Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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

June 7

03:32, 7 June 2026 review of submission by Constrayevan

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

My draft article ColanXP was declined when I submitted accepted to go on the Wikipedia page. Somehow I don’t know why my draft was declined because I use sources wrong. Some administrators said that new users edit draft pages. Constrayevan (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Constrayevan - it was explained in the panel of the decline, in respect of reliable sources. Your article was entirely sourced to the X formerly known as Twitter, and Soundcloud, which is not going to qualify as reliable. Specifically WP:RSP gives you an idea as to what is and is not reliable. Now it's ok to develop your thoughts and sources via the draft pages, but when you press the big blue Submit button the first thing reviewers look for is the quality of your sources. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay, but also the other article that I created was Bleood, and it was removed because the same reason. But I click the big blue button the published and like a few days, the article was move to the draftspace. Because I use reliable sources, but I put six sources, six sources, but I didn’t copy from the other article, I typed it. And keep in mind, some articles also have six sources, but mind is always removed. Some administrators also deleted another article I created Ss3bby, and it got removed again, I’m making articles about rappers which they are based on the underground. So i don’t know why, because i typed non English language. Constrayevan (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Constrayevan: I already explained why I had to move Bleood into drafts. And as for Ss3bby, it does cite four sources, but none of them even mention Ss3bby. Similar referencing issues were also behind the other new articles of yours which I draftified.

Now that you've agreed not to publish directly in the main article space, we can relax a bit, but you still must get your head around our notability and verifiability requirements. What's more, you need to understand that you cannot write an article draft based on what you know about a subject, and then tag on a few sources for looks. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published, citing those sources against the information they have provided; see WP:GOLDENRULE for more on that.

Also, when writing about living people (see WP:BLP), you must take extra care to ensure that pretty much every material statement, and especially private personal details and potentially contentious information, is clearly supported by solid references. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for review guidance: Draft:Gulabuddin Sukhanwar

Hello, I have submitted Draft:Gulabuddin Sukhanwar through Articles for Creation. I would appreciate feedback on whether the draft meets Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements, especially for a biography of a writer, translator and cultural organizer.

I understand that reviews are handled by volunteers and that this is not a request for special treatment or immediate approval. I am mainly looking for guidance on whether the sources, neutrality and structure are acceptable, or whether the draft needs improvement before review.

Thank you. Sanchoof (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You should find out in due course @Sanchoof, there is a bit of a queue, but when your turn comes then you will be given feedback. While it's best to ensure you meet the WP:GOLDENRULE before submitting, it's not unusual for a draft to need a few reviews before acceptance. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

16:20, 7 June 2026 review of submission by Floreatexon

• Floreatexon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Wallpaper History Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you to the people who have left comments on the above draft. I completely understand and respect that sources need to be independent, detailed, and reliable, however I have noticed that several Wikipedia articles on similar topics have been accepted despite having significantly fewer references and/or referencing their own website/materials. Some examples include:

• Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society (one reference, which is to the Bodleian Archives & Manuscripts landing page i.e. not actually referencing anything)
• Oxford Historical Society (4 references, 3 of which are (broken) links to their own website)
• Printing Historical Society (4 out of 6 references are to their own material)
• Cambridge Antiquarian Society (no references)
• Economic History Society (1 reference, to their own website)

I don't understand why my submission was declined while these examples have been accepted, so I thought I'd post here as I'm very happy to receive feedback. TIA! Floreatexon (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Floreatexon: To put it bluntly, none of those were approved because the lot of them were created before the drafting process even existed:

• Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society: 2007/Jan/05
• Oxford Historical Society: 2009/May/20
• Printing Historical Society: 2010/Sep/19
• Cambridge Antiquarian Society: 2007/Jun/03
• Economic History Society: 2006/Jun/27

The drafting process did not exist until 2011 and wasn't made all-but-mandatory until 2018. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 16:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, this is very useful context. Floreatexon (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

...and also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Floreatexon When editors point out that other articles also lack good sources, those other articles are often nominated for a "deletion discussion" to see whether they should be deleted (or perhaps moved to draft space to be either worked on, or they will expire and be deleted). Thanks for pointing those out. David10244 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

June 8

00:33, 8 June 2026 review of submission by Chris Quay

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

Please my article got rejected. The reasons where listed by Dan arndt, any help on how to fix? Chris Quay (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not in what

you say about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy.

Did you take the picture of yourself as you are claiming? It appears to be professionally taken, in which case the photographer owns the copyright, not you(generally). 331dot (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes declined and not rejected. Also, I do have copyright to the images yes. Can you red my references/ citations I understand I'm not a footballer but maybe you can give more clues ..for the bold etc on text I didn't think it'll be a problem, I'd fix that. Chris Quay (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chris Quay - you also need to ditch your AI / LLM / ChatGPT / chatbot assistance, it's just banned. I'm commenting on your draft here, not you personally, but the requirements for notability are most unlikely to be met in your case, we aren't LinkedIn and this sort of article is better hosted on LinkedIn anyway. Unlike (say) footballers it is quite difficult for businessmen to meet Wikipedia's definitions, unless they have footballer levels of public visibility, and that's just the way it is. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

So much bolding! I thought that maybe AI had learned not to do that. David10244 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

02:26, 8 June 2026 review of submission by RoyalNobleHouse1599

• RoyalNobleHouse1599 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:1599 Dernbach Charter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help with making edits to this article in addition to correcting the authors of the Mobius Back to Now Paradox: A Royal House in America RoyalNobleHouse1599 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@RoyalNobleHouse1599 - there are two core issues here. The original reviewer came to the view that this article shows the signs of being assisted by AI / LLM - and I agree with this assessment. There are some WP:SYNTH style clues (building a conclusion by meshing different sources), and there is the Rule of Three in places where humans would not deploy such usage. Then there are phrases like "scribes routinely..." - which is quite amusing on one level, using modern celebrity phrases in a 16th-century context. So my first advice, ditch your ChatGPT, Grammarly, Claude assistance, it is both prohibited in drafts under WP:NEWLLM and counterproductive to what you are trying to do. It will contaminate your work and is often irreversible.

Second issue - you are using sources that are offline. Now that is OK, and for some articles unavoidable, indeed it's sometimes undesirable to search for weak online sources when good old books have better and more reliable coverage. However it is incumbent of the editor to make it as easy as possible to verify the claims made. So give the ISBN in books published after about 1969, OCLC so that we can identify library collections, page numbers, maybe use the "quote" parameter. It's unhelpful to have a reference contained in a book which is 700 pages long. Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

07:49, 8 June 2026 review of submission by Normalfornorthnorfolk

• Normalfornorthnorfolk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John William Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm having trouble publishing. I am new to Wiki. I made the mistake of using AI for editing and formatting the article which I read and appeared permissible before I published "Copyediting: You can use AI to suggest basic copyedits or fix formatting on your own writing, provided the tool does not introduce any new content of its own." The article is factually correct. I revised my initial draft to remove edits included by the AI editing tool. Now when I post for review it says there are still issues. Do you know what the issues are on this review because I rewrote each part that was flagged last time. In fact the AI moderator flagged even sentences I had written. Thanks for your time. Best Joni Normalfornorthnorfolk (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Normalfornorthnorfolk (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Normalfornorthnorfolk: I'm not sure what you mean by "when I post for review it says there are still issues"? The earlier reviews/declines will remain there until this draft is accepted, if that's what you mean; they are just a historical record of its journey through the review process. If you wish for the draft to be reviewed again, you need to resubmit it by clicking on the blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking past any LLM issues, most of the draft's sourcing is not even about John William Rose, but instead more general events. Which secondary sources discuss Rose himself in detail? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's mentioned that there are 3800 cases written up at the Old Bailey. With two examples provided in the txt. The article is specific to his tenure as Recorder of London. Rather than Rose as a person. Normalfornorthnorfolk (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article on a person should usually be focused on that person, their specific impact and achievements, etc. that are described in secondary sources. Look at other articles about Recorders of London, such as Newman Knowlys. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate there are instances of a more rounded biographies of some Recorder's lives. But Wiki specifically is recording Recorders tenure. Those extended biographies outside of tenure aren't relevant to their role as Recorder. In any case, no one has written about Rose's outside of him being Recorder. Normalfornorthnorfolk (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The example I showed above, Newman Knowlys, does have secondary sources about his role as recorder, such as a newspaper story about his resignation. Your draft is mainly sourced to primary sources (his own documents) and secondary sources that don't even mention him. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I referenced his death is office. That’s a secondary source. Outside of the old Bailey there’s not much on him. So we have to build a picture of what was going on politically against the secondary sources which support the role during that period. As provided. ~2026-33895-07 (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to construct our own narrative, see WP:No original research. Articles should only summarize what has been written in reliable sources. For example, if you want to say "Rose was instrumental in the creation of modern day Australia", you need a source that describes him as instrumental. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s not an original assumption. It simply stated in facts from the old Bailey. It’s quantified against the math. Therefore it’s simply an interpretation. Not an opinion. ~2026-33895-07 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your comment means, sorry. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Normalfornorthnorfolk We don't do interpretations at Wikipedia, the articles just paraphrase what the sources explicitly say. David10244 (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi David. The Old Bailey clearly shows he was instrumental - this was his job - tasked as Recorder - I have cited his job description within the passage. Modern Australia was built on the foundations of the 160,000 convicts eventually transported. Do you feel this is an overreach or that I should reword the sentence? Normalfornorthnorfolk (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow – are you saying that because the Old Bailey sent a lot of convicts to Australia, and as the Recorder, Rose played some part in that, he therefore was instrumental in establishing the penal colony which subsequently became modern-day Australia, and hence Rose was instrumental in establishing Australia? If that is what you're saying, then yes, that is an overreach. As already explained, you can only say something like that if it is explicitly stated in a reliable and independent published source, preferably a secondary one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm in two minds as to whether it's an overreach. In context Rose was at the forefront of colonisation. Sending convicts on the second fleet until he left office - this was the first colony - they arrived to clear land and build infrastructure, non of which existed. https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/stories/convict-experience perhaps I should rephrase and say "Rose was instrumental and at the forefront of Australia's colonisation." thoughts? Normalfornorthnorfolk (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Normalfornorthnorfolk: okay, I'm going to play the 'source card' once more: if you can find a reliable published source which says "Rose was instrumental and at the forefront of Australia's colonisation", or words very close to that effect, then you can either quote it directly or paraphrase it, and include this in the draft; otherwise not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33895-07, @Normalfornorthnorfolk Please be sure to sign in when you are commenting here. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

10:34, 8 June 2026 review of submission by Arcanumtrust

• Arcanumtrust (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ewert Nene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft (Draft:Ewert Nene) was declined for lack of secondary sources and possible AI-generated content. Ewert Nene (16 October 1934 – 10 August 1976), known as "The Lip" and "Bra E", was a South African football manager and businessman. He was the chairman and managing director of Kaizer Chiefs F.C. in the 1970s.

I have rewritten the draft in my own words, using short sentences. I have added the following secondary sources:

- Drum magazine, August 1975 (shows Nene as chairman) - African Soccer Mirror, August 1976 (refers to Nene as "Kaizer Chiefs manager Ewert Nene") - African Soccer Mirror, September 1975 (links Nene to signing Jairzinho) - Sunday Times, 2018 (Nene recruited Ace Ntsoelengoe and Shaka Ngcobo) - News24, 2016 (calls Nene "the forgotten co-founder") - Sowetan, 2020 (calls Nene one of "the real founders") - NASL statistics (shows Kaizer Motaung played in the US during Chiefs' early years)

I have also included primary sources (court affidavit, business card, magistrate's court record) as supporting evidence, not as the main proof of notability.

Can you please advise if this draft now meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If not, what specific additional sources are needed?

Thank you. Arcanumtrust (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Arcanumtrust: please do not paste draft content (and certainly not section headings and references) to this help desk page; if you have made edits to your draft, you can resubmit it for a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Arcanumtrust Given that even this comment appears to be AI generated, are you sure that you have fully removed and written from scratch all AI-generated text in the draft? Simply rewording the AI-generated text is not sufficient, nor is asking the AI to rewrite it but "make it sound less AI." Any and all AI generated content needs to be entirely removed and written anew by yourself. Athanelar (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Arcanumtrust AI often bolds things in things it writes, such as "The Lip" and "Bra E", but Wikipedia articles don't do that. If you are writing this yourself, see MOS:BOLD. David10244 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not used AI to generate any content. I wrote the draft myself, based on primary documents I obtained from archives. The bolding of nicknames followed standard Wikipedia formatting I observed in other articles. I will rewrite the draft again without any bold except the title. If you still believe it is AI, please tell me exactly which phrases trigger your suspicion so I can change them. I am here to contribute historically accurate information, not to deceive. I honestly don't understand these AI comments. These are factual taken from Ewert Nene's death certificate from 1976. So, how AI have generated factual statements from Ewert Nene's death certificate? I use Monday and Microsoft to edit all articles. "The Lip" and "Bra E" are references used in the English language when reference also known as a.k.a. Unless the English language has changed. Should I share the evidence so you rewrite it, so I understand your points better? Arcanumtrust (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Arcanumtrust, wherever possible you should be using secondary documents; see WP:PRIMARY for more. You cannot cite a YouTube video except under very specific circumstances, which this video does not meet: WP:RSPYT. You cannot cite a death notice, and you cannot cite Springs Magistrate's Court records, 1976.

Most of your sources, in fact, have major problems right now. You need to remove anything not published by a reliable source such as a newspaper, book, journal, etc - business cards, letters, and so on are not acceptable. Where the sources were published, you need much more information - author, headline, date published, and page number are usually the minimum.

Basically you need new sources. Look for sources which meet all three criteria in WP:42. Interviews with or things written by Nene, or people closely connected to him, are not considered independent. Generally you need at least three sources of this kind. Once you have them, delete your current draft and begin again, summarising only what is stated in those sources. I know this probably seems like an awful ordeal, but unfortunately it's the only way to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. This is why we usually strongly recommend working on existing articles before trying to write a new one - without experience, you don't know what a good source and good article looks like. It's not your fault; you can't know what you don't know, but we also can't publish articles that don't meet our standards. It might be worthwhile spending some time on existing articles now, and slowly rewriting your draft as you learn more. Meadowlark (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

10:44, 8 June 2026 review of submission by CaBrM

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

Hi there,

Regarding my attempts to post a wikipedia page, I am wondering if the catagory is the issue? I have added sources from local media, and am happy to transfer the page to a private, rather than public, organisation. Would this lead to the page being published? Any help much appreciated. CaBrM (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@CaBrM: this draft was declined because its sources are inadequate; social media is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable, and the subject's own website is cited three times. The only other source (cited twice), RTE, is not enough to support this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, amazing, thank you. Sorry, new to creating a page (obviously). This is for a local ngo, so am wondering if there is a way to publish the page with just the refences in media and the origin site? CaBrM (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@CaBrM: sorry, I meant to also add that since the citations are piled together at either end of the draft, it isn't clearly which source supports what information, and how much of this is unsupported. You should cite the sources immediately after the information they support.

This draft wasn't, but could well have been also, declined for lack of evidence of notability. Notability is a core requirement for anything to be included in the encyclopaedia. In the case of organisations, the relevant notability guideline is laid out at WP:ORG. It requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. If you can manage to find such sources – and, crucially, base the draft on them (see WP:42 for more on that) – then it may be possible to have the draft accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I understand now what I have done wrong here. Thank you for taking the time to talk me through that, much appreciated. CaBrM (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CaBrM.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

12:51, 8 June 2026 review of submission by MartinFullard

• MartinFullard (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Request for second opinion: Draft:Identity (experience agency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking a second opinion on the repeated decline of Draft:Identity (experience agency).

I have a declared conflict of interest as Marketing & Communications Director at Identity and am editing in that capacity, with the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template in place.

The draft has been declined four times by four different reviewers, each raising different objections:

• Theroadislong — promotional tone. Addressed: the draft was substantially rewritten, the brand identity section removed entirely, and all evaluative language stripped.
• Stuartyeates — insufficient secondary sources. Addressed: all references to the Identity website were removed from citations and replaced with independent sources including Campaign Live, Conference News, C-MW, The Drum, Standout Magazine, Access All Areas, Showman's Directory, BusinessCloud, Host City, Micebook, The Ticketing Business, the Financial Times, and Companies House.
• Epsilon.Prota — fails WP:NCOMPANY; sources are routine coverage only.

I would welcome a second opinion on whether the notability objection is well-founded. The subject is a UK-based experience agency with the following independently documented facts:

• Incorporated 2001; renamed and grown substantially under current CEO
• Ranked 25th in the Sunday Times Fast Track 100 (2021) — noted as the only events agency on the list
• Ranked 53rd in the Financial Times FT1000 (2023)
• Holder of the King's Award for Enterprise (International Trade)
• Delivered the G7 Summit (2021), COP26 (2021), COP28 (2023), the Coronation of King Charles III (2023), and the Mayor of London's New Year's Eve fireworks (2022–2026), all attributed by independent sources
• Four acquisitions between 2024 and 2026 covered by independent trade press
• Multiple Agency of the Year awards from Conference News and C&IT

All of the above are supported by independent citations in the draft. I appreciate that acquisition announcements and award listings may constitute routine coverage, but the FT1000 ranking, Sunday Times Fast Track 100, King's Award, and the Coronation attribution from a named senior GLA official (Sophie Scowen, published in Showman's Directory) would appear to go beyond routine coverage.

Any guidance on whether this draft is salvageable, or what specific evidence would satisfy WP:NCOMPANY, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you MartinFullard (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

but the FT1000 ranking, Sunday Times Fast Track 100, King's Award, and the Coronation attribution from a named senior GLA official (Sophie Scowen, published in Showman's Directory) would appear to go beyond routine coverage. They don't.

You should read WP:CORPDEPTH, as well as WP:BOSS or WP:PRPEOPLE, whichever applies better to you (depending on whether you're an employee of this company or just a marketing contractor, respectively) Athanelar (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@MartinFullard: as you say yourself, your sources are routine business reporting (M&A, awards, etc.), which do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. And the other things you mention such as FT1000 listing, King's Award, etc. may help to generate publicity for your business, or even make it 'famous' to some extent, but they have no effect on notability, either. So yes, my 'second opinion' (or rather, fourth) is that this draft was correctly declined.

I don't know if this draft is salvageable; I think the question you should rather ask is whether your business is actually notable (the vast majority are not). Can you find multiple secondary sources that have on their own initiative, without any prompting or input by anyone from your company, provided significant coverage of your business? If you can, then as explained in WP:GOLDENRULE, your job is merely to summarise what they have said, nothing more and nothing less. That will almost certainly result in a different draft from what you have now, which would mean that the current one needs not even be salvaged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

After reviewing this draft, I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewers, and do not think that this salvageable as so much of the draft focuses on things that don't establish notability, only the normal day-day activities of a large business. There's a huge emphasis on WP:CORPTRIV. The vast majority of businesses, even very large ones, in this world do not qualify for notability by Wikipedia's definition. Awards only help with notability if the awards themselves are notable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@MartinFullard Yes, please see especially WP:CORPTRIV TPthat CoffeeCrumbs pointed you to. These things that you said are good coverage, are not:

• Agency of the Year awards
• Incorporated; grown substantially
• Acquisitions
• FT1000 (there are a lot of companies in the FT1000)

Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback. I am very new to this so value the education. Many thanks. MartinFullard (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

13:17, 8 June 2026 review of submission by AirOn1980

• AirOn1980 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Antoine Pierini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing about a French artist. I have reliable sources but are mostly written in French. I am writing this page in English. How do I correctly state that they are being referenced in another language? Thanks. AirOn1980 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@AirOn1980: non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet our reliability etc. requirements. To indicate this, the citation template takes a language parameter, |language= followed by the language code, in this case fr.

You may also optionally provide additional parameters such as translated title |trans-title=, translated quote trans-quote=, etc., which may help reviewers and readers who don't read that language. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

14:31, 8 June 2026 review of submission by AlekDyai

• AlekDyai (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Elena Vishlenkova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello everyone, I am working on a draft about Elena Vishlenkova (Link: Draft:Elena_Vishlenkova), and it was recently declined due to sourcing issues ("not adequately supported by reliable sources"). I understand Wikipedia's strict guidelines on verifiability, and I want to fix this. However, as a new contributor, I’m finding it a bit challenging to identify which of my current sources are considered weak and where to find better ones that meet the criteria (academic journals, reputable news media, etc.). Could anyone please take a quick look at my draft and point out: Which specific sources should be removed immediately? What kind of independent coverage is missing to prove the topic's notability? Any advice, links to reliable databases, or direct help with editing would be highly appreciated! Thank you in advance AlekDyai (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@AlekDyai: I think the problem isn't so much that the sources are not reliable, but rather that there is far too much unreferenced information not supported by any sources: of the first dozen or so paragraphs, only one has a citation. In articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, as well as all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. As a bare minimum, each paragraph requires at least one citation, and all but the shortest ones require more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@AlekDyai As DoubleGrazing says, readers need to know where all of that (unreferenced) information comes from. David10244 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? I see that you took a picture of the professor.

The last reviewer noted that only the Reception section is sourced. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@AlekDyai, the suggestion I'll add to those above is that you assess each of your sources against WP:42 - you want each source to meet all three of the criteria. Generally three or more such sources will be enough to prove that your subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Meadowlark (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

14:45, 8 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-33886-26

• ~2026-33886-26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shane Hryhorec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am trying to understand the concerns regarding AI-generated writing. I have checked the draft with plagiarism detection tools and the similarity score is very low, so I would appreciate guidance on which specific parts of the article appear AI-generated or non-encyclopedic.

I understand the comments regarding overattribution, including phrases such as "featured by," "gained media attention," and similar wording. I am currently working on rewriting those sections, consolidating duplicate references, adding categories, and creating a See also section.

I would be very grateful if an experienced editor could review the draft and point out specific examples that should be rewritten. If anyone is willing to help improve the article so that it better complies with Wikipedia's content policies and Articles for Creation standards, I would greatly appreciate the assistance.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

~2026-33886-26 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

For one, there are some very notorious LLM signs. LLMs get confused by what the purpose of citing is, and tend to report very awkwardly that media sources say things rather than what media sources say. There's a huge difference between saying On April 14, 1865, five days after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln was fatally shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., becoming the first U.S. president to be assassinated and saying Media reports indicate that he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre in Washington D.C. and describe him as the first U.S. president to be assassinated.. It would be a very odd way for humans to communicate. Yet nearly every section has a sentence like this, and many other sentences are incredibly vague. I suspect this was a mix of LLM and human, with the signs that this may have initially been drafted as an LLM with attempts then being made to try to fix the content. You would have the best direct knowledge of precisely how you used LLMs in creating this draft. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33886-26: as you have posted this question anonymously, I don't know whether you have contributed to this draft, and if so how much, and whether you therefore know if LLM or similar AI-based tools were used to write it. If yes, then it needs to be rewritten by a human. I can't list all the passages that need attention, but expressions like "The project has been referenced by ABC News" are very typical of LLM, and tell the reader precisely nothing useful: we don't want to know that ABC News covered this subject, we want to know what ABC News said in their coverage. Ditto, "The project has been discussed in Australian media", "His advocacy work and travel reporting have been featured by Australian media outlets", etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This comment displays both WP:AIUNSURE and WP:AIREVIEW and as such is almost certainly written by AI. If that's the case, I struggle to believe the draft isn't. Athanelar (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

16:52, 8 June 2026 review of submission by Capt. Moze

• Capt. Moze (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oliver Klaus (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reviewer Epsilon.Prota declined my draft *Oliver Klaus (band)*. I believe it meets WP:MUSICBIO #1 with four independent secondary sources listed on the Talk page. Could another reviewer please take a look?

Capt. Moze (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Capt. Moze Please do not use LLMs (such as ChatGPT) to edit or communicate on Wikipedia, your talk-page posts are blatantly AI-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My posts are written in my own words. My request still stands — could another reviewer please take a look at the draft? The notability statement is on the draft’s Talk page. Capt. Moze (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've restored a number of decline notices that the OP here removed. Athanelar (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

19:25, 8 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-33970-62

• ~2026-33970-62 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Josephina Sykes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page gets rejected all the time. Wonder why? Sources we present are similar to pages already accepted. Is this discrimination for being a woman? Just wondering? Thanks! Maybe constructive help instead of rejection would be more inclusive and a better conduit for this site that doesn't always present correct info! ~2026-33970-62 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33970-62 - hello, no it wasn't discrimination. A man with this set of sources would get identical treatment. It is explained in the decline messages. Two main things, inline citations, which is compulsory for living people. When there is a statement of fact, there needs to be a citation next to that fact, so it can be verified. This is fairly easy to fix, just follow the guidance in WP:REFB. The bigger problem is that your sources are to Medium and IMDB. This is not allowed, see WP:RSP if you want the fuller details, but in simple terms these are not reliable sources. What we ideally need is 3 good quality sources that meet the WP:GOLDENRULE, and that will need some more work on the draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference between declined and rejected; rejected would mean resubmission would not be possible. This draft was declined, meaning resubmission is possible if you can address the concerns. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-33970-62.

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 need to start by finding several sources that meet the golden rule, and having found them you need to set aside everything that you know about the person and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33970-62 The reason that IMDB is not a "reliable source" is that IMDB is editable by anyone, so anyone can say anything they want there... including things that are not true. There is no "editorial control". You can look for Medium at WP:RSP. David10244 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who assesses sources quite frequently, article drafts about men can and do get the same treatment if their sourcing is not up to par. Allow me to further your education:

• We can't use IMDB (no editorial oversight). The issue with IMDb is less that it's editable by anyone and more that, while they tout that they fact-check their content, said fact-checking is best characterised as "haphazard and sloppy".
• https://rue-morgue.com/interview-brad-and-josephina-sykes-talk-hi-fear/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview. And this source wouldn't help for Brad's eligibility either for the exact same reason. Interviews are useless as sources regardless of the outlet (Variety or some random horror blog) or interviewer (Larry King or Borat Sagdiyev).
• I can't assess https://themovieelite.com/interview-with-josephina-sykes/ (technical barrier). It's throwing up a database connexion error.
• We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference).
• We can't use Medium (No editorial oversight) and even if we could https://medium.com/film-courage/reality-of-producing-horror-movies-josephina-sykes-full-interview-86244036c848 wouldn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• https://screenrant.com/hi-fear-brad-sykes-josephina-sykes-interview/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview. (And just like the Rue Morgue source this also wouldn't help for Brad.)
• https://www.aintitcool.com/prometheus-plaguers-tenth-anniversary-interview-82670/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview. (And again this wouldn't help for Brad.)

There isn't much in terms of third-party reporting here. We need those third-party sources in order to summarise them for an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 17:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

20:55, 8 June 2026 review of submission by Cagliost

• Cagliost (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of electoral redistrictings in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission was declined for lack of significant coverage. But it is a List article, it is not supposed to have significant coverage. cagliost (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Your list is composed of two articles, which doesn't really warrant a list. But even if you have more, see WP:NLIST. You do need to show that this topic is notable as a group. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

20:55, 8 June 2026 review of submission by Stygianpen

• Stygianpen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Lovern Kindzierski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Lovern Kindzierski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Hello,

I am seeking clarification regarding the repeated rejection of this article, as I am struggling to understand what specific requirements remain unmet.

Over the past several months, I have worked to address the concerns raised during the review process. The draft includes significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that are not connected to the subject. Based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I believe the available sourcing demonstrates that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion.

Lovern is a notable figure within the comic book industry, particularly for his pioneering role in bringing computer colouring to comics through his company. Given the scope of his contributions and the available independent coverage, I am finding it difficult to understand why the article continues to be declined.

I have been transparent about my connection to the subject and disclosed my conflict of interest from the outset. If my involvement in drafting the article is a concern, I would appreciate guidance on whether there is a preferred process for having the submission reviewed independently. If there are specific deficiencies in the sourcing, structure, or content that remain unresolved, I would be grateful for detailed feedback so that they can be addressed.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Stygianpen (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you try again without using an AI? 331dot (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stygianpen

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

June 9

02:14, 9 June 2026 review of submission by BBELL

• BBELL (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - i would love some assistance in getting a page up about the organisation i work for. Is there anyone who would be able to help me understand your guidelines better? BBELL (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

For a start;

You must disclose your paid editing status per WP:PAID. Are you the same editor as User:SuperCommsEditor who disclosed their paid status on the talk page of that draft?

After that, I suggest you read WP:BOSS and/or WP:PRPEOPLE, whichever applies. Athanelar (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I am, and I thought had disclosed it when i had sumbitted the article again. Are there any other issues with the article? BBELL (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BBELL

What makes it particularly difficult for somebody in your position to write an article is that essentially nothing that you know about your organisation is relevant to a Wikipedia article about it.

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.

On a quick look at your list of sources, it doesn't look to me as if a single one of them is likely to meet all the requirements of the golden rule - and without several sources that do so, you will not be able to establish that your organisation is notable, in which case an acceptable article about it is impossible. (Most organisations on the planet are not notable, by the way). ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

BBELL If you checked a box in the article wizard, that is not a public disclosure. You need to post a statement on your user page(User:BBELL). Please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

02:27, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Vindi1006

• Vindi1006 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Discovery-class cruise ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i am wondering how to make the pictures appear bigger on the screen. Vindi1006 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vindo1006: Pictures are irrelevant to drafts. Your lack of sources is the more pressing concern. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

07:27, 9 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-33878-16

• ~2026-33878-16 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ram Bachan Yadav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have completely revised the language and formatting of my draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone and style standards. The subject served as the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Uttar Pradesh in 1970–1971 and was a three-time MLA, which suggests historical notability under WP:POLITICIAN.

Since the subject's career dates back to the 1960s–1980s, online coverage is extremely limited. However, I have verified the facts using the official digital directory of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and added verified offline secondary sources, including obituaries and condolence motions published in leading regional newspapers like Dainik Jagran and Rashtriya Sahara.

As a connected contributor, I have disclosed my COI. Could an editor please review these verified offline and official records to help guide this draft to publication? Thank you!

~2026-33878-16 (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33878-16 Can you explain why you removed the previous decline notices, including a comment which literally said <!-- Important, do not remove anything above this line before article has been created. --><!-- This is not a suggestion, stop removing the AfC declines --> Athanelar (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sir im very sorry, that was a complete mistake on my part. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and while updating the draft to fix the language, I accidentally wiped out the old template notices without realizing it was forbidden. I did not mean to hide the previous reviews sir. I'll restore the decline notices right now. Thank you for pointing this out sir. ~2026-33878-16 (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

By any chance did this happen because you asked some kind of AI tool to rewrite or reformat your draft and you copied its output without checking? Athanelar (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes sir I'm deeply sorry to admit that I did use an AI tool to help clean up the language and formatting because I wanted to make the draft look professional. I know around 85-90% English, so I checked the output before posting, but since I'm completely new here, I naively trusted the tool and didn't realize it had secretly wiped out the necessary templates and previous decline notices behind the scenes. It was entirely my ignorance as a new editor. I swear everything about this article is 100% genuine. The subject is my late grandfather, Ram Bachan, and he was a real history-maker who served as the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Uttar Pradesh in 1970–1971 and a three-time MLA. This is not a fake story or spam; I have all his physical records, the official UP Assembly introduction book, and old newspaper clippings with me. I never intended to bypass the rules or trick the community; I just blindly trusted the tool. Please forgive my technical mistakes this one time and help me. I accept whatever decision you make regarding the draft, but I sincerely request you to please look at the genuine history of my grandfather and not block my account. I'm a real person and I'm willing to learn how to do things correctly by hand. Kindly help me sir !.. ~2026-33878-16 (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to apologise, but if you want any chance of your article being published you'll have to blank it all and start from scratch with no help from AI. AI generated text isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Reading Help:Your first article might help.

As well as that, you should know that there is a Hindi-language Wikipedia at hi.wikipedia.org, which you might be more comfortable writing in as I presume being from Uttar Pradesh that Hindi is your primary language. Athanelar (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, sir. I have completely blanked the previous text and restarted the draft from scratch using very simple words by myself without any AI help. I will continue to add the references manually. Please check it now. ~2026-33878-16 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-33878-16 (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

11:17, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Anassstasiia

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

What exactly needs to be changed in this article for it to be adopted, or at least considered for longer? Anassstasiia (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Anassstasiia, although I am not the reviewer, my suggestion would be to remove the sources that are only a brief description of gombovtsi and the sources that are primarily recipes. You have a couple of sources that I think are probably good: Look Around, probably Eurofest, and at a stretch perhaps Ienergo. The goal is to find sources that discuss the subject in depth, including its history, origins, development over time, etc. You are looking for sources that meet all three criteria of WP:42. In my opinion you're pretty close to having an acceptable draft, you just need to find one or two better sources (and remove the subpar sources along with the information they're supporting).

Pinging last reviewer @Avgeekamfot: could you please elaborate further if my reasoning above isn't what concerned you about the draft? Meadowlark (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

12:24, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Mahithasuresh1

• Mahithasuresh1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vidya Bhavani Suresh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking advice on Draft:Vidya Bhavani Suresh. The draft includes

multiple independent book reviews in reliable sources such as reputable

newspapers and magazines including The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, The Week,

and New Indian Express across four books, five Indian university syllabuses

prescribing her books, and coverage spanning 2000–2026 in national

publications including Times of India and India Today. A previous reviewer

engaged constructively and cleared the draft for resubmission. A subsequent

decline cited unreliable sources but did not specify which sources when

asked on the talk page. I would appreciate guidance on the best path

forward to get this accepted. Full discussion available at

User talk:Mahithasuresh1. Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

   Hi Athanelar, thank you for your response. Let me clarify my question. The draft page: Vidya Bhavani Suresh has citations from reliable sources (Independent reviews in reputable newspapers and magazines like The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express, The Week) across four books as well as five Indian universities prescribing her books in their academic syllabus. The page was cleared for resubmission by the previous reviewer. But it received a generic decline from the next reviewer with lack of reliable sources being stated as the reason. I had immediately requested clarification from the second reviewer on what sources were considered unreliable, but did not receive a response. Hence I would appreciate guidance on the best path forward. Full discussion available at User Talk:Mahithasuresh1. Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

   Hi Athanelar, as a follow-up to my message of yesterday, I have completed all the steps that you had suggested, including dropping a message to the second reviewer. My specific question is that the draft page contains independent reviews in reputable newspapers and magazines and university syllabus prescriptions, which are considered reliable sources as per the Wikipedia source guidance available. To my knowledge, no unreliable sources have been included in the draft. I would really appreciate your help in understanding what the next steps I should take are. Mahithasuresh1 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

   The only person who can properly explain the reason for the decline is the person who gave it, so I'd say wait for them to get back to you and elaborate. Do be mindful of the first decline and the comment left by ChrysGalley, though; "reliability" is not the only thing a source needs to possess; see WP:42. Athanelar (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

14:56, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Clint O'Shea

• Clint O'Shea (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Clint O'Shea/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't seem to find the button to submit my article I made for review. Clint O'Shea (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea This draft appears, like much of your previous attempts, to be AI generated. Please be mindful that AI-generated content isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

14:59, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Sbekiros-research

• Sbekiros-research (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stelios Bekiros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft: Draft:Stelios Bekiros Original decline: 09 June 2026, 11:06 UTC, by User:Avgeekamfot, on the default templated grounds of "prof" and "resume".

I am requesting a second AfC reviewer's opinion. The original reviewer has indicated, in reply to my substantive rebuttal, that she will not engage further with the merits and has expressly invited me to "request another AfC review to see if another reviewer accepts the draft" (thread, reply at 14:12, 9 June 2026 UTC). I am taking that invitation here rather than resubmitting blind, because I believe the draft already cites evidence of notability under WP:NPROF on four independent grounds and I would prefer a reviewer with academic-biographies experience to assess that evidence on the record, against the criteria, before any resubmission.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking this Help Desk to relitigate the original review. I am asking for an independent assessment of the evidence on the merits, because the original review record, on its face, does not document a reference-by-reference engagement with the four NPROF grounds cited below.

The four NPROF grounds, each evidenced in the draft as submitted:

• C1 — Highly cited research. h-index 66, i10-index 217, more than

 16,000 citations on Google Scholar. Stanford / Elsevier "World's Top
 2% Scientists" rankings, six consecutive years (2020–2025).

• C3 — Highly prestigious academic awards / fellowships. Three Marie

 Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (2011, 2013, 2015) and one
 Max Weber Fellowship at the European University Institute (2008–2009);
 four Italian National Scientific Habilitations (ASN-MIUR) at Prima Fascia (Full Professor) level (Feb 2025).

• C5 — Named / distinguished chair. Chair Full Professor of AI, Data

 Science and Econometrics, University of Turin (since Feb 2023);
 previously Joint Chair Full Professor, University of Malta / Turin
 (2021–2024); Full Professor of Economic Statistics, University of Padua (elected 2019).

• C8 — Editor-in-Chief of major established academic journals.

 Inaugurate Distinguished Editorial Member of Reviews of Economic Literature (the first new journal launched by Stanford University Press in a century); Editor-in-Chief of AI Insights,
 Economics — Innovative and Economic Research Journal (De Gruyter),
 Journal of Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies,
 Journal of FinTech and Financial Engineering, and the IECE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and Data Science.
 Associate / Academic Editor on more than twenty further international
 journals including PLOS ONE, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
 (Elsevier), Risk Analysis (Wiley) and the
 INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics.

The second stamped reason ("resume") concerns editorial form rather than notability and I accept it can be addressed by tightening list-dense sections in any resubmission. I do not raise it here, because form is mine to fix and is not the subject of this request.

I have declared the conflict of interest in advance on User:Sbekiros-research using the {{Connected contributor}} template, and the COI is disclosed in the draft itself, precisely so that the substantive notability question is assessed by an uninvolved reviewer rather than the author.

Specifically, I would value an opinion on:

1. whether the four grounds above are, taken on their face, sufficient for

 WP:NPROF on this encyclopaedia;

1. if not, which clause of WP:NPROF each fails and why;
2. whether resubmission with tightened prose is the appropriate next step,

 or whether a re-review of the present draft is warranted.

Thank you.

Sbekiros-research (talk) Sbekiros-research (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sbekiros-research: based on a quick scan of your draft and sources, rather than any thorough analysis, I would say that if everything you claim in the draft can be verified, then you probably are notable per NPROF. Specifically: C1 is likely satisfied by the indices (albeit that AI is obviously a very buzzy field, which tends to push citations up); C3 may also be okay; and C8 would be satisfied by the multiple Editorships-in-Chief. (I'm not sure about C5, though, but that's by now redundant.)

However, the draft needs independent verification of all this. There are dozens of citations to your own website, and without putting too fine a point on it, you can of course write on your website what you want. At least some citations only point to website home pages: for example, cite #13 comes after the statement "In November 2025 he was inducted as a Full Member (highest rank, by invitation only) of the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Honor Society, founded at Cornell University in 1886, whose members have included more than 200 Nobel Prize laureates." and points to https://www.sigmaxi.org which doesn't seem to verify anything in that statement. You are also citing two Wikidata items, which are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy for others to come to a different conclusion on notability (which is a bit irrelevant when there are content issues) but my take is that given how high citation the field is, the citations is probably meeting the "average professor test" referenced in WP:NPROF rather than exceeding it. I disagree on C3 (postgrad fellowships are too early career to count) and C5 (a professorship is not a "distinguished" or "named" chair). C8 is probably the strongest grounds, although we'd then need to establish one of the journals as major and well-established.

Notability will be easier to assess once the prose (and verification issues noted by @DoubleGrazing) are resolved. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @DoubleGrazing, for the substantive engagement — much appreciated. I accept the verification points and would like to flag one independent source that addresses most of them in a single move.

The University of Turin institutional staff page at management.unito.it/Alias?stelios.bekiros is the official UniTo Dipartimento di Management Valter Cantino public page, institutionally maintained by UniTo. On its face, in the publicly accessible biographical section, it states verbatim: the Chair Full Professorship at UniTo; the prior Full Professorship in Economic Statistics at the University of Padua (elected 2019); the prior Joint Chair at the University of Malta; the three Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (2011, 2013, 2015); the Max Weber Fellowship at the European University Institute; the four ASN-MIUR Habilitations at Prima Fascia (Full Professor) level; the Stanford / Elsevier World's Top 2% Scientists inclusion; the "TOP 5% All-time Authors h-index" ranking; the Editor-in-Chief positions; and the inaugural distinguished editorial seat at Stanford University Press's first newly-launched journal in approximately a century.

I will rebuild the citation apparatus to anchor on this UniTo institutional page for the institutional claims, supplemented by Google Scholar's own profile page for the citation indices (C1) and by each journal's own masthead page for the individual C8 editorships.

On the two Wikidata citations: agreed, I will remove them per WP:UGC. Wikidata can remain as an external link rather than as a citation source.

On the prose / "resume" concern, I will tighten the list-dense sections in the same pass.

On Sigma Xi specifically: I note that List of Sigma Xi members — a maintained Wikipedia list article — documents Sigma Xi membership for approximately eighty academics including multiple Nobel laureates in Economics (Daniel Kahneman, William Nordhaus, Kenneth Arrow, John Nash, Robert Merton, Myron Scholes) and across disciplines (Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Francis Crick, James Watson, Jennifer Doudna, John Goodenough, Frances Arnold, Andrea Ghez), and that the convention in those accepted articles is to cite the membership either uncited or to the Sigma Xi organisational page. The UniTo institutional page above also states the Sigma Xi Full Membership explicitly. I would therefore propose retaining the Sigma Xi sentence in the present draft cited to the UniTo page, which meets the independence standard. I would welcome guidance on which specific policy text would mandate a stricter sourcing standard for the same claim at AfC than the standard currently applied across those accepted biographies.

One clarifying question on C8, since @Avgeekamfot has identified it as "probably the strongest grounds": would the Inaugural Distinguished Editorial Member position at Reviews of Economic Literature — described as the first new journal launched by Stanford University Press in approximately a century — qualify as "major and well-established" for NPROF C8 purposes given Stanford University Press's standing as publisher, even though the journal itself is recent? Or would you recommend leading on one of the existing Editorships-in-Chief at the De Gruyter-published Economics — Innovative and Economic Research Journal instead?

I will return with the revised draft once the citation rebuild and prose tightening are complete. Thank you again for the careful review. Sbekiros-research (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, DoubleGrazing, for the substantive guidance.

I have now actioned the sourcing point in full. Every inline citation that previously resolved to my personal website (steliosbekiros.com) has been re-anchored to my institutional faculty profile at the University of Turin, Department of Management 'Valter Cantino': https://www.management.unito.it/do/docenti.pl/Alias?stelios.bekiros — a third-party academic source under the editorial control of the University. Concretely, the five named references |name=unito-bio, |name=steliosbekiros-bio, |name=ntua-equivalence, |name=auebphd and |name=sigma-xi-cert now point to the UniTo page; all reuses inherit this URL automatically. The Wikidata entries for the two patents (Q137054823, Q140096191) have been retained only where they corroborate externally-issued patent identifiers (IE PTIE20260000000318 and IE PTIE20260000000354), i.e. as authority-control pointers rather than as sources for biographical claims.

Prose, structure and section headings are unchanged; only the underlying URLs in the reference list differ. The draft has been resubmitted to AfC for review. I remain entirely available for any further question you may have, including on WP:NPROF C8 ordering between the editorships of Reviews of Economic Literature (Stanford University Press) and Economics — Innovative and Economic Research Journal (De Gruyter).

With gratitude for your time and care, Sbekiros-research (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

15:54, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Stillagorilla

• Stillagorilla (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lou Katz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created Draft:Lou Katz through AfC because I have a disclosed family relationship to the subject. The draft was declined for insufficient evidence of notability.

Before revising and resubmitting, I’m trying to understand whether the issue is source quality, source access, or how the draft is written. The sources I thought were the strongest independent secondary sources are:

• Peter H. Salus, “Just Folks,” Linux Journal, June 1, 2000, which identifies Katz as USENIX’s first president and says Katz and Reidar Bornholdt organized the first UNIX Users Group meeting in 1974.
• Edith Holmes, “Interactive Graphics Help Doctors to Correlate Data,” Computerworld, May 21, 1975, p. 10, a contemporary article substantially about Katz’s Columbia medical/scientific computer graphics work.
• Peter Sachs Collopy, “Video Synthesizers: From Analog Computing to Digital Art,” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 36(4), 2014, pp. 74–86, which discusses Katz’s collaboration with Bill and Louise Etra in early computer-video art.
• Valliere Richard Auzenne, The Visualization Quest: A History of Computer Animation, 1994, pp. 96–98, which places Katz in a chapter on video collaboration and discusses his work with Bill Etra and Ms. Muffett.

Some of these are book or newspaper sources, and I noted on Draft talk:Lou Katz that I can help identify relevant page scans/excerpts for verification if requested.

Could an experienced AfC editor clarify whether these sources are insufficient under WP:BASIC, or whether the draft should be revised to rely more explicitly on these sources and less on primary/archival material?

Stillagorilla (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. The people here at the helpdesk are volunteering their time to help drafts like yours get published here on Wikipedia, and we all greatly appreciate if you extend us the effort and courtesy of engaging with us personally rather than through a proxy. Not only that, but if you got here by asking that AI tool why your draft was rejected or to help you in formatting a question, I can assure you it does not know more about this process than you do. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.
4. If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

   Greetings. My mistake. The decline notice invites me to ask questions at the AfC Help Desk.

   I read the decline notice, beyond which I found no additional comments or clarification of the sort I've sought here. Some of the sources I cited are less accessible than URLs (old books and articles), and weren’t likely considered by the reviewer. Of the three requirements / basic criteria for secondary sources noted in the decline notice, I believe two were met (“reliable” and “independent”). I’m less certain about how to accommodate the requirement for “significant coverage”. Is "significance" measured by the subject's historical importance, or the abundance of sources supplied in support of the Draft? Stillagorilla (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

   I've checked The Visualization Quest, and there's absolutely nothing about Katz in that book that I can find. The only reference to Katz I see is on page 96 which only quotes Katz, using a quote of his from a 1988 interview. There's no discussion of Katz or his work otherwise.

   The Computer World article doesn't help either. It's basically a pseudo-interview with Katz; Computer World doesn't really say anything independent about Katz. Other than mentioning the terminals Katz used, every single reference to Katz is some version of "Katz stated" or "Katz indicated" or "Katz explained" or "Katz said" or "Katz commented." It's an interesting article on a new technology in 1975, but it's not really an article about Katz in any substantial fashion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

   I also don't find the Collopy source to be all that useful to build a biography on. It's independent unlike the other two sources I've looked at, but the mentions are so brief. Anyone can check for themself at to see if they disagree with my characterization. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

   Peter Salus' "Just Folks" is not very substantive coverage of Katz, either. .

   Katz appears to have done good work, but taken in sum, I don't see these four sources being enough to cobble together much of a biography. The total information about Katz presented, which is pretty much just from Salus and Collopy, is about a sentence's worth. I really don't think that notability is clear. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

16:39, 9 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34074-96

• ~2026-34074-96 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Greg Koons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just wanted to check: If I reformatted the wiki article per your guidelines, would your team approve the content and allow it to be published? ~2026-34074-96 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You essentially need to blank the draft and start fresh, doing the work yourself, summarizing the sources. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Writing a new article from scratch would take less time than trying to clean this up. To emphasise that point, I'll leave a BHFH assessment:

• https://magnetmagazine.com/2009/12/31/best-of-2009-americana/ is 404-compliant, possibly hallucinated (redirects to bespoke 404 page).
• https://www.popmatters.com/119334-the-10-best-americana-albums-of-2009-2496157414.html is 404-compliant, possibly hallucinated (redirects to bespoke 404 page).
• We can't use https://www.rootsy.nu/ (website homepage). That is the exact URL Reference 3 points to. This source is almost certainly hallucinated.
• We can't use https://www.rootshighway.it/ (website homepage). That is the exact URL Reference 4 points to. This source is almost certainly hallucinated.
• We can't use https://www.timesargus.com/ (website homepage). That is the exact URL Reference 5 points to. This source is almost certainly hallucinated.
• " " " https://www.connectsavannah.com/ (" "). " " " " " " 6 " ". " " " " " ".
• " " " https://www.inquirer.com/ (" "). " " " " " " 7 " ". " " " " " ".
• " " " https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes (" "). " " " " " " 8 " ". " " " " " ".
• " " " https://writteninmusic.com/ (" "). " " " " " " 9 " ". " " " " " ".
• " " " https://lancasteronline.com/ (" "). " " " " " " 11 " ". " " " " " ".
• " " " https://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/ (" "). " " " " " " 23 " ". " " " " " ".
• We can't use https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/greg-koons (too sparse). List of concerts.
• We can't use https://sowal.com/forum/threads/30a-songwriters-festival-january-14-16-2011.52257/ (no editorial oversight). BBS.
• https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1381&context= is 404-compliant, possibly hallucinated (redirects to website homepage).

Since literally every source here save for one is pretty clearly a hallucination, I will be tagging the draft for deletion due to inhuman authorship. Fire your LLM. Do the research yourself. Write the article yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 17:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

20:03, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Solangewashere

• Solangewashere (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Patric Tariq Mellet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I'm writing here to request your assistance on a draft I've been working on. Before I started on it, the page had been deleted, redrafted, and rejected multiple times for unreliable references. I took that feedback to heart, but the most recent draft for the same feedback. The review declined it for "unreliable sources" but does not identify the specific sources they find unreliable. I respectfully request that a reviewer please identify which specific citations are considered unreliable so they can be addressed . Sources currently include Tafelberg-published books (major South African publisher), the SA Heritage Resources Agency Annual Report, the University of the Western Cape website, and the African Activist Archive. General feedback without specifics makes it impossible to improve the draft. Solangewashere (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Solangewashere: Specifics I can do.

• References 1 thru 6, 8 do not help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Anything a subject writes does not help for that subject's eligibility.
• I can't assess Reference 7 (copy required).
• We can't use https://africanactivist.msu.edu/ (website homepage). That is the exact URL Reference 9 points to.
• I can't assess Reference 10 (copy required).
• We can't use https://www.inyathelo.org/ (website homepage). That is the exact URL Reference 11 points to. This source is possibly hallucinated.
• We can't use https://www.readtorise.co.za/book-festival (too sparse, connexion to subject). Programme for a festival Mellet is a part of.
• We can't use https://openbookfestival.co.za/ (website homepage). That is the exact URL Reference 13 points to.
• We can't use https://capeflatsartfestival.co.za/ (website homepage). That is the exact URL Reference 14 points to.
• https://www.uwc.ac.za/news-and-announcements/news/uwcs-jaap-durand-chair-think-tank-on-slave-emancipation-day-explores-contemporary-sa doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Direct quotes and attributed opinion, no discussion of Mellet.

Nothing you have that I can assess is any good as a source. Someone with access to copies of the books cited in Refs 7 and 10 needs to be the one to assess those. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 00:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Super helpful. I'll get back to work. Solangewashere (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I made lots of changes, swapping out some of his own authored titles with reviews. For the Jaap Durand lecture (the last reference you called out), I previously used this litnet reference (https://www.uwc.ac.za/news-and-announcements/news/uwcs-jaap-durand-chair-think-tank-on-slave-emancipation-day-explores-contemporary-sa) and it was rejected by another reviewer for being the copy of the subject's own. Now you're rejecting this article about the lecture (https://www.uwc.ac.za/news-and-announcements/news/uwcs-jaap-durand-chair-think-tank-on-slave-emancipation-day-explores-contemporary-sa)? How more third party than that can I get? Solangewashere (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue with the uwc.ac.za source is not that it isn't third party, but that it barely discusses Mellet beyond just quoting him and paraphrasing his speech. This isn't enough. On that note, have you looked at WP:Notability (academics)? This seems more like an NACADEMIC case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

21:32, 9 June 2026 review of submission by Clute027

• Clute027 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ivan Espinosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - can you please explain why the article continues to get declined? The piece was not assisted by AI/LLMs and I'm utilizing reputable, independent sources. I'm just confused as I'm getting met with the same reasons for being declined each time. Clute027 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You have not shown that Mr. Espinosa meets the definition of a notable person. You have just summarized routine information about him, much of which has little to do with him personally. You need to summarize critical analysis and commentary about him as to what is viewed by independent sources as important/significant/influential about him. Just the fact he is a CEO does not confer notability.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to Mr. Espinosa; you're very unlikely to succeed at this, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clute027: Four of your sources (2, 4, 5, 6) are incomplete, missing page numbers+editions or links. (LLMs are generally incapable of providing all the information necessary for a citation.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 00:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

June 10

06:00, 10 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34193-23

• ~2026-34193-23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bhai Tera Star Hai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft has been declined 3 times and I can't determine what the issue is. ~2026-34193-23 (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-34193-23: if you are DevTheSlayy1212, please log into your account when editing.

The issue is that there is no evidence this film is notable according to our notability guideline for films, WP:NFILM. This has been given as the decline reason consistently each time.

Unreleased films are very seldom notable, unless there is something genuinely extraordinary about their production. Most films need to wait until they have been released and reviewed by multiple critics. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

06:38, 10 June 2026 review of submission by Noconrad7

• Noconrad7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nicole Conrad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{db-author}}

I am the author of this draft and request its deletion so that I may prepare and submit a substantially revised draft.

Noconrad7 (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Noconrad7: please do not put a speedy deletion request here, deleting the entire help desk seems a tad excessive.

You don't need to have the current draft deleted, you can just develop it further or even completely rewrite it; just leave the decline template there as it forms part of the audit trail.

That said, please note our autobiography policy, per the message I've just posted on your talk page. TL;DNR = autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

(merged threads)

I am requesting assistance because I have substantially revised my draft and would like to resubmit it for review. The previous submission was declined due to concerns regarding notability and sourcing. I have added additional reliable sources, corrected references, and improved the draft based on the feedback received. I would appreciate guidance regarding resubmission and any further improvements that may be needed. Noconrad7 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Noconrad7: please do not start a new thread with each comment, just add to the existing thread.

You have not edited Draft:Nicole Conrad for over two weeks, and not since it was declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

09:37, 10 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34039-06

• ~2026-34039-06 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alpha (2026 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, teaser on Youtube please check and approve. ~2026-34039-06 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

A teaser contributes nothing towards notability. And on a wider point, Wikipedia will not be part of the pre-launch marketing of films. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/exclusives/exclusive-aditya-chopra-gets-shiv-rawail-on-board-to-direct-alia-bhatt-sharvaris-in-yrf-spy-universes-next-1275616 and https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/movies/news/alpha-shooting-in-kashmir-disrupted-by-rain/articleshow/109864211.cms are 404-compliant (both redirect to bespoke 404 pages) and we can't use Republic TV (no editorial oversight). Literally every source besides those three doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 16:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

13:43, 10 June 2026 review of submission by Aszielin

• Aszielin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ewa Chodakowska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! May you please submit my article :) Aszielin (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is submitted and awaiting review by a volunteer. This may not occur quickly. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Aszielin I'm not sure of an equivalent Polish idiom, but I really encourage you to consider whether what you're doing here is an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole.

Your draft clearly reads as the kind of thing that happens when somebody who is here with the specific purpose of publicising and promoting somebody has tried as hard as they can to make their draft "sound" like it isn't promotional. There's no way to make an article seem like it isn't promotional when it's literally designed to promote somebody.

Wikipedia isn't the place to do what Ms. Chodakowska would like you to do. There are a million platforms out there that are designed for people to show off their accomplishments. I don't understand why people like your boss insist on trying to force Wikipedia to do something it isn't designed to do instead of just going somewhere which actually welcomes that sort of thing (I do know, it's because they think "Wikipedia has an article about me" gives them some kind of official gravitas that "I have a LinkedIn profile" doesn't Athanelar (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

14:49, 10 June 2026 review of submission by Tshirt99

• Tshirt99 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Archibald Oakley-Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you be more specific about which citations are considered unreliable? I am unsure what other sources I could use in some instances. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Tshirt99 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Articles for creation: Archibald Oakley-Hill".

I don't think it's that the sources you have are bad, but large portions of the draft are unsourced. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Archibald Oakley-Hill

@Tshirt99: Familysearch is not considered a reliable source, and three of your five citations are to it. The other source looks to me user-generated, so I wouldn't consider that reliable, either. And much of the information is not supported by any sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

16:58, 10 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34406-02

• ~2026-34406-02 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rotating coherent scattering microscopy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Grapesurgeon, It is no clear to me which of my 10 sources let you reject my submission? All 10 are from reputable scientific journals. Can you tell me what I should change? Thanks for your help. ~2026-34406-02 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon  Courtesy link: Draft:Rotating coherent scattering microscopy. Athanelar (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I explained it already. You attached sources to only a small fraction of the article; most of the sources are just in that final section, while the preceding sections are almost entirely unsourced. grapesurgeon (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I see. I am a beginner with Wikipedia. But only to be sure: do you want me to add references to each of the 4 sub-sections of the Principles section of my article draft? Like e.g. ref [1] given in the History section? ~2026-34406-02 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting, if you are Cattenion. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Basically every non-obvious fact needs to be cited (except for if it's in the intro section of an article) grapesurgeon (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-34406-02

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.

First find your independent reliable sources, then set aside everything you know about the subject and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

17:04, 10 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34068-90

• ~2026-34068-90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • IOS 8.0.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:IOS 8.0.1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

because no request for redirect created ~2026-34068-90 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

What? GGOTCC 21:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

22:18, 10 June 2026 review of submission by Kamila Czudec

• Kamila Czudec (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Advertising Ethics Board (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Advertising Ethics Board (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone review my article please? Kamila Czudec (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted it and it is pending. Asking for a review will not speed this volunteer driven process. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kamila Czudec After you were given this advice, you instead proceeded to move the draft to mainspace yourself. That was not wise. Given that the draft was previously declined, you should submit it and wait for a re-review to ensure it's ready for mainspace.

I have moved it back to draftspace. Please resubmit it and wait for a review. There is no rush to get your article published; go edit something else while you wait. Athanelar (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

23:27, 10 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-30327-36

• ~2026-30327-36 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:St. Mary's Kerrisdale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get some help with this article? It was previously rejected for being promotional and not having enough sources. Any advice or edits would be greatly appreciated. ~2026-30327-36 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the deleted version of this article was created by now-blocked User:SMKA1911. If you are the same person who operated that account, you should not be editing at all except to appeal your block. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

June 11

01:57, 11 June 2026 review of submission by Black excellence23

• Black excellence23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ontario employment Equity Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I had a draft rejected on the Ontario Employment Equity Act, because it contained LLM written content. I understand Wikipedia does not permit LLM generated content in articles, and that this draft needs to be rewritten from its own independent published sources.

Would someone please point out a few specific instances of problematic wording/sourcing in the draft as it currently stands so I know what to fix? I intend to rewrite the draft by hand, make it shorter, cut unsupported synthesis, improve citations, and ensure each sentence has direct sourcing from reliable sources.

Thank you. I would like some feedback if the issue is tone, sourcing, potential close paraphrasing, or article structure. Black excellence23 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If your draft was declined for LLM usage, why on earth would you then come to the helpdesk and use an LLM to ask for advice? (which you certainly have - this has both WP:AIUNSURE and WP:AIREVIEW, it's a textbook AI generated AFCHD question) Athanelar (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I am going to stop working from the existing draft and rewrite it manually from published sources. I will make it shorter and ensure each claim is directly cited. Black excellence23 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The fixing would be all of it. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of burning a cake and then trying to get the eggs, flour, and sugar back. The only good way to fix a draft that's inundated with LLM use is to blow it up, and write it properly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I am going to stop working from the existing draft and rewrite it manually from published sources. I will make it shorter and ensure each claim is directly cited. Black excellence23 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I wish you good fortune then! That sounds precisely like a proper workflow for writing a wikipedia-compliant article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

07:54, 11 June 2026 review of submission by MichelleTarno

• MichelleTarno (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Flavia Arlotta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To understand which sources are considered unreliable. MichelleTarno (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Insillaciv better if you respond Athanelar (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

08:44, 11 June 2026 review of submission by Ivyleagueredneck

• Ivyleagueredneck (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Taylor Acorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Taylor Acorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An article on the same subject as my draft was created in mainspace by someone else. It has an AI maintenance tag. What is the process from here?

I'm still relatively new to this, so I don't know what the procedures are for a situation where someone didn't bother to search the drafts and contribute to the one in process before creating a new article in mainspace. Is the current mainspace article considered approved for me to start moving content there? Is that one likely to be deleted due to LLM use and I should keep working on my draft?

Selfishly, with the amount of time I have invested in the draft, I'd like credit for originating the article, rather than some fly-by-night account that seems to be already inactive. My plan with the draft was to strip it down to bare bones like the article currently in mainspace to make notability more readily apparent. Other information could then be reintroduced after approval. If the article in mainspace effectively establishes notability, I can strip the draft down to those details and pull in any additional sources they are using in order to facilitate legitimate AfC approval.

Please advise. Thanks! Ivyleagueredneck (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nature of Wikipedia is such that one person can write a draft while another can write a different draft or even directly create an article. It isn't required that one search draft space to see that a draft is in progress.

We don't assign credit to specific editors, this is a community project. We don't have the technical ability to rewrite or alter page edit histories. You are free to say on your user page or on the article talk page that you made certain contributions, but we won't say "XYZ editor gets the credit".

You are free to edit the existing article directly; unless you have a conflict of interest, you don't need anyone's approval to edit the existing article. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. My main question is procedural. Is the mainspace article going to stay as a fully approved article, or is it likely to be deleted because it did not go through AfC and it has an LLM tag?

I understand about this being a community project. My mention of credit was simply that I'd hoped the edit history of the draft would transfer into mainspace. I'm fine with shifting my contributions to the mainspace article, if it's going to stay. I don't want to start putting work in there only to have it removed. How is that vetted? Is this a question for NPP? Ivyleagueredneck (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not generally required to use AFC, though certain people must(temporary accounts, new permanent accounts, those with a conflict of interest). Not going through AFC is not a reason in and of itself to delete an article.

If the LLM issue is not fixed, it could lead to deletion, but you are welcome to edit the article to remove any suspected LLM content.

I'm sorry, but the draft edit history won't be merged into the article edit history. Again, you are welcome to edit the existing article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for taking the time to talk through it.

Some of the other comments on this help desk page have likened trying to overcome an LLM tag to spilling poison on your dinner and trying to scoop it back up. I don't need to get tangled up in trying to justify the fruit of someone else's poisoned tree. Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow. For now, I guess I'll wait to see what NPP decides and go from there. I left a comment on the talk page regarding the LLM tag, so we'll see. Ivyleagueredneck (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ivyleagueredneck - and that analysis would be spot on here, the LLM fingerprints are all over this. Unfortunately I can't see a route to have the mainspace version deleted since it is clearly checked. It seems a really good idea to think it through. I get where you are coming from in terms of the hijack process here (I would be furious!) but it is the nature of a collaborative project, even if there are robots around the table. In terms of the draft version, I would gently point out that Miss Piggy has been in showbiz for 52 years and she only has 38 references. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for peaking at the draft @ChrysGalley (and I appreciate you validating my feelings). What do you mean when you say that it being "checked" prevents it from being deleted? I'm just learning about NPP, but I gather their version of approved is "reviewed" which it doesn't seem like this has passed that bar yet. Hence, my reticence to go edit it. I gather that the LLM tag and the stub designation on the talk page put it in limbo. It's good enough to not get speedy deleted, but not yet "reviewed." Am I understanding that correctly?

In terms of the draft, I'm still figuring this out. In a fit of eager ignorance, I went down the path of "here, let me write you a research paper documenting EVERYTHING that might be of interest about this artist" before I figured out WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Now that I'm in this process, I have a better understanding of how I should have started.

Since you mention the references, maybe you can offer some advice? Probably 2/3 of the references are in the discography section. How does one substantiate the release of a music video without linking to the music video (or single, etc.)? When I look at other articles, that information seems largely unsubstantiated. I added the ref. column to those charts assuming I needed to prove it. The elegance of those charts was not a detail I was focused on. I intended to go back and see if there was a style guide for that... or better yet, hoped someone who new better might come along and improve it. That column and those references could easily be deleted. It would be more troublesome to discover that I needed them and not have a record of it.

That leaves the main body of the article with about 95 refs. Many of those are probably overlapping. In academic writing, having 5 sources backup your point is more credible than only one. On here, it seems like any corroboration beyond one credible source is considered unnecessary clutter. OK. Easier for me. I can clean that up. There is also a lot of detail here about specific albums and such that could move to their own article, but they aren't individually notable until the main artist is notable. It's a lot easier to have only 38 refs when the majority of your discography and filmography entries all wikilink to their own separate articles. ;-) Ivyleagueredneck (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ivyleagueredneck I'm not a music specialist, but as a general point you only need one good reference to prove a fact. Maybe two if it's controversial, three if you need to prove the earth is flat. 4 means you're trying too hard. So it's the inverse of 5=good, 1=bad. If something has entered the charts, well that needs to be sourced, but just with a book, once you have given the album's details some aspects are automatically sourced since they can be checked by looking at the cover. About the first point - yes you are correct, there is a speedy deletion option open to LLM articles, but it's for "unchecked LLM", so it wouldn't be valid, I can't find anything that shows the LLM garbage was unchecked. I think it would struggle at NPP, and end up as PROD or AfD, but I am not NPP myself so I may have that wrong. But you are absolutely at liberty to fully rewrite the main article if that represents an improvement, as it would surely would be, and you need not wait for NPP for that. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

09:21, 11 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34325-64

• ~2026-34325-64 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:RVactuators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, we improved the text for RVactuators. Is there anything we can improve more? ~2026-34325-64 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

For feedback, please resubmit the draft. We don't do pre-review reviews. Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

12:16, 11 June 2026 review of submission by Zenyake

• Zenyake (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Carl Henrik Knutsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! I am really struggling with the feedback I received from the reviewers. The main criticism is that the quality of the sources is not sufficient - which as an academic myself I really understand. However, I do not know what else I can do - I have referenced university webpages, webpages of other institutions where that person is active, cited publishers of books that person has written, in addition to some newspaper interviews and of course academic publications by that person. I checked the Wikipedia pages of many other academics, and their sources are usually very few and not good at all, if the links even still work. I am a bit at a loss why the standards are so high for this article all of the sudden. Any ideas for what else I can do? Zenyake (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists- we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet dealt with.

That said, the academics notability criteria is a little different from other people, because academics are not normally headline news. I'd suggest reviewing the notability criteria, which does have some advice in the sourcing area. Reviewers seem to think this person is notable, but most of the sources seem to not be independent of the person. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

14:24, 11 June 2026 review of submission by 167lamer

• 167lamer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:167lamer/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me why you rejected this subject? 167lamer (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It was rejected as contrary to Wikipedia's purpose, which among other things is to be a neutral summary of good quality (mainly) secondary sources for notable topics. Your submission was more of an opinion/forum piece which was not in line with this. We don't endeavour to cover every conceivable aspect of life. There are better places for it. If you want the full version of what Wikipedia is not, then see WP:NOT. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why you rejected my page because other people have done similar topic on God. 167lamer (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If you see other articles that consist of someone randomly writing their own observations about something, you should let us know so that those articles can be removed from the encyclopedia as well. This is an encyclopedia, not a social media site; we create articles about notable subjects that report on what independent, reliable sources have said about those subjects. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for letting me know! I will do better. 167lamer (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

How do I report other people's pages? 167lamer (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If they're wholly inappropriate, they may be candidates for WP:SPEEDY deletion. It really depends on the exact situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

OP has since been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 00:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

18:29, 11 June 2026 review of submission by Carmalarm

• Carmalarm (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Urban-X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the last feedback I got was this: >Virtually all of the "cohorts" are supported by press releases or puffery, not reliable, independent sources. Please read WP:RS, remove content with no independent sourcing, and resubmit.

The press releases have already been removed. The sources for the "cohorts" come from the following sites: - https://www.govtech.com/ - https://technical.ly/ - https://metropolismag.com/ - https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ - https://carbonherald.com/ - https://vcwire.tech/ - https://focuson.life/

If someone could help me identify which of these are considered "puffery" vs. news, it would help me as I look for new sources & know which ones I need to replace.

Thanks! Carmalarm (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Carmalarm.

That a cited source be regarded as a reliable source is important, but not the only condition on a source.

It also needs to be independent of the subject - which (in particular) CORPTRIV sources almost never are; and to contain significant coverage of the subject, not passing mentions.

I suggest reviewing each source against all the conditions in WP:42: unless it meets all of them, it will not contribute to establishing notability. (Some non-independent or passing-mention sources may be used for verifying specific facts, but only if there are enough sources which do meet all the criteria). ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

June 12

04:46, 12 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34516-86

• ~2026-34516-86 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:50,000 Chicken Nuggets On A Plane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

egg head give me my drawing i wan page plz tank you pretty please give me approv ~2026-34516-86 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This draft has been rejected as contrary to Wikipedia's purpose and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 04:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

06:04, 12 June 2026 review of submission by Ambuj.nandanwar

• Ambuj.nandanwar (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MosChip Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting that my draft be rejected repeatedly, and unable to rectify what to change now. Ambuj.nandanwar (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ambuj.nandanwarThe first point to make is that very few companies have the notability to get a standalone article. The same can be said of most humans, dogs, boats, race horses, we don't record every detail. My perception is that companies that get articles tend to be very old, very big, very much in the public eye or have such a niche product that the company attracts a lot of interest from journalists and academics. Small to medium sized companies struggle here. The main notability criteria is in WP:SIRS and corporate depth, given that in the corporate trivia section there is a long list of material which won't count for notability. How do you get corporate depth? Some examples: a respected Indian newspaper did a review of B2C delivery companies in a city, since they have a key role in keeping SME companies operating in that city. That article focused on the 3 or 4 of the main companies, all got several hundred words of coverage each, and since some of the content was negatively framed (challenging some of the strategic decisions these companies had made) it was clearly independent. One of those companies now has an article. Another company I accepted had adopted an unusual approach to Six Sigma and had therefore been investigated by both academics and a Japanese newspaper to see what they were up to. If you don't have that sort of truly independent coverage then you may well fall into the great majority of companies that are successful, but not (yet) notable. See also WP:BOSS. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

07:28, 12 June 2026 review of submission by Richienb

• Richienb (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Black Bag (1967 Oregon State University experiment) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would this be better as a small addition to the page on mere-exposure effect vs a seperate article? Richienb (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If you can't find enough material in the sources to justify a standalone article on the experiment, then yes it would make more sense to have it as a subsection of a larger article. Athanelar (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

13:27, 12 June 2026 review of submission by ~2026-34740-27

• ~2026-34740-27 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Diehl Metering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please confirm where I should add referenced and if they should only be English Thank you ~2026-34740-27 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are Naimeode, remember to log in when posting. You must disclose your relationship to this company, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

References do not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the references in there at the moment are OK in terms of layout/style, however if the title is in French/German it is sometimes a great help to use the "|trans-title=" parameter to add an English translation of the original version. Sometimes it's pretty obvious and won't benefit from translating. There's a compromise position where a source is significant and the translated title brings that out better. At the moment some citations are broken, some do not work, and there remains the core issue of demonstrating the notability of the German company via the requirements of WP:SIRS to show organisational depth. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

13:53, 12 June 2026 review of submission by IHG2025

• IHG2025 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thomas Schmelter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Our recent Wikipedia article submission was declined, and we would appreciate some guidance on the reasons behind the decision. We are keen to understand how we can improve the draft to better align with Wikipedia's policies and standards.

Could you please advise on any concerns relating to notability, sourcing, neutrality, or structure, and suggest how we might strengthen the article before resubmitting?

Thank you in advance for your time and support. IHG2025 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

IHG2025 The English Wikipedia has very different policies than the German Wikipedia, especially with usernames. We do not allow group or business accounts(unlike the German Wikipedia where they are encouraged). You (the person operating the account).will need to create an individual account for your exclusive use. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

15:30, 12 June 2026 review of submission by विवेक राजनारायण तिवारी

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

How to upload on Wikipedia? विवेक राजनारायण तिवारी (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@विवेक राजनारायण तिवारी: You cannot just slap all your references at the end of the article and call it good. The article is also somewhat promotional and all of its references point to website homepages, which suggests that the LLM you used to hastily translate this went far and beyond what you intended. I would suggest instead contributing to the Wikipedia for your native language.

@विवेक राजनारायण तिवारी: यह लेख एक बड़े भाषा मॉडल (LLM) द्वारा लिखा गया था और विकिपीडिया के लिए स्वीकार्य नहीं है। यदि आप अंग्रेज़ी अच्छी तरह पढ़ और लिख नहीं सकते हैं, तो आपको इसके बजाय हिंदी विकिपीडिया में योगदान करना चाहिए।^{[automated translation]} —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 19:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

19:31, 12 June 2026 review of submission by SS EXTINCTANIMALS

• SS EXTINCTANIMALS (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ginkgoidium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the 1st source, all you have to do is Search Ginkgoidum and then it pops up but for the 2nd one, idk how to make it lead to the Google Book SS EXTINCTANIMALS (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@SS EXTINCTANIMALS: With regards to your references:

1. Any reference that is, or otherwise relies on, search results is not an acceptable source (as the source has to directly corroborate any claim it's used for). Also, pointing to the homepage of a domain rather than the source itself is a tell as to whether or not an LLM was used.
2. Assuming you intend to cite the book, it's missing required information (ISBN/OCLC #). Links are unnecessary for book cites. Again, linking to Google's homepage is a tell for LLM use.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 19:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

A Google search finds no results for a journal article titled "A new species of Ginkgoidium from the Middle Jurassic Bakhar Formation of Mongolia". A search on the Springer link you used for "Ginkgoidium" finds nothing with a remotely similar article name. Please stop using LLM/AI to write your article. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

June 13

Request for review: Draft:Siju George (substantially revised)

Hello. I submitted Draft:Siju George, which was declined on 2 April 2026 by Wisenerd on grounds of insufficient independent sourcing and AI-generated content.

I have substantially revised the draft and resubmitted it on 12 April 2026. The revision:

• Replaced all weak and non-independent sources
• Now cites four independent national publications:

 Oman Observer (March 2024), Oman Observer 
 (September 2025), Times of Oman (March 2017), 
 and Muscat Daily (October 2025)

• Removed the infobox and all unsourced personal details
• Was rewritten by a human editor

I understand the queue currently has over 4,400 pending submissions. I am not requesting to jump the queue, but would appreciate if an experienced reviewer could take a look when possible.

Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Siju_George

Thank you. Oman1972 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You say Was rewritten by a human editor. Presumably you were the human editor, so why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Presumably because (also owing to other stylistic indicators) you used an AI to help you write this very comment; which is not exactly a strong indicator that you've removed the AI generated text from your draft. Athanelar (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)