Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • 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.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


Skip to top
Skip to bottom


January 28

[edit]

03:09, 28 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-57665-6

[edit]
☒N Deleted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the article is notible i have enough -proof ~2026-57665-6 (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These sources need to be reliable and independent. You have only a single source cited, and it doesn't establish WP:N 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 04:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

03:10, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Novitchka2000

[edit]

What is the protocol for including "notability" information on a journalist who publishes regularly in the public eye? A reviewer for the LATimes (say...Jonathan Gold as an example) might have a lot of information that is useful in aggregate, someone who is familiar and noteable to the public with a long career of sharing their thoughts publicly, but few "citations" of things are able to "prove" this because most of their work for the public is done in their own name. It is hard for me to see why this person cannot be considered "notable" and keep a minimal entry for public reference when there are also singluar episodes of a tv show which are claiming "notability" (see: The Simpsons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dad-Feelings_Limited) Novitchka2000 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Novitchka2000: the notability guideline for journalists is given at WP:NJOURNALIST.
Being "in the public eye" does not, in and of itself, establish notability.
And as for article stubs (which is what I assume you mean by "a minimal entry"), they still have to establish notability, just the same as a longer article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Jahidul88bd

[edit]
☒N Deleted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can I publish this article? Could you help me to publish this? Jahidul88bd (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These sources need to be reliable and independent. You don't have a single source cited, so your article doesn't establish WP:N 𝟏𝟎𝐚𝐫𝐭𝟏 talk 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahidul88bd Based on your username, are you the subject of the draft? David10244 (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this blatant self-promo piece. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

06:47, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Arunvaloockaran

[edit]
resubmitted for review 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to know why was this rejected and what should i do to get this to publishing. Arunvaloockaran (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Vijay Neelakandan
@Arunvaloockaran: this draft was not rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only declined. The decline was for the reason stated in the decline notice, namely insufficient citations. In any case, you have resubmitted the draft, and will receive further feedback in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

08:38, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Redv6s

[edit]

Hi My article was decline because of "not adequately supported by reliable sources" however most of my sources are the governing bodies of the sport. I don't understand what I am doing wrong and every fact is supported by the source of the fact being the international governing body national body etc. The governing bodies are internationally recognise particularly the FIH - the international hockey federation Redv6s (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redv6s You disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft(you should do this on your user page User:Redv6s as well, for better visibility); what is the general nature of the conflict?
Please see the reviewer's comments(below the decline message at the top of the draft). The governing bodies of the sport are not independent sources and offer just routine coverage. See United States men's national ice hockey team; you need sources like news coverage that offer something beyond the activities of the team. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why I say there is a conflict of interest. I know people who play as its a small community - ill review that . But on the sources for indoor Hockey in Australia is not like Ice Hockey it is amateur with no news coverage. We just had national championships and it was not recorded in main stream media. Field Hockey has some coverage but indoor hockey much less. The national team pay to compete there is not funding from tv or any other source, The governing bodies control the score boards and where all news on the sport comes from. It is rare for indoor hockey to have a story published in any news publication or other publication than FIH, hockey Australia etc. These are the source of truth for teams and results and news. For the international world cups and Olympics scores are recorded and stored by FIH there is no second source in most instances. They use https://fih.altiusrt.com/ to record all official national games. All field and indoor hockey use FIH, and Countries like Australia, NZ, South Africa, Namibia etc do not capture an independent scoreboards they use the FIH official one. When I look at this page ie 2016 Women's Hockey Champions Trophy they use the governing body FIH as the sources, similar here Men's FIH Hockey World Cup. For amateur sports like this played on the world stage there is very little main stream media that can support it. So what is my option. The sport exists just not like American sports Redv6s (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there are not a lot of secondary sources reporting on this subject, it simply may not be notable enough to meet Wikipedia's standards.
The examples you listed also fail this notability threshold, in my opinion, and I've added tags to indicate that. Both of those pages were created outside the AfC process, and likely would've been rejected had they been submitted for review. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:42, 28 January 2026 review of submission by LiberumVerba

[edit]

Hi, the page has been rejected three times and I cannot understand what I need to change in order for it to be deemed worthy of publication. I believe I have only reported facts concerning the launch of services with which the company has contributed to the development of the digital services market in Europe and Latin America, and which have almost always led to the company being listed in public registers of authorised operators. I then reported on the various acquisitions of other companies and news items that outline the corporate structure. In doing so, I believe I avoided the use of emphatic or promotional expressions or tones. I have cited references from third-party sources that are in no way connected to the company. I deeply respect the community's opinion, but I would just like to understand what I am doing wrong and what needs to be done to make the page publishable. Many thanks to anyone who can help me. LiberumVerba (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LiberumVerba The draft has been 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.
The problem that you are having is that, like most company representatives, you are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You need to forget everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out(like interviews, press releases, and the reporting of its routine business activities). A Wikipedia article about a company needs to summarize significant coverage- coverage going beyond the mere reporting of the company's activities and goes into detail about what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the company- how it is a notable company as Wikipedia uses the word.
The vast majority of companies on Earth do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:YESPROMO and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. Most company representatives fail in their efforts to force an article to be created about their company instead of allowing one to organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor takes note of coverage of the company and chooses on their own to write about it. They are usually too close to their company to be able to do as Wikipedia requires. Are you one of the rare people who can? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it.
Everything I have said here is with regards to the English Wikipedia, which tends to be stricter than others. It is possible that this content(translated) would be acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia; most other Wikipedias are not as strict as we are when it comes to businesses editing about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 28 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-60377-4

[edit]
Discussion has reached a natural end 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An article for creation for the music band Jack O' the Clock keeps getting rejected because of not reliable sources. I have cited major print magazine publications and blogs, so I am at a loss of how to proceed. Is the solution to decrease the amount of information and refine it to the most reliable sources only? Or do I have to wait until more publications come out and then keep trying? Or is there something I am missing here? Any advise would be greatly appreciated. ~2026-60377-4 (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator, remember to log in when posting.
The draft has been 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.
Summarizing only your best sources would probably help, because it is not clear how the band meets either the specific definition of a notable band or more broadly general notability. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification about "rejected" vs. "declined" and for the reminder to login.
The page for notable band helps a lot. Will give it another go. Solveig1432 (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11:21, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Bisht92

[edit]

Hi. There was no usage of LLM for the draft. Also, I'd request you to please revisit articles about NewsDrum Informals published by Bhaskar.com, afaqs, storyboard18 and ABP News. Bisht92 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bisht92: well it sure looks like it was created with AI. But be that as it may, the more substantive decline reason is the notability one, since notability is a hard requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, and this draft provides no evidence of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon my little understanding but I stopped using LLM ever since one of the drafts was rejected for this reason. As an avid follower of the platform, I update this draft whenever I find any new coverage. There could be different ways of assessing the coverages and I might be viewing the articles about NewsDrum Informals published by Bhaskar, afaqs, Storyboard18 and ABP News differently. Among all these notable platforms, Storyboard18 articles appears in-depth, whereas articles published by Bhaskar, ABP News and afaqs! are informative (referring each sentence to the spokesperson is their editorial standard). Afterall, how much in-depth a news platform can write about another, possibly competing, news platform. Bisht92 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bisht92 Please disclose your connection to this outlet, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out a silly yet grave mistake. I selected "own work" for the logo by mistake thinking about copyright issues. However, I have just changed it.
I understand this gave the impression that I was associated with this platform in some capacity. Whereas, I'm only impressed by the nature of the platform, as a reader. Bisht92 (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bisht92 It is nominated on Wikimedia Commons as having no soource, as it has no source.
"Thinking about copyright" means that you needed to realise that you are not, as currently stated, the author.
These matters are handled on Wikimedia Commons, where you should both correct everything and then "Challenge speedy deletion" by clicking the big grey button and stating why it should not be deleted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bisht92 This needs a substantial rewrite. I have commented on the draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:52, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Nagpurjournalism

[edit]
 Rejected draft, prior AfD 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devendra Darda is Managing Director of Maharashtra Number one Marathi daily Newspaper Nagpurjournalism (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He does not meet our criteria for inclusion, so the draft was rejected and will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the comments on the draft I've tagged the draft for speedy deletion as an unimproved re-creation of a page deleted at XfD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:46, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Vanessasmithdowns

[edit]

I need help creating an article about this person. I want this to be my first article as I have been following it closely. It is already on grokapedia 

Vanessasmithdowns (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanessasmithdowns We do not offer co-creation nor co-editing. Please read this essay, which has a process outlined within that will almost guarantee success assumihg the topic is notable. The route map is research first draft second. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is on Grokipedia has zero relevance to Wikipedia. We don't accept AI-written submissions, which this is, and furthermore it's improperly sourced. Grokipedia in particular is not a reliable source and must not be cited. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Asceno

[edit]

Hi. I would like an assistance for this article, due to this is my first draft reposted. Also, I would like to ask if the wikipedia projects for this draft are ok. Asceno (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Asceno You have submitted it for review, which will give you the best guidance. While awaiting review there is every reason to continue to enhance it if you feel the need.
Wikiprojects I view as nice to have, but they do not influence a review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one redundant section, but haven't closely checked the sources except for 4 and 5 (interviews) for which the machine translation didn't seem to verify that the two interviewees are actually the founders. It is implied but not stated. I do think the company is likely notable, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews were in Slovak language, and there is noted, that he is a founder. Despite I understand that machine translation to English may change the meaning. I know it because I am Slovak native speaker. The reason why I added there Slovak interviews was due to their creation in 2006 and 2007.
Thank you for that update. Your advise was to delete Notable Games section as redundant. Just table with all games remained. Asceno (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Meta34552

[edit]

why its is rejected any solution other you do refine article Meta34552 (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? You should also disclose your COI on your user page as well, for better visibility(User:Meta34552).
The draft was rejected as LLM output. The only way to remedy this is to rewrite it in your own words without the aid of a LLM. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And, further, to write a summary of what indepedent sources say about him. Wikipedia is not interested in what Lokapure says or wants to say, or what his associates or organisations say about him. ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sachin_Lokapure i done plz suggest any changes Meta34552 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find several sources that are wholly independent of Lokapure, reliably published, and contain significant coverage about him, (see WP:42) you are wasting your time as well as ours. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
look article its just discorage to me by rejecting Meta34552 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
100 time edited stil ego of some editor or reviwer they rejected Meta34552 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the general nature of your conflict of interest? Is this man a relative, friend, your boss?
Attacking the reviewer because they did not tell you what you want to hear will not help you. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
not only tell showing ego and nepotism Meta34552 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 28 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-61955-5

[edit]

Ciao Fellow Wikipedia editors --I have attempted to improve this draft page by including additional reference citations, along with reviews from established critics in The Billboard, High Fidelity and the Catholic Digest magazines. Also included are links to notable performers who are featured on the album. If you have any additional suggestions regarding how the draft might be improved further, feel free to contribute your suggests on the draft's talk page. Thanks in advance for your helps and Happpy Editing! With best regards ~2026-61955-5 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)NHPL[reply]

You've resubmitted it for a review; the reviewer will leave you any suggestions if the draft is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao 331dot - many thanks for the guidance. If you have some free time, could you take a glance at the draft to identify any obvious errors which require immediate correction? Thanks again! ~2026-61955-5 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
You are asking for a review before the review- we don't do pre-review reviews here. If I were to review drafts outside the process, I would be inundated with requests, more than I could possibly fill. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao: Sorry for the confusion --No problem --whenever anyone has time to help is fine. I've completed any potential changes which I can envision so I'll leave the rest of the review to more experienced editors such as yourself. I think that the additional reference citations should be suitable to establish notability according to Wiki standards. Thanks again! Cia ~2026-61955-5 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
@~2026-61955-5, I glanced over the draft and one thing you could quickly and easily improve is the number of references. You really only need one reference for each statement, two if it's a really extraordinary claim. So for example one source would be all you need to prove that Pietro Deiro Jr. is the son of Pietro Deiro.
Every time you have more than one reference for a statement, choose the best one and remove the rest. You will know which is best by assessing them against WP:42 - you need at least three sources (for the draft overall) which meet all three criteria here, but if you have more then that's fine. Cutting down your sources to the best ones will increase your chances of a quick review and acceptance; reviewers don't really want to read through 46 sources that might not be very good if they could instead have 5 which are great. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Meadowlark: Terrific! Good points! I guess many references help to document broad public interest in the musicians playing on the album. In the USA, the album's release happens in 1960 at the "dawn" of the "Rock & Roll" era as public tastes shift from "traditional" classical music. It seems that a few scholars have published research which describes the work of musicians who performed on this album during this transition period in the USA. If i find time, I'll try to help by including such higher quality references to help the reviewers. See [1] I hope this is Ok. Thanks again for the tips! ~2026-64539-2 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)GNL[reply]
  1. ^ American Music - "Searching for the Rockordion: The Changing Image of the Accordion in America". Jacobson, Marion S. University of Illinois Press Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer 2007) pp.221-229 "Discourses on Legitimacy" on https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071656

~2026-64539-2 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I understand the desire to document broad interest in the musicians, but right now you really want to focus on sources specifically about the album. If the musicians don't qualify for a Wikipedia article then it would be reasonable to mention them in the article, but that can be done once it's in mainspace. No matter how much people like the musicians, or the type of music, or anything else, the reviewers will be looking for sources that show the album is notable and probably getting a bit frustrated if most of the sources are about things that are not the album. Reviews are going to be your best friends here. Right now you have some problems with those: the Billboard review is extremely short, probably too short to be helpful to you in terms of notability; the High Fidelity review needs to link directly to the pdf you cite, not the index page; and the Google Books one only takes me to a Google search. It might be a good idea to click all the links you've provided to verify that the reviewer (and later reader) is taken directly to the review - or as close as you can possibly get! Meadowlark (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao- No problem --Done!~2026-72243-4 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)GCL[reply]

Request for review: Draft:Tiller Money tagged with G11

[edit]

Hello, I created a draft article about a personal finance software company that has been tagged with {{db-g11}} for promotional content. I have a disclosed conflict of interest (I work in marketing for the company) but attempted to write in encyclopedic style with extensive third-party sourcing and a balanced criticism section. This format, language, and style was based on the Wikipedia page of a direct competitor: YNAB

Draft: Draft:Tiller

The situation:

  • The article has 17 citations, primarily from independent reliable sources (Fortune, The New York Times, PYMNTS, Tearsheet, independent personal finance reviewers)
  • I've disclosed my COI and attempted to follow WP:NPOV guidelines

My request: I recognize my COI may blind me to promotional language. Could an experienced editor:

  1. Review the draft and identify specifically promotional sections, or
  2. Confirm whether the G11 tag is appropriate, or
  3. Help me rewrite problematic sections to meet Wikipedia standards?

I've also created a more conservative version with reduced feature descriptions if that would be more appropriate. I'm willing to accept any necessary revisions and understand this may not be suitable for Wikipedia despite the sourcing.

Thank you for your time. ~~~~ Flcrowe (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't permitted to use an AI to write articles for you; see WP:NEWLLM.
Also, you used AI to write your comment above. We want to communicate with a person, not an AI.
Even after you removed promotional fluff, the draft clearly exists for no other purpose than publicity. Most of the sources you cite are from Tiller itself, or are press releases. That is why it has been deleted.
Wikipedia has zero interest in what a company wants the world to know, only what reliable sources unrelated to the company have published about it.
You are welcome to try again, this time without the help of a LLM and with sources strictly adhering to WP:Golden Rule. You may use the AI to help you find acceptable sources, but write the draft yourself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And remember, @Flcrowe, that having found the sources that meet the golden rule, you will then need to effectively forget absolutely everything that you know about the company, and write a summary of only what those sources say. Even if those sources miss out things you think are important, even if they are sharply critical of the company, even if you think they are wrong (Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth). If you find yourself writing anything at all that is, or sounds as if it might be, what the company would like people to know, think very hard about whether it accurately summarises what the sources say, or is something you have introduced. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 28 January 2026 review of submission by ClearGear30

[edit]

Article draft was declined for sounding more like an advertisement than an article. I do not understand why. Please let me know how I can improve the draft. This article talks about a major news publication that is currently missing from Wikipedia's library. ClearGear30 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does little more than say the outlet exists. It needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Most companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles, just as most people do not. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 28 January 2026 review of submission by Chrisumies

[edit]

Hello, I'm here to ask more specific explanations to why my draft submission was declined. Not in an angry way, but more interested in what I'll have to add for the draft to be considered as an article. I think the article is about a pretty important subject. Confederate Speedway was a dirt oval track used for stock car racing first in the 50's, but after it's abandonement, it was revived in 1970. It was widely known across the US and I consider it being more important than many other Speedways. I'm technically asking for help. Whoever reads this, please tell me what I need to improve or add to get the draft submitted. I don't understand why it was declined, even though looking at for example "Air Base Speedway" edit history, the original article was just one line of text "A former racing track", but mine with actual history and citations was not enough?

Best regards, Chrisumies Chrisumies (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the full title, including the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Chrisumies:, this can certainly be a good topic for an article, but the issue is that most claims in the draft is uncited. Each source should also meet WP:42 as an article should be a summary of published, reliable, information. All of the information under "History" and "Today" is uncited. Also, self-published sources such as YouTube are not considered reliable. GGOTCC 20:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your fast reply. I will look into this tomorrow. Quick question, I'm still confused, how another article passed with just one line stating "A former racing track"? I'm talking about the creation of Air Base Speedway -article.
Best regards,
Chrisumies Chrisumies (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Each article is judged on its own merits independent of others. What other stuff may be on Wikipedia is irrelevant, and if that other stuff is crap, that isn't a reason to compound the problem by adding more.
In this case, however, Air Base Speedway has multiple sources that meet WP:42 requirements. Your draft has just one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of your citations is any good in that it's a somewhat reputable publisher giving independent coverage of the topic. Your other two citations are a YouTube video by some random hobbyist/enthusiast as far as I can tell, and a fan-published page full of pictures. So you basically have one good source, and you need multiple good sources meeting WP:42 requirements (read WP:42, it's a short and informative essay). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've added more information and many supporting citations that are reliable and independent. Can you check if it could pass submitting now? Chrisumies (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read WP:42? Reliable and independent are only two of the criteria. A source must meet all three, including significant coverage.
Of those sources you added, only SupercarBlondie and TheDrive qualify. Speedwayandroadracehistory and Go Upstate don't provide significant coverage (the latter is more about a couple's efforts in relation to the track and not about the track itself. We don't cite youtube videos or fansites; those should be moved to the "external links" section.
Quality sources enable a draft to pass a review, not a large quantity of poor sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

[edit]

04:02, 29 January 2026 review of submission by MTAnggoro

[edit]

I thought the one that I have already submitted reflection the real situation because I am inside the organization that assigned to do this. It is true I asked for help from Ai tools out there but I have read ("validating") the content and I felt Ai is very helpful for my English. Anyway, I have read the reasons/issues why it is declined and I will follow the guidelines. Nevertheless, I would be thankful if you could give me specific 'technical' advice or specific suggestions to edit this draft. Best Regards. Thank you. MTAnggoro (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MTAnggoro.
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.
If you find yourself writing anything that is or sounds like what the Institute wants people to know, then that is probably promotion, and should be removed.
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. And this is even more so when you have a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

05:24, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Afarasoo

[edit]

Hi Dear, I have edited my draft several times and made it highly accurate, but I haven't heard anything. It would be great if you could consider it for publication. If there is any question, please let me know. Regards, Abbas 

Afarasoo (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Afarasoo, the reason you haven't heard anything is because you removed the AFC template in this edit without resubmitting it for review. I've re-added the template now (please don't remove it); once you've clicked the blue "Resubmit" button, it will be added to the queue for an experienced editor to review. Nil🥝 05:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Jamescopperfieldd

[edit]

Hello! I apologize for bothering you, but I see a serious injustice regarding the release of the article about Georgy Chervinski. Georgy Chervinsky is mentioned in all the top media outlets in Russia.He worked at the Greek Cultural Center, which speaks to his internationality.He went on tour to Europe and England. Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jamescopperfieldd State-controlled Russian media isn't worth too much right now(see Mass media in Russia)- but it's not clear how this man is a notable actor, notable director, or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, on the contrary, it's harder to get into the news in Russia, especially since the person died. I don't know what country you're from, but it seems to me that news is controlled by the state all over the world.This is not a reason for refusal, it is based on personal grudges, as I see it. I am waiting for your response.This man grew up in an orphanage.It's comparable to an ant flying into space.What he achieved.This article will definitely be a good motivation for people. Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are proper places to tell motivational stories, that's not necessarily Wikipedia, which has a broader purpose. I and the reviewer have no personal grudge against this deceased man or you. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. Sorry, but I disagree with you. You reject the article about the Man, but you write articles about laws. Can I find a source about this man's tour of England,Scotland, Norway, Germany?Yes, he was even in the USA with his work, but it was the nineties, and the Internet didn’t exist in that format back then. Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to be online, you're welcome to cite offline sources, as long as you provide sufficient bibliographic detail to enable them to be reliably identified for verification (see WP:OFFLINE).
And to pick up on your earlier point, no, news is not controlled by the state everywhere. And if in a given country media are just loudhailers for the current regime, such as is the case with eg. the WP:RUSSIATODAY group, then that is indeed a valid reason to disregard such outlets.
The issue at hand is, can you show that this person is notable, either per WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER? Because things like "[growing] up in an orphanage" etc. are not recognised notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. Yes, of course, he studied directing under a famous professor in the USSR, and not only him. He founded his own theater "studio-69" in 1987,which existed until his death and took part in international theatre festivals, there were even prizes (certificates) I can look for.He worked as a director from 2015 until his death at the Greek Cultural Center in Moscow. All of this is online. The Greek culture center website is not Russian Media. Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Gokonski

[edit]
 Rejected draft and probable UPE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have updated the text and added 3 external good reference links, its just about the EcoOnline brand, small post that client wants to have in case other are googling it. Gokonski (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gokonski You must disclose your paid status on your user page, see WP:PAID for instructions(you refer to "the client"). This is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory.
Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results; our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources state about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion, such as a notable company. Your draft does little more than tell of the existence of the company; it should summarize critical analysis and commentary as to what makes the company important as viewed by others.
Most companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gokonski  Rejected draft. Rejection means that it wil not proceed further
Generally, when one writes for clients, one is a WP:PAID paid editor. I have asked tou formally on your user talk page about your status.
"In case others are googling is" says that it is here for promotional purposes 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post closure the OP moved the draft unilaterally to mainspace. Interested parties may participate in the deletion discussion choosing in any other manner they see fit. Enhancng the article per WP:HEY is thoroughy acceptabe. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoOnline 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 29 January 2026 review of submission by AnbarasuBehindwoods

[edit]

Subject: Assistance with Draft:Moon Walk (2026 film)

I am requesting help to understand how to better demonstrate the notability of this upcoming film. The draft was declined as 'routine coverage' (WP:NFF), but the film features the first acting debut of A. R. Rahman and a reunion with Prabhu Deva after 25 years, which has received significant coverage in major independent publications like The Hindu, Times of India, and The Indian Express.

I have officially disclosed my paid editing status on my user page. I would appreciate guidance on which specific sources or types of content are needed to move this beyond 'routine' reporting to meet Wikipedia's film notability standards. AnbarasuBehindwoods (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rahman is not notable as an actor yet, so I don't think that conveys any notability on the film before its release. One actor working with another doesn't carry any notability as notability is not inherited by association.
Keep in mind that we have no interest in helping you promote your company's film. Maybe closer to the release in May this would be fine but not yet, I think. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AnbarasuBehindwoods Thank you for declaring your status under WP:PAID. Your pay includes remuneration for the time you need total to perform all the research you need, including what makes the topics you write about pass our acceptance criteria. As a volunteer I help amateur editors. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Saffronesther

[edit]

I need help getting this page approved, I am unsure if my references/formatting are sufficient. I have ensured that the tone of writing is not more promotional than existing pages (as per the request of previous declines), and that credible external sources have been referenced. Not sure what else I can do and need assistance! Saffronesther (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saffronesther If you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You have juat described the existence and activities of the organization, instead, you should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You've written that they submit reports to the UN, but not said what others view asthe significance of them doing so. Do they have a particular influence on UN officials, policies, or Security Council resolutions? Something like that. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:03, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Anouk2075

[edit]

I have asked my students (in Poland) to locate reliable historical accounts of Polish Americans and prepare biographic entries. As the past President of the Polish American Historical Association I am asking your help in making Wikipedia more open for reserach purposes. Wiki is super important in information exchange and often the first starting point for new projects. How can one find information for their research project on American ballet if there is no information available anywhere? Not everyone was Marta Graham. In my opinion Sandra Severo deserves an entry. I am sure that with the help of American colleagues this entry will grow and expand, soo. Please reconsider removing her from Wiki. We will work on improvements in the draft folder. Anouk2075 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anouk2075 Have you tried mining [1]? For example, [2] looks interesting. You need to register, but it's free. WP:GNG-sources is what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Anouk2075 - to help you a little, there were 2 offline references in the Detroit Free Press, which I have now amended in the draft to provide an online copy of the articles. In addition in 1967 there was a long article on her over 2 pages.
https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-sandra-severo-in-the/190134725/
then
https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-dfp-page-2/190134869/
(5 free views on Newspapers.com then you need another browser). ChrysGalley (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Anouk2075, the difficulty is that if there is "no information available anywhere" then Wikipedia cannot have an article on her - Wikipedia articles are a summary of what has already been written elsewhere. If you can't find sources that meet WP:42 (usually a minimum of three is required), then unfortunately she will not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to be accessible to readers who want to verify the information in an article. Historical figures usually have books or newspaper/magazine articles written about them, and these can be cited if they meet WP:42. Meadowlark (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:52, 29 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-63049-5

[edit]

Hello the article is now Not enough independent and reliable Soruces for YouTuber Sambucha and anyone help me? ~2026-63049-5 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @~2026-63049-5, I'll help you by explaining that 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.
This means that unless you can find several sources that are reliably published, and wholly independent of Sambucha, and contain significant coverage of Sambucha (see WP:42), then you are wasting your time trying to write about him on Wikipedia.
Most YouTubers, like most people, do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info ~2026-63049-5 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ty Morse – AfC review request

[edit]

Hello — I have prepared a biography draft at Draft:Ty Morse with multiple independent reliable sources. Could an uninvolved editor please review and submit this through Articles for Creation? Thank you. CarmodyOverlark (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to click the "Submit for review" button on the draft to submit it for review. You don't need someone else to do that. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Tejas101099993

[edit]

Supaul - Triveniganj railway line map route Please assist me how to make route map for my railway line and I am making artical by My own but they are saying that i generated it by AI ChatGPT Tejas101099993 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended. It may be coming up as AI generated because you do little more than tell of the existence of the line. If you had more sources that discussed the construction of the line, that might help.
Route maps are not vital in terms of the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You may ask about that at the general help desk if and when your draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Kwrusch

[edit]

This article was rejected with the following reason: 

  This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The reason I'm requesting assistance is that I'm not sure what part of the article that description is referring to -- as far as I can tell from the linked styling article, the draft I wrote should be fine. I'm happy to revise the draft, but need clarification on that front before I can do so.

I also thought that the sources I cited fit the specifications listed: I made it a point to avoid Enjoy Basketball's and NBC's own descriptions of Beecham, and instead cited the Chicago Tribune, Business Insider, Forbes, MIT Sloan, and Boardroom.

On a lesser note, the version that was reviewed is actually not the latest version. I edited the draft after submitting it (e.g. rewriting the YouTube Career section to avoid the awkward double usage of "across"), but no longer see those changes reflected in the draft. I also can't find them on my contribs page, so I might've messed up somehow.

(Resubmitted this topic because it was removed without an answer.) Kwrusch (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kwrusch The current version of the draft is what is visible. If you thought you added information that is not currently there, it didn't get added for some reason. Pinging TheObsidianGriffon because I'm not sure what the concern is. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like the changes didn't go through for some reason, so I just went ahead and made them anew. Not a substantive change though, and I'm still not sure how to address @TheObsidianGriffon's feedback. Kwrusch (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Jammer0n

[edit]

I'm trying to link to a section within this article. Do I need the article to be officially published for this to work? Within first paragraph, I'd like to link PYFA Conference to the section in the article. How do I do this? Jammer0n (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be linking to a draft from other articles, the draft needs to be accepted first.
The only source you have provided is the organization itself. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article about an organization is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 29 January 2026 review of submission by Laure Hastings

[edit]

I have some problems with the editing of this article.

(1) The editor claims I have cut and pasted from https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/persons/martin-thomas/. This is completely incorrect. I cited it selectively, footnoting it when I did so. I mixed data from this source with data from a large number of other sources. I'm a PhD in history and I know how to use sources.

(2) The editor has made edits that turn faultless prose into nonsense. eg 1. "Thomas has published on worked (2014) he has become formation. long-term, northern Australia where he studied the impact" eg 2. "Thomas is an[8] "

(3) Quite a bit of material has been carelessly cut.

I'm not used to your system, but I can't find any way of getting back to my original draft. Can you help me with this so that I can clean up the text and resubmit it as requested.

Many thanks, Laure 

Laure Hastings (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Wikipedia, inherently, can not freely copyrighted material. The standard response is to remove the offending text, which is why the prose no longer makes sense. While each revision is logged in the edit history, revisions with copyrighted material is deleted by an administrator, hence why most of the edits have a line through them on the edit history page. In this rare case, the original text can not be restored.
Since the copyrighted material was removed two months ago, the only person who would know more about this case would be the user that removed the text.
Since only one thousand bits of text were removed, it is certainly possible to re-add the text by summarizing information from the source, not copying over material. GGOTCC 23:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Laure Hastings: To explain a bit more what GGOTCC means, Wikipedia's content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 and the GNU Free Document Licence. By their very nature, both of these licences are mutually-exclusive with standard all-rights-reserved copyright, which almost everything that has formally been published falls into, including Researchportalplus.anu.edu.au. As such, we cannot accept text that has been lifted from that website directly or with cosmetic modifications; you would instead footnote the source and then paraphrase it in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 29 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-64914-1

[edit]
Deleted draft 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am submitting this draft through Articles for Creation with a conflict of interest disclosure, as the subject of the article. The draft is written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and relies on multiple independent, third-party sources, including interviews, editorial coverage, chart performance reported by independent media, and festival lineup listings. I welcome any feedback or required changes to improve compliance with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. ~2026-64914-1 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, but you already declined your own submission in this edit. Did you use an LLM to create the draft? This is a common trend in bot-created drafts. GGOTCC 23:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no human reviewed your draft, the LLM you used to generate it put a decline message. 331dot (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 30

[edit]

06:23, 30 January 2026 review of submission by Parasbm

[edit]

I have been asked that the sources should be in depth, reliable, independent etc and I have tried my best to incorporate that in the article. The company has been in existence since 13 years, has been referred in microsoft clarity, Google, semrush, ahref, etc. Have worked with many reknowned artists which themsleves are present on Wikipedia and have been using services of this company. Can we get a better reason in detail about what things are particularly missing? Parasbm (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Far too many self-sourced cites, database references, passing mentions, or press releases. That a press release is the first source you mention and an app store listing is the second one is a pretty good illustration of the fundamental problem. Simply working with renowned artists doesn't make one notable; notability is not inherited or transmitted by osmosis. The article largely appears to be what AllEvents wishes to say about themselves and very little about reliable independent sources are saying in significant coverage of the company. The whole thing has a very advertisement-like feel to it and the reviewer's concerns look spot on to me.
You also need to clarify, from the query of 1/28 on your talk page, whether or not you have any conflict of interest with this company that you need to disclose. Given how promotional the style in which the article was written, at least addressing that is an absolute must. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

06:36, 30 January 2026 review of submission by Kubas89

[edit]

Hello,

I have added additional independent secondary sources, including coverage in Microsoft’s Engineering Fundamentals Playbook and CloudZero’s 2025 overview of cloud testing tools.

Could you please advise whether these sources help establish notability?

Thank you for your time. Kubas89 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending, the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. We don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 30 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-65942-9

[edit]
advice given and noted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can i ensure the article get published? ~2026-65942-9 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By rewriting it without using an LLM/chatbot, including references, and demonstrating notability. None of these things have been done, and to be on English Wikipedia, this article will almost certainly need to be completely rewritten. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wow ! So mean! MandydeTonnerrre (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

08:13, 30 January 2026 review of submission by Aruntom1947

[edit]

This draft wikipedia page contains 13 reference links. Out of this 9 news articles focus exclusively on the 'Coupling' web series with in-depth coverage and these are not passable mentions. The other articles mention the web series along with other regional or national OTT releases. The references links are from Manorama News, Manorama Online, On Manorama, Indian Express and The Economic Times all of which are highly reputed and reliable news sources. In addtion there are reference from the News Room Post, OTTPlay and KeralaTV. Since this is a regional language (Malayalam) web series the coverage is mainly in regional news outlets. However even with all this the draft keeps getting rejected. Aruntom1947 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been 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(and you have).
A couple more reviews would probably help immensely. Most of your sources are related to the release or availability of the series. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 30 January 2026 review of submission by Yasen Tsonev

[edit]
resubmitted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you take a look again? Yasen Tsonev (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

13:11, 30 January 2026 review of submission by GuerillaGirl53

[edit]

I have been told by reviewers that my subject, Judith Carducci is most likely Wikipedia-worthy, but my article keeps getting rejected because you're looking for "more reliable source." I've exhausted the sources I have online or in print. Which sections of the article should I delete because they are not sourced reliably enough? I've also tried to eliminate all peacock language from my text, but some of the quotes may be considered peacock languate. Should I eliminate those quotes, even though they're from reliable sources that can be checked online? Thank you. GuerillaGirl53 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Did you see the comments on the draft talk page?(sometimes people aren't aware of draft talk pages) 331dot (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GuerillaGirl53, Bonadea and I have augmented Draft talk:Judith Carducci. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

14:27, 30 January 2026 review of submission by Theskyisindeedindigo

[edit]
Answered 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In what cases can interviews be used? I know they don't count as independent secondary sources, but I was wondering if anybody has any examples where interviews can be used. Theskyisindeedindigo (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources, and can be used as described there. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

14:59, 30 January 2026 review of submission by NewAccount7295

[edit]
conversation reached he'd a natural conclusion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've submitted a few Lego-related drafts: Draft:Great Ball Contraption and Draft:List of Lego computer-aided design software; I just listed the first one since I can't list several. I'm not requesting an immediate review since drafts are reviewed in no particular order, but if someone would look at the edits and the drafts eventually, that would be good. I know the backlog at AfC is pretty big at this point. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a review doesn't affect the review process, whether you are seeking an immediate review or not. Your drafts will be reviewed in due course. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I asked because I saw that Draft:Rebrickable was submitted three weeks ago and still has not been reviewed. NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,762 pending submissions waiting for review." "4 weeks" is an average; it may take less, it may take more. 4 weeks is actually pretty good; I've seen it as high as 6 months. Everyone wants their draft reviewed as soon as possible, but that must give way to the volunteer nature of this project. It will eventually be reviewed, please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. I am being patient. NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19:46, 30 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-66416-6

[edit]

Hello, Could you please clarify which of the following standards this page fails to meet? I'm a journalist by training (40+ years), so I believe I only used reliable (real publications respected in the insurance tech industry), secondary, and strictly independent sources. Is it the "in-depth" bullet that's insufficient for Wikipedia? Thank you so much!

"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: 

   in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
   reliable
   secondary
   strictly independent of the subject"

~2026-66416-6 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting(I assume you are the draft creator, editing about their client)
You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company; the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as important about itself.
The vast majority of companies on Earth do not actually merit Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client. Most company representatives fail in their efforts to force the issue of creating an article, instead of allowing one to organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor takes note of coverage of a topic and chooses to write about it. We're willing to answer your questions, but your clients that are paying you probably expect you to do the research and work to determine what is needed before you contribute. We're here for free. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, this post is from OneDraftAnne - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OneDraftAnne. I thought I was logged in, but wasn't. Thx for the grace! ~2026-66651-6 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much 331dot. So much to learn! I'll review the provided links and have another go. Again, thank you!! ~2026-66651-6 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OneDraftAnne, something else that might be useful to you is WP:42 - you ideally want multiple sources that meet all three criteria, and the page goes into more detail with links. WP:CORPTRIV tells you things you don't want in a source for a company. Between those two pages you should be able to find most if not all of what you will need to know. Meadowlark (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, OneDraftAnne
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.
This is even more critical for editors with a conflict of interest, and for paid editors I always want to ask, Would you take on any other job for payment without first getting trained in the skills required? (I know you are a journalist, but the knowledge and skills required are different) --ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

[edit]

09:37, 31 January 2026 review of submission by Raigar-RST

[edit]

how to improve this draft Raigar-RST (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Raigar-RST: you need to find multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of this person, and that have published significant coverage about him; then you summarise what they have said, citing each source against the information it has provided – see WP:GOLDENRULE, which explains this process. Your current draft is all but unusable, and the sources cited don't seem to exist (or at least couldn't be found with those ISBN numbers). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 31 January 2026 review of submission by ~2026-65942-9

[edit]
Reviews are not performed on request, let alone on demand 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

review ~2026-65942-9 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wait ~ DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

17:35, 31 January 2026 review of submission by Astromanaught

[edit]
advice accepted 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could I get help as to why this was declined? He's played on 2 D1 college teams and 2 professional teams. I included 5 independent sources... What more do I need? I've seen wiki articles with way less citations. Astromanaught (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us these articles you have seen so action can be taken. This is a volunteer project, and we are only as good as those who pitch in and help. There are likely many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia, as there are many ways for inappropriate contemt to get past us, this cannot justify adding more. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. See other stuff exists.
None of your sources are independent of this man, his teams and league. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
School newspapers and club newsletters aren't the kind of sources that establish notability of a topic. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A much more and constructive comment than the first I received; I appreciate the feedback. I'll hold of on resubmitting until he is more noteworthy and there are further sources. Thanks Astromanaught (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

18:08, 31 January 2026 review of submission by NewAccount7295

[edit]

I've created this draft. I have not yet submitted it for review. My question is, with the sources that exist, does it require an AFC review, or should I go ahead and move it into mainspace? The Verge wrote quite a few articles on this, and Polygon wrote one as well. NewAccount7295 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NewAccount7295, it's really up to you. If you believe that it's ready for mainspace, you can move it - but keep in mind that it may be sent to WP:AFD if it's not actually ready, and if it's deleted then recreating the article becomes much harder. If you haven't checked all your sources against WP:42, I suggest doing that before you make your decision. Remember that we recommend three or more sources that meet all three criteria.
Although you mention The Verge and Polygon, those sources don't seem to be in the draft. It might be a good idea to use them if they meet WP:42. Meadowlark (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 31 January 2026 review of submission by EarthCountryMan2

[edit]
This can go nowhere. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I fix the crafty hacks page. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to do with this draft, @EarthCountryMan2? It was rejected in October, and despite your edits it is still completely unsourced. Meadowlark (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason you are being rejected is that you have no sources for your draft and your tone is not encyclopedia like. Unfortunately, I doubt that this article will be punished until a large amount of editing is undergone Jackson R Farrell (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because it like Draft:List of Hurricanes in Ohio but I fix it. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have not fixed it, @EarthCountryMan2. You have no sources. The draft does not make sense.
This notice board is for questions about the AfC process. If you have questions about that, please ask them. If you have questions about something else, we can tell you where to ask. If you have no questions, that's okay; go back to working on some other drafts and this thread will be archived in a few days. Meadowlark (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me in the page. EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In English: @EarthCountryMan2, I don't think there are any sources for your draft. If there are no sources, it can't become an article. No one can help you if there are no sources. I will translate this into French with Google (unfortunately I don't speak French) in the hope this will help you understand.
Have you thought about writing for the French Wikipedia instead, if that is your first language? You need good English to edit the English Wikipedia and I am very sorry but I don't think you are ready to edit here yet. Maybe you could start by adding sources in English to the French Wikipedia, if that is allowed - you would have to check French Wikipedia's policies. Then you would get lots of practice in reading English and seeing how it is written.
In French via Google Translate: Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait de sources pour votre brouillon. Sans sources, il ne peut pas devenir un article. Personne ne peut vous aider s'il n'y a pas de sources. Je vais traduire ceci en français avec Google Traduction (malheureusement, je ne parle pas français) en espérant que cela vous aidera à comprendre.
Avez-vous envisagé d'écrire pour Wikipédia en français, si c'est votre langue maternelle ? Il faut un bon niveau d'anglais pour contribuer à Wikipédia en anglais et je suis désolé, mais je ne pense pas que vous soyez encore prêt à contribuer ici. Vous pourriez peut-être commencer par ajouter des sources en anglais à Wikipédia en français, si cela est autorisé ; il faudrait consulter les règles de Wikipédia en français. Cela vous permettrait de beaucoup vous entraîner à lire l'anglais et à comprendre son style. Meadowlark (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bien sûr Je veillerai à ajouter des sources sur Wikipédia en français. Sure I will make sure to add sources in french Wikipedia
(If you don’t speak French here the English part.) EarthCountryMan2 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also extremely short, that is another reason Jackson R Farrell (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't short, you'll see if you expand the collapsed section. And drafts aren't rejected for being short if they're well sourced. Stub drafts can be accepted if notability is obvious. This draft, however, does nothing to show the subject is notable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19:04, 31 January 2026 review of submission by Jackson R Farrell

[edit]
reached natural conclusion 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The sources I have provided have been deemed “routine reporting” though I do not know where else to find sources that prove the information I am providing. One of the sources is the School’s profile with certain data found in the article and another is a newspaper article that discussed the school’s namesake. Jackson R Farrell (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It isn't that the information is being disputed in this case, rather that the sources being used don't show how this school is notable. Take a look at our general notability guidelines and you'll see what we mean. Not all schools are notable, we require sources to talk in depth about the subject and those sources to be independent of the subject. No amount of editing can make a non-notable subject notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Thank you for the help, does this mean I will likely be unable to create this article? Jackson R Farrell (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is rare for schools lower than high school level to merit an article, unless there is something very unusual about it, like being a historic structure. Even Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to the school district(the mass shooting that occurred there has an article).
Any opinion needs to be removed("Blake Bass Middle School is an outstanding school, especially in Coweta County.") 331dot (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, if no sources can be found that meet WP:Golden Rule, then the subject doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia. For organizations like schools, WP:CORPDEPTH applies: in-depth coverage about the school, not routine reporting. Also, sources should have national or at least regional audience, not a local newspaper. The vast majority of middle schools are not notable. I suggest you give up on that draft an move to another topic. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you both for the help.
Jackson R Farrell ~2026-70965-5 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 1

[edit]

02:08, 1 February 2026 review of submission by Realblackhistorynews247

[edit]
 Rejected draft Advice given on AI and appealing rejection 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My draft was recently rejected for notability, but I have since updated it with verified industry data that I believe meets the "Significant Coverage" and "Notability" guidelines for musical artists. I would appreciate a second opinion on the following sources:

Industry Analytics: Independent data from Chartmetric and Muso.Ai verifying a "Top 2% Rising R&B Artist" global ranking, top 25% global ranking, and top 50% songwriter ranking.

High-Profile Professional Credits: A documented assistant styling credit in Vogue Italia for the Phuong My Spring 2019 collection and work assisting notable designer Sue Wong.

Independent Press: A featured interview in Harlem World Magazine regarding my artistic development and resilience for Miss Black USA Pageant and civic awards.

Does this combination of industry analytics and high-profile professional associations meet the threshold for a "stub" article, or is more mainstream press required? Thank you for your guidance. Realblackhistorynews247 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. If you want, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected it to consider allowing resubmission for another review.
To me, it looks like it was AI-generated, and as a musician she needs to meet at least one of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Data from non-notable rankings, a styling credit, and an interview have nothing to do with notability as a music artist. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

05:18, 1 February 2026 review of submission by ZyTun

[edit]
 Rejected draft appeal advice given 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayeyawady W.F.C won the 2025-26 Myanmar Women League title. Added reliable sources from ASEAN football website and Global New Light of Myanmar. Kindly check. ZyTun (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you have addressed the concerns that led to the rejection, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly on their user talk page and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11:23, 1 February 2026 review of submission by Hairmer

[edit]
 Rejected draft 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was recently hired to create a page for Aviteur. Unfortunately it looks like that some editors before tried to make this page without success and the AFC page says to stop. The company told me they were not behind the prior efforts and have no idea who was doing these low quality submissions. I personally agree that they were very poorly done, with minimal amount of citations. They seemed to be done by an inexperienced editor.

Regardless I would appreciate if you allow a new submission for consideration. The version I have made has dozens of supporting articles that meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Hairmer (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just advertising, telling us everything the company would like us to know about them. Theroadislong (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hairmer As notified on your user talk page, Declarations of paid editing do not exempt you from the requirement not to advertise your clients' businesses. This truly was not valid use of your time nor of ours. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12:17, 1 February 2026 review of submission by Dandelion1332

[edit]

My article has been declined because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". My problem is that I tried to make it sound neutral as much as possible and tried adding external sources as much as possible, but there weren't many. I was hoping to get any additional feedback for tips on how to fix this. Thanks a lot in advance. Dandelion1332 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To me, there is reason to believe that you and Mahmmod Mohammed (talk · contribs) are both engaging in undisclosed paid editing and that you were sent here as a replacement for the other person after they got flagged for using AI Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And that's assuming meatpuppetry ordered by your superior(s) (see WP:BOSS); I tried not to assume outright sockpuppetry Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahmmod Mohammed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for replying. Mahmoud and I worked on the draft together and we both did disclose that we are affiliated with Kotobee. The first time we submitted the draft, we used AI a bit but after the draft was declined, we replied solely on our own writing. My inquiry is about the second time it's declined not the first time though, the reason being "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". So if you have any feedback please feel free to share. Dandelion1332 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that it's not paid editing, we both do work for the company but we tried our best to write the article to be as informative and as neutral as it can be. Dandelion1332 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dandelion1332 You are employed by the company. It is paid editing, It's also an advert whether you work for the org or nt. In addition please do not remove the review history. The words about not removing the line mean do not remove it.
What can you do about the advertising? Rewrite it from scratch keeping not a single word, as a distillation of what is said about it in sources passing WP:42, and only what is said about it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Answer this: Why do do you want an article about your employer to exist on Wikipedia? If the purpose is for publicity, that is explicitly disallowed as a reason for an article to exist. See WP:NOTPUBLICITY. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Dandelion1332.
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.
If you put anything in that is (or even looks as if it might be) what the company wants people to know about it, then that is advertising: see YESPROMO
Your job as a Wikipedia editor is, having found the necessary independent sources, to forget everything you know about the company and write a summary of what those sources say. Even if they leave something out that you think is important. Even if they are unpleasantly critical. Even if they are wrong (Wikipedia works on verifiability, rather than truth).
Do you see why paid editing so often fails? ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 1 February 2026 review of submission by MandydeTonnerrre

[edit]
Draft u8ser blanked 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

My draft was recently declined at Articles for Creation due to concerns about demonstrating significant independent coverage.

I have since revised the draft to strengthen inline citations and to more clearly present coverage from independent secondary sources, including a full feature profile in The New York Times and additional coverage in Financial Times and Swiss national press.

I would appreciate any guidance on whether the current sourcing now meets the notability requirements for a biography of a living person, or if further adjustments are recommended before resubmission.

Thank you for your time and assistance. MandydeTonnerrre (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using a LLM to write, and especially don't use it to communicate with us, else you could be blocked. We talk to people here, not AIs.
It's going to be declined again if you don't rewrite all that LLM-generated text in your own words. LLMs seem to like emphasizing that a subject received coverage rather than emphasizing what the coverage actually is, and your draft does that throughout. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So could you please help me learn on how to emphasize how the coverage actually is relatable ? MandydeTonnerrre (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about emphasizing something. It's not anything you can fix. In fact, all of your emphasizing is making things worse. The real problem is that your draft is "all sizzle and no steak" - you're boasting about having a ton of good material when in fact you have just a little bit of material and most of it is mediocre or worse. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay heard you loud and clear : the person im talking about in my article is a kid. Please, be repespectful, she didn't ask for anything ! MandydeTonnerrre (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She sounds like a bright, talented young lady who has a bright future ahead of her, but not every talented person with a good future merits a Wikipedia article. We want to know what is said about her, not just who says it.
Also see WP:PROUD and consider the good reasons a Wikipedia article about her is not a good idea. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly right. And part of respecting a kid is to not shove them into public attention. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have blanked the draft, it has been deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G7. If you want to recover it in the future to rewrite without AI help, you may do so with a request at WP:REFUND. Or you can simply start over without restoring the old version. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 2

[edit]

05:50, 2 February 2026 review of submission by Idkaditya307

[edit]

It is not copy I had first make it but it has been copied by someone else and he had published it please do any thing ...... Idkaditya307 (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Nipah virus was first created in 2005, 20 years before you submitted your draft article. Even if someone did publish an article on the same topic of your draft, no one owns content on Wikipedia. No one can claim sole ownership over a topic or subject.
If someone published an article before you had the chance, there is nothing to be done. You are free to edit the existing article, being sure to follow all policies and guidelines. Jcgaylor (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Idkaditya307
I am afraid that your draft Draft:Nipah virus shows many of the typical problems of an article written by a new editor who has not yet learnt enough about Wikipedia to write an article successfully. In particular, it has no sources, and so appears to have been written backwards. The existing article Nipah virus appears to be better in every way.
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) 11:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC) review of a submission by ~2026-72547-2

[edit]

Draft was rejected and I’m not sure why; the main article is 10,000 words long and it still recieves coverage. ~2026-72547-2 (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the reviewer, this is about a pitching battle in a single game of the 1991 World Series, with no indication that this single game merits a standalone article. You've almost provided a pitch by pitch account of the game, far too much detail. Most of the sources speak to the World Series as a whole being important, not just this particular game. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not the creator; I just wanted it published. What about the main article being too long? ~2026-72547-2 (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What main article are you saying is too long? Too long for what? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article 1991 World Series, I suspect. It doesn't need a pitch by pitch account of Game 7. If sources are not present discussing the pitcher's duel in that game, they can be added. I suggest discussing it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 2 February 2026 review of submission by RBSorrell

[edit]

Hello. My draft has been declined multiple times, with concerns raised about AI-generated content. I did initially use an LLM to help organize information, but I've been revising to address the feedback. Clearly I'm still missing the mark on Wikipedia's style requirements. Could someone point me to:

Specific sentences or sections that still read as AI-generated? Examples of similar approved articles I should model? The most common stylistic issues I need to fix?

I'm willing to rewrite from scratch if needed, I just want to understand what "encyclopedic tone" actually looks like versus what I'm currently producing. Thanks for your patience. RBSorrell (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RBSorrell The issue you are having is a matter of your approach. You are telling us what you want the world to know about your company, like it's activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. Instead, you should set aside everything you know about your company, all materials its puts out, all mere reporting of its activities and offerings, and limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company. You need to show that it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. "Significant coverage" involves critical analysis and commentary as to the importance/significance/influence of the company as viewed by others wholly unaffiliated with it, not what the company views as its own importance.
Most company representatives have great difficulty doing that, and fail in their efforts. especially without broader Wikipedia experience. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic; companies trying to force the issue rarely succeed, because their representatives are too close to their company to write as Wikipedia asks. Are you the rare person who can? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it. There are also good reasons to not want an article about your company, such as disgruntled customers vandalizing it(if only temporarily).
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues; the vast majority of companies on Earth do not actually merit Wikipedia articles. I suggest that you go on about the work of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow an article to organically develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of your company and chooses to write about it. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15:57, 2 February 2026 review of submission by HistorianWriter1947

[edit]

I need assistance regarding my article because mine got rejected for "not being notable" even though mine was about a group that is known (ex, social media). HistorianWriter1947 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not merely document things that exist. There is criteria for inclusion, what we call notability- such as a notable organization. You need to show by summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this organization meets that definition. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:59, 2 February 2026 review of submission by ~2026-73187-2

[edit]

What could be done better for this to be published? ~2026-73187-2 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing; rejection means that resubmission is not possible. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something like a fictional character; Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion. See some articles about fictional characters like James T. Kirk, Superman, Sherlock Holmes. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

[edit]

07:21, 3 February 2026 review of submission by Srambled089

[edit]

Hello, tam.

This is regarding an AfC document rejected in November. After having gone through the feedback, and revisiting the article, I feel like the draft is rejected on the "in-depth" requirement.

That is a challenge within the Indian media ecosystem, which rarely - if ever - covers social research organisations themselves, unless there is some form of a scandal (see Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Centre for Policy Research, or Ashoka University professor's social media comments) or are already well-connected and media-savvy (see again Pratap Bhanu Mehta, son of a former VP of the University of Delhi, and Ashoka University). This creates a rather noticeable hole in the local knowledge economy in this area; even the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, a more notable and reputable research institute that was founded in 1938, has fewer media mentions than Ashoka University, which was founded just 12 years ago.

That aside, in my article, I have tried to follow the template that the Wiki pages for TISS and Ashoka University employ: self-references for trivial details (such as year of founding, projects/initiatives, etc.), along with the media coverage of reports covering subject matter expertise.

I want to understand what else I can do to improve the draft to make it acceptable, not only for this submission but also for future articles which feature other research/educational/on-ground organisations doing notable work in the field of social impact.

Thanks in advance. Srambled089 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that some topic areas are underserved because independent reliable sources don't write about them, but we can't give a pass on this requirement; information must be verifiable, and notability must be shown.(in this case, WP:ORG)
You have just summarized the normal activities of the organization, not significant coverage that describes what makes the organization important/significant/influential as viewed by others(not as the organization itself might view its own importance). 331dot (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 3 February 2026 review of submission by Jfer2334

[edit]

Hello,

I am the subject of a draft biography and therefore have a conflict of interest, so I am not submitting it myself.

I have prepared a neutral draft offline and am looking for an uninvolved editor who may be willing to review it and, if appropriate, submit it via Articles for Creation. The draft relies on multiple independent, secondary sources from national media in Honduras, Japan, and Taiwan.

If someone is willing to advise on next steps or assist with submission, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Jfer2334 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jfer2334 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Request for uninvolved editor to submit draft biography (COI disclosed)".
You are allowed to resubmit the draft yourself, you don't need someone else to click the submit button. That's one reason for the review process to exist, to allow those with a COI to submit drafts. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification.
Understood, I will proceed by submitting the draft myself through Articles for Creation with full COI disclosure, and will let the AfC review process handle it.
I appreciate your quick reply. Jfer2334 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again!
I am the subject of the draft biography. The conflict of interest is personal, as the article is about me, which is why I am trying to submit it through Articles for Creation with full disclosure. Jfer2334 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; in the future, just tell people that you are writing about yourself; it comes off as disingenuous to just say "I have a conflict of interest" because that makes it sound like you are not the subject. Please be aware of the autobiography policy; while it is not absolutely forbidden for people to write about themselves, it is highly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind, thank you for your clarification! Jfer2334 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance.
I’ve now placed the full draft biography in my sandbox here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jfer2334/sandbox
My account doesn’t yet have permission to move pages, so I’m unable to move it to the draft space myself. I’d appreciate it if an AfC reviewer could take a look or advise on next steps.
Thank you. Jfer2334 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is already at Draft:Juan Fernando Herrera Ramos; you need to resubmit that for review. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 3 February 2026 review of submission by Therawbear

[edit]

Which parts would need more references? Its an older competitor in an unpopular sport in a smaller country so they dont have many articles about his success sadly, newer generations do. And all the articles are in serbian. Therawbear (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English if they are otherwise reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah not many articles, barely any in his native language. How many references would we need here? ~2026-74128-5 (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. You need a few sources that aren't just a database. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1336366428"