenerife/ - In-depth coverage by Diario de Avisos detailing his corporate acquisition of CD Tenerife as the maximum shareholder.
• https://www.relevo.com/futbol/liga-segunda/rayco-garcia-empresario-canario-codea-20241216191102-nt.html - A journalistic profile by Relevo focusing on his trajectory from former player to high-level sports businessman.
• https://www.laprovincia.es/ud-las-palmas/2022/12/06/rayco-garcia-agente-estrellas-juega-79630060.html - A detailed biographical feature by La Provincia outlining his role as an international sports agent.
• https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2022-10-13/arabia-saudi-pago-excanterano-barca-organiza-amistosos-club_3505303/ - An investigative report by El Confidencial regarding his institutional event operations and management in Saudi Arabia.

Could an independent administrator assess these specific sources? If they meet the WP:GNG threshold, I request that the 'reject' lock be removed so the draft can be updated with these citations and placed back into the standard AfC review queue. Thank you. Erespia2 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Erespia2 You are claiming that you personally created and personally own the copyright of the photo in the draft. It is a very professional looking black and white image where Mr. Cabera posed for the photographer. This would require knowing and working with him. Please clarify how you obtained the image. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @331dot:,

Thank you for pointing this out, and I apologize for the confusion. As a new editor, I misunderstood the "Own work" designation on Wikimedia Commons. I did not personally take the photograph with a camera; I obtained it online assuming it could be used for the article.

I understand now that this violates Wikimedia Commons copyright policies. To correct this immediately, I have removed the image entirely from the draft's infobox, and I have just tagged the file on Wikimedia Commons for speedy deletion (self-request by uploader). I will proceed with the draft without an image until a properly licensed or free image is available.

Thank you for your guidance Erespia2 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I will add that if you now have appropriate sources, you must first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I have actually already reached out to the rejecting reviewer directly on their talk page to provide the new high-quality sources and inform them of the complete WP:NPOV rewrite. I opened this Help Desk request because Sulfurboy explicitly advised me in their last message that if I found substantial sources to meet notability guidelines, I should address it at the AfC helpdesk. I am just following their recommended steps to move forward. Thanks again for your help! Erespia2 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have already approached the rejecting admin and they declined to reconsider the rejection(as I can see) you will then need to show us how their rejection was in error.

How did you come to select Mr. Cabrera to edit about? 331dot (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for stepping in to help.

To answer your second question first regarding how I selected Mr. Cabrera: It is purely based on geographic and local sports interest. I was born Tenerife, and I am currently living in New York. As a local, I actively follow regional news and our football club, CD Tenerife. In December 2025, Mr. Cabrera made major local headlines when he officially became the largest shareholder of the club. I noticed he did not have an Wikipedia article despite this major sports acquisition and his previous international sports management background, so I decided to draft one as a volunteer. I want to reiterate that I have absolutely zero personal, professional, or financial connection to him, his team, or his businesses.

Regarding the rejection: I actually do not believe Sulfurboy's original rejection was in error based on the previous state of the draft. The first version I submitted was flawed—it had a promotional tone and lacked sufficient high-quality secondary citations.

However, the draft has now been completely transformed:

1. I have manually rewritten the entire text from scratch to strip out any corporate language, reducing it to a strictly dry, factual baseline (WP:NPOV).
2. I have provided four major, independent secondary sources from prominent Spanish publications. These are not mere mentions; they are in-depth journalistic profiles and investigative pieces detailing his business operations and the CD Tenerife acquisition, which I believe firmly establishes WP:GNG.

I am not arguing that the reviewer was wrong then; I am simply asking for a fresh set of eyes to evaluate the new sources and the rewritten text now, as I believe the draft now meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Thank you for your time! Erespia2 (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am also deeply curious as to why you brought up COI when I don't see where anyone has claimed you might have one. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

To answer your question about why I proactively brought up the COI policy: it was out of an abundance of caution due to two specific interactions.

First, because my initial draft was flagged for having a promotional tone, I know that often triggers immediate suspicions of paid editing or a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. I wanted to clear the air immediately before anyone assumed I was hired by him.

Second, right around the same time, you questioned the image I had originally placed in the draft. Because I mistakenly uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons under the "Own Work" tag, you rightly pointed out that taking the photo "would require knowing and working with him." Because a personal relationship was directly implied, I felt I needed to explicitly state on the record that I do not know him, do not work with him, and have no COI. (I have since requested the speedy deletion of the image to fix that mistake).

I apologize if bringing it up unprompted caused confusion! As a newer editor trying to navigate the strict AfC rules, I was just trying to be as transparent and upfront as possible. I would like add more sport profiles from my island (now that in USA, Spain is well-known after the World Cup :) Erespia2 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

14:04, 21 July 2026 review of submission by ~2026-40800-58

• ~2026-40800-58 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DrGoose0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What could I add for this page to be accepted? ~2026-40800-58 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources that provide critical analysis and commentary about how this person is notable. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

17:38, 21 July 2026 review of submission by Poppapwej

• Poppapwej (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chesterfield Philharmonic Choir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to add the logo to the Info Box. I can't make it work, I can get the option 'logo' to appear when editing the InfoBox, but it won't stay. Nor am I able to drag the logo in. I have saved the logo as a jpg.

I have at least got the info box up, after a number of attempts! (It wouldn't pull in the Choir template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_choir) but that's not a problem now.

Also, I had a notice suggesting I should get further citations/references, but I can't now find the Notice! Poppapwej (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Poppapwej: Images need to be uploaded to Wikipedia proper in order to be used in articles - and adding an image to a draft is akin to hanging a fancy chandelier in a condemned house. Reviewers are focused on the text and sourcing; images will be ignored in their assessment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take the hint! Poppapwej (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I've found the Notice. Please ignore this request. Poppapwej (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

22:02, 21 July 2026 review of submission by DouglasAEwen

• DouglasAEwen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rob Sacchetto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am new to this and I am trying to get Rob Saccetto's page up. I did use AI for the base, rewrote it myself, and have added in my citations. I would like to know if this is correct and if I can submit it? Maybe my references are not good enough?

Any guidance on how to get this page up would be amazing because he is a real dude with a real career and it is a shame he does not have a page.

Thanks, DouglasAEwen (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't be "his page", but an article about him. This is not semantics, but an important distinction.

Is he involved with this besides you taking a picture of him?

Large sections are unsourced, including the Early Life section.

You have just summarized his activities, not what is said about him or his work, such as independent critical analysis and commentary. You need to show that he is a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh thank you for replying!

I work with him in a manager/agent capacity. He actually did an interview with me to gather this information. I wrote it like it was a factual page about Rob instead of in his own words. I understand the ARTICLE ABOUT HIM instead of his page. I have now removed all citations and references as I plan to go back in and re do it but, I do not think I am catching on correctly. When I say something like "Rob has been doing this for 20 years" I need to highlight that sentence, hit citations, and put in an article from a notable source?

And just keep repeating that?

Everything in there is 100% true and right from Rob's mouth as well as me being beside him now for so many years. But, I do not think I am sourcing the article correctly. A lot of my sources to seem to be "unreliable" sources and I think that is where I am getting dinged.

I should just rewrite it like someone who is telling a story and every time i make a claim just highlight it and find that article, if the article is not from a good enough source, just remove the point altogether?

I appreciate any help with this, I figured it would be a lot easier! I think I am complicating it by not understanding.

Thanks,

Doug DouglasAEwen (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DouglasAEwen

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey!

Thank you for the links and I think you are right. It takes weeks just to understand the process. I am going to work on some articles first and try to master this before putting it up agian.

I appreciate the GOLDEN RULE link! DouglasAEwen (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

July 22

02:22, 22 July 2026 review of submission by Kerastari

• Kerastari (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Steven Antony Krilis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I am an academic that has written this draft so I can improve the current Wikipedia page that was originally created with out any input from me and its outdated and has a number of issues that have been flagged. I would value greatly someone looking at the current Wikipedia page and advising me how to proceed Kerastari (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

So is your draft just a duplicate of Steven Krilis? If you have improvements you wish to make to that page, you may do so, or discuss on the article talk page. guninvalid (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kerastari, if you are Steven Krilis, or a friend/coworker/family member/etc, please do not make any changes to the article. Instead, you should make an edit request on the talk page of the article. Experienced Wikipedia editors with no conflict of interest will then assess it and either implement the changes or let you know why they haven't been implemented. There's more information on the linked edit request page. Meadowlark (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

05:39, 22 July 2026 review of submission by Kairuku 43

• Kairuku 43 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Andy Rodriguez-McCradic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told my sources were not reliable. The sources are well known, and some (like the Arizona Republic) have been publishing for over a century.

Some publications may be defunct, but I have copies of those magazines.

Was this the only reason my entry was rejected? Kairuku 43 (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kairuku43: Your offline sources are all incomplete. [(paper) (date)] is not an acceptable format for newspaper references; we also need the article name, article byline, and the page(s) the article is on. We also use bespoke templates for offline cites ({{cite news}} and {{cite magazine}} for periodicals and {{cite book}} for books). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 07:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

09:10, 22 July 2026 review of submission by VijayLChavda

• VijayLChavda (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Indonesia B50 Biodiesel Mandate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know much more about Wikipedia but I like to contribute on Wikipedia, Last 7 to 8 day there are many Wikipedia's persons help me and guide me properly also suggest me. They told me do everything which good for Wikipedia but don't make any spam. I like it all the thoughts, yesterday I submitted the article regarding B50_Biodiesel can I know it will publish or not if I make any mistake so please help me to live my article if possible. Thanks for advance to help me. VijayLChavda (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @VijayLChavda.

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

Your draft may be just a summary of what the sources you cite say (I haven't looked at them), but it reads as if it is much more than that, and quite likely involves some original research, which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article.

Also, your citations are gathered at the end: they should be appended to where the information they verify appears in the text: see Citing sources.

You also don't appear to have addressed the problem cited in the previous decline, that the draft appears to have been written using an LLM. Using an LLM is forbidden in a Wikipedia article: see WP:NEWLLM.

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) 09:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, ColinFine, Thanks for the advice, Can I know what's the structure to add article, Which citations to add in the article, how many words need an article. Can I know any guidelines to write article? It will help me to contribute on Wikipedia. I spent daily 3 to 4 hour on Wikipedia to learn those things to make me better here. VijayLChavda (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @VijayLChavda.

Have you read your first article?

But, to summarise:

1. Find several sources that are reliable, independent, and contain in-depth coverage of the subject of the proposed article (that is, of the subject specifically: an in-depth account of something related to the subject, that only mentions the subject in passing, will not help). Check each of these sources against all the criteria in WP:42. If a source meets some but not all of the criteria, it may be helpful for the article, but doesn't contribute towards establishing notability, so put it aside for the present.
2. If you can't find three or more sources that meet all the criteria, stop. You will not succeed in writing this article.
3. Effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the sources say about it. Write in your own words (and don't use an LLM, even something like Grammarly). Each time you state a fact from a source, cite the source at the end of the sentence or paragraph.

ColinFine (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

09:46:43, 22 July 2026 review of submission by CamInnovator2026

• CamInnovator2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I've substantially revised this draft after two prior declines, it now has references drawing on independent coverage from The Times, Financial Times, and Forbes. Before resubmitting, could someone confirm whether the sourcing now meets WP:NCORP, particularly the independent significant coverage requirement? I want to avoid a third decline. Thank you for your help. CamInnovator2026 (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, the link didn't come through above — the draft is here: Draft:Cambridge Innovation Capital CamInnovator2026 (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CamInnovator2026. What you're asking for is a review. We don't do prereviews.

But since you have made no edits at all to the draft since the last decline on 15 July, it is hard to see why you would expect any different result. ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, did you read WP:BOSS before you started? ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

10:07, 22 July 2026 review of submission by Noor-E-Tawheed

• Noor-E-Tawheed (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dr. Sheikh Abu Abdullah Liakat bin Abdus Samad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need to accept this page. How can I easily submit the page.

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I appreciate your time and feedback.

I apologize for resubmitting the draft without sufficiently addressing the previous concerns. I will carefully review the earlier comments, make the necessary improvements, and ensure that the draft complies with Wikipedia's notability, reliable sourcing, and neutral point of view requirements before resubmitting.

Noor-E-Tawheed (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Noor-E-Tawheed.

The title above is a redlink, because that draft has been deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion.

You have now created a second draft, Draft:Dr. Sheikh Abu Abdullah Liakat. As I am not an admin, I cannot see the deleted draft, and see how your new draft is different.

You have not in fact submitted it for review; but if you were to do so it would be declined immediately, because you have cited not one single source.

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

You have also not answered the very important question on your user talk page, about whether you have a connection with Liakat.

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) 10:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

13:47, 22 July 2026 review of submission by L3w1s.L3h50n3n

• L3w1s.L3h50n3n (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nezar N. Sami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, There is a claim added saying that an article I was editing was not written from WP:NPOV If it is convenient for your schedule(s), would you mind explaining to me what I would need to make the article acceptable?

With regards L3w1s.L3h50n3n (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@L3w1s.L3h50n3n: this draft has a vaguely promotional tone throughout, it reads like an event speaker profile or some such, intended to portray the subject as an 'important person'.

However, of the two decline reasons, the other, notability, is actually the more substantive one, in that notability is a hard requirement for any article to be published. Assuming that this person doesn't have sufficient academic credentials, his notability would need to be established according to the general notability guideline [{WP:GNG]]. That requires significant coverage of him in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: if I found some more sources, and I put them here and you deem them secondary, will it be acceptable L3w1s.L3h50n3n (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@L3w1s.L3h50n3n: no. Firstly, you need to cite your sources in the draft, not here at the help desk. Secondly, and more to the point, the draft must be based on the sources cited, so you would have to rewrite the draft at least to some extent. What you're proposing to do is to edit WP:BACKWARD, ie. first writing what you want, and then tagging on some sources in the hope that they might support something you've written. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

15:15, 22 July 2026 review of submission by Nycmoomin

• Nycmoomin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Blue Music Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have tried my best to be neutral and non-commercial in writing this article. Please advise how to be less "AI-like". For your information, I am currently writing my thesis in education science, which may influence my way of expressing myself. Nycmoomin (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The way to be less AI like is to....not use AI at all. Even if used to check spelling or grammar, AI can go beyond what is asked of it.

A Wikipedia article should not merely tell about the normal activities and offerings of a company. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what sources wholly unaffiliated with the company say is important/significant/influential about it. Most companies on Earth do not meet that standard, because all reporting about them is about their routine business activities(like commencing operations, raising capital, acquiring a competitor, releasing a product). 331dot (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a real person, who has written that article. Could you please help me understand which specific passages you believe exhibit WP:AIATTR? I would appreciate concrete examples so I can improve the draft accordingly. Thank you. Nycmoomin (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, My second draft about Blue Music Group was rejected with the comment that it "still obviously contains AISIGNS (most notably WP:AIATTR)." I rewrote the draft from scratch using primarily an independent All About Jazz profile and removed most self-published sourcing. I'm not disputing the review; I'm genuinely trying to understand what specifically in the current text appears to violate WP:AIATTR. Could someone take a quick look and point to the passages that should be rewritten? I am confused on the label AISIGNS as I am a real person. Nycmoomin (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You wrote "Several Blue Music Group releases have subsequently been reviewed by All About Jazz". This seems like AI, because it's easy for AI to find the occurrence of words in a text and say that's what it found. We don't want to know the mere appearances of this group's work, we want to know what is said about the work. What did the reviews say about Blue Music Group? That's what we want to know, not just the mere fact their work was reviewed. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have decided not to make any further contributions to the English Wikipedia. This experience has been overwhelmingly negative.

First, I was suspected of submitting AI-generated content. Second, my conflict of interest was questioned, despite my making a conscious effort to base the article primarily on independent, third-party sources. Third, edits I made almost twenty years ago—mostly to correct factual information about my own career—were brought up in the discussion.

Throughout this process, I have acted in good faith. I listened to the feedback I received, rewrote the article several times, reduced it to a minimal factual version, and relied on independent sources wherever possible. Nevertheless, I came away with the impression that my previous history and assumptions about my intentions mattered more than the actual content of the article.

My main lesson from this experience is that understanding Wikipedia's internal culture and procedures is just as important as having accurate, well-sourced information to contribute. Whether that is a strength or a weakness of the project is something others may judge for themselves.

As an academic, this experience has also changed my own perception of Wikipedia. For many years I have defended its usefulness as a starting point for finding information. After this experience, I am less confident in its editorial processes and will instead devote my efforts to publications that undergo formal editorial or peer review and receive persistent identifiers such as DOIs.

I appreciate the time that editors spent reviewing my submissions, even though we ultimately disagreed. I wish the project well, but I have concluded that it is not a community to which I wish to contribute further. Nycmoomin (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nycmoomin I'm sorry that you feel that way. New users who dive right in to the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- creating a new article- often come away frustrated. You're basically a new user as you had a long editing break(2008 to now, with one edit last year). It is true that it isn't enough to just have information to contribute. Would you build a house before learning about how to do so? You seem to be less confident in our editorial processes because those processes excluded your work. If you change your mind and want to learn more about the process, we'll be here. I wish you well. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

17:48, 22 July 2026 review of submission by AndriiRu

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

Hi! I am a new editor and this is my first Wikipedia article. It was declined due to promotional tone and referencing, and I really want to learn how to fix it according to Wikipedia guidelines. Could someone please point out which specific parts still sound promotional so I can rewrite or remove them?

thanks <3 AndriiRu (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are connected to this company, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

The entire thing is promotional. Wikipedia has a broad definition of promotion, broader than in common use, see WP:YESPROMO. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something or its activities and offerings. A Wikipedia article should summarize significant coverage in independent reliable sources- significant coverage being critical analysis and commentary. We don't just want to know about the activities of an organization, we want to know what others unaffiliated with the organization say is important/significant/influential about it. Most organizations on Earth can't meet that standard, because most reporting about organizations is about their routine activities. See WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

19:45, 22 July 2026 review of submission by Robert T. deGavre

• Robert T. deGavre (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chester Braddock deGavre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to edit my draft submission but the text is frozen and cannot be edited. How do I unfreeze the text? Robert T. deGavre (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Robert T. deGavre I have no idea what you mean. That's not a thing on Wikipedia. What happens when you try to press the edit button on the draft? Athanelar (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

20:37, 22 July 2026 review of submission by Saraedge

• Saraedge (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Sean Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Sean Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please review? I updated the sources and they should be correct based on the instructions I received. Thank you so much! Saraedge (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted the draft and it is pending. It's unnecessary to specifically ask for a review, and doing so does not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand. Saraedge (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

22:03, 22 July 2026 review of submission by Evan webster

• Evan webster (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Charles Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Charles Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft recently got denied, (this isn’t why I’m here) I just don’t really understand or see what I need to change on my draft, it was removed for “ This draft is not written from a neutral point of view”. I do have some disabilities which hinders me to comprehend stuff like this. I’m just hoping for some help and assistance, thank you. Evan webster (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you related to Brown? If so, you may have a WP:COI which must be declared. Several sections of this draft such as "Charles signature move when he was mid air and stable was either flying flags or pulling out some alcohol and toasting friends who were absent." No Wikipedia article would talk about a person's "signature move" unless it was extremely well known and well sourced. guninvalid (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

A 5th great grandson, yes.

so I should be removing that then since only the news articles say that. Evan webster (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

22:41, 22 July 2026 review of submission by DrUKff

• DrUKff (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ulrich B. Kampffmeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone please check for notability and style of the draft? It was entered by a collegue of mine and I tried to add enough references to make it stay on Wikipedia. Thank you! DrUkff (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@DrUKff: Anything Kampffmeyer himself says doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Have you had a looksee at our notability criteria for academics? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 22:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)