Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

May 22

08:21, 22 May 2026 review of submission by Crabby Hermit

• Crabby Hermit (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Plaksha University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I received a rejection on this draft. I have reduced it to a stub.

The sources used are independent and secondary. The legal/government source is used only for establishment and location.

Could someone guide me on whether this meets Wikipedia guidelines? Crabby Hermit (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Herllo, @Crabby Hermit.

Whether it is a stub or not makes no difference: if suitable sources do not exist, then no article is possible, stub or not.

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.

Which of your sources meet all the requirements in golden rule? (Judging from the titles of the sources, they all look like either WP:CORPTRIV, or non-independent sources). ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not, because you are just documenting the existence of the school. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary about the topic.

Before 2017, showing existence was sufficient to merit a school an article, but that is no longer the case, schools are treated like any other organization. This means that you may see many articles about schools that exist that probably shouldn't, and we just haven't removed them yet. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses.

I do think these meet the criteria:

1. The Ken: https://the-ken.com/story/project-mohali-inside-plaksha-universitys-grand-plan-to-turn-tech-education-on-its-head/
2. Hindu Business Line: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/on-campus/readying-for-the-innovation-economy/article67395471.ece

They are solely about the university. They are from the editor's desk. They are from independent, known publications. They are positive in tone, but that's not against guidelines from what I understand.

This article talks about a trend in Indian higher education, of which Plaksha is a fairly large part: https://theprint.in/india/education/how-successful-iit-iim-grads-are-teaming-up-to-launch-universities-collective-philanthropy/1272384/

The following article (not used as a source) covers robotics projects. I didn't use it since it seemed limited to an event: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/student-innovations-take-centre-stage-team-kalki-unveils-rover-system-plaksha-students-present-underwater-ai-robot-10583200/

Do these also fall under the criteria of WP: CORPTRIV?

Sorry for the dump. I would just like to know if my thought process has any merit, or if this is simply not possible at this time.

The perception challege is that the university is quite large and well-known in India, primarily due to the prominence of the founder network. I recognise there is no inherent notability, but it does recieve a fair bit of coverage. As you mentioned @331dot, there are a lot of unis with far weaker sourcing (from what I can tell). It's making my job hell!

Appreciate the responses. Thank you! Crabby Hermit (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

We judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles, see other stuff exists. Maybe those other articles should be removed.

The two sources you pointed out as 1/2 are paywalled(which is fine) but seem to be based on interviews with a university staff person, so they're not independent sources.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Company/organization representatives almost always fail at this sort of thing, especially as new users without prior editing experience. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Instead of your organization trying to force the issue of creating an article, you should just allow one to organically develop in the usual way, when appropriate coverage is noticed by independent editors. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources are independent reported features with some primary-source material. My article was rejected for containing "churnlist, directories and promotional content. most sources are passing mentions/advertorials". Do these count towards that?

Could I continue to work on the draft? My honest belief and understanding is that there is enough coverage on its founders and education model to warrant a mention.

I recognise the challenge of even-handedness, but I have not used any quotes or claims.

I defer to your judgement, but would appreciate the opportunity to continue working on this. Crabby Hermit (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Crabby Hermit: you can continue to work on the draft, but as it has been rejected already, there is no automatic entitlement for another review, nor should you attempt to resubmit it. If you believe sources are now available which were not previously considered, you may edit the draft to include those, and then appeal to the rejecting reviewer. Note, though, that you need to have a reasonable case for appealing.

"Coverage on its founders" is unlikely to help here, since coverage must be directly of the subject in question (ie. the university), and notability is not inherited by association. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Noted @DoubleGrazing

I'll rephrase the founders bit as 'founding philosophy', in which coverage of the founders is naturally included.

I'm trudging on in the belief that the sources listed here meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but suffer from an optics problem. I have a few more I'd like to try before giving up. @331dot has made his views clear, but I have to believe I've given it my best.

I will edit the draft and appeal to the rejecting reviewer.

Thank you for following this. Appreciate it! Crabby Hermit (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

11:10, 22 May 2026 review of submission by Sumitmishra91134

• Sumitmishra91134 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Sumitmishra91134/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to publish a company page it is international but after publishing it i got some error. Kindly help me in publishing it. Sumitmishra91134 (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You have just summarized the routine activities and offerings of the company, not unsolicited critical analysis and commentary.

If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI.

I will shortly move the draft to draft space, the preferred location for submissions. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Uffizio Technologies. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m new to Wikipedia editing and recently started learning how article creation, sourcing, and notability guidelines work. I attempted to draft a page for Uffizio based on several independent references and industry sources.

The references I collected include:

CISA ICS Advisory:

https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-21-287-02

Zaubacorp company registration data:

https://www.zaubacorp.com/UFFIZIO-TECHNOLOGIES-PRIVATE-LIMITED-U72900GJ2021PTC123428

Tracxn company profile:

https://tracxn.com/d/companies/uffizio/__oXD2NbhaqHUe7y78vLzV234mjJGHAs3yDqo8fawkhtM#founders-and-board-of-directors

Teltonika integration documentation:

https://wiki.teltonika-gps.com/view/Uffizio_with_Fleet_Management_(FM)

Express Computer article:

https://www.expresscomputer.in/news/uffizio-emerges-as-an-innovator-in-telematics-and-iot-solutions/101138/

Economic Times company listing:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/company/uffizio-india-software-consultants-private-limited/U72200MH2000PTC125389

ABP Gujarati business coverage:

https://gujarati.abplive.com/brand-wire/valsad-germany-based-uffizio-company-sets-up-headquartered-in-city-and-provides-services-over-80-countries-861726

CIO Tech Outlook feature:

https://www.ciotechoutlook.com/industry/fleet-management/vendor/2020/uffizio

I also reviewed the structure and sourcing style of the Teltonika Wikipedia page as a reference while learning how company articles are formatted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teltonika

However, my submission was not published, while I noticed that some similar technology/company pages with comparable references are already live on Wikipedia.

Since I am still learning, I would genuinely appreciate guidance from experienced editors regarding the following:

Which of these references are considered insufficient for Wikipedia notability standards?

What type of secondary independent coverage is generally required for telematics or technology companies?

Are industry publications such as Express Computer or CIO Tech Outlook usually considered reliable independent sources, or are they viewed as promotional/trade coverage?

What improvements would make the draft more suitable for acceptance?

My intention is to contribute professionally and continue improving as a Wikipedia editor. In the future, I hope to reach the level of an experienced or senior editor by learning Wikipedia’s sourcing, neutrality, and notability standards properly.

Any constructive feedback would be sincerely appreciated. Sumitmishra91134 (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

My advice is that you should first learn about sourcing, neutrality, and notability standards first, before attempting the very difficult task of creating a new article. Essentially, you built a house and are now asking us if it is structurally sound; you should do the reverse, find out if what you want to build is structurally sound and then learn how to build it. I will go over your sources in a moment.

Trade publications may sometimes be okay, but are often based on materials directly from the company involved and so aren't independent, or they just don't have a wide enough reach.

Please respond to the paid editing inquiry on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you so much I will do as you say. I will first learn everything from scratch and then start with this difficult task. I thought it will be easy to contribute in Wikipedia but it feels so opposite. I will try with small small things get live first after thorough research.

Thanks again Mr. Senior. Sumitmishra91134 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

CISA: Just a government notice, not in depth, significant coverage.

Zaubacorp: Basic registration information, not significant coverage.

Tracxn: Basic profile, not significant coverage.

Teltonica: Just one company's website telling about this company's products. Not significant coverage.

Express Computer: No author is given, just the outlet, which is sometimes an indication of paid placement or a press release; it's also based on an interview. Not independent coverage.

Economic Times: Just a basic profile.

I've stopped looking at this point; None of these are usable to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

but you missed the last one it was famous news website i dont think it was paid in anyway. But can you just check abplive link please i think atleast that should be perfect.

Also can you share any example of perfect neutral references for any company.

Because as I mentioned I have taken reference from teltonika wiki and i have seen others as well they sound more marketing than this uffizio one but they are live.

Thats why i was confused. Sumitmishra91134 (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists. Much inappropriate content exists on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, so inappropriate content can get past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify any inappropriate content that you see. We're only as good as those who choose to help us.

References do not need to be "neutral", but they do need to be independent of the topic(not interviews or press releases) and they need to be from reliable sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control.

Again, please describe your relationship to this company, especially if you are an employee. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• OP blocked for undisclosed paid editing. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

12:28, 22 May 2026 review of submission by Dr. Sara Glass

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.

---

• Dr. Sara Glass (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Dr. Sara Glass/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I understand the concern. I have a conflict of interest with the subject and tried to use AfC rather than publishing directly. I am not trying to use Wikipedia as a personal website. I thought the subject might meet notability because the memoir has independent coverage and reviews in outlets such as The Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, Jewish Book Council, Lilith, and Shtetl. Could someone advise whether a much shorter article focused mainly on the memoir and its independent reception would still be inappropriate, or whether the subject simply does not meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards at this time? Dr. Sara Glass (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your username is Dr. Sara Glass, but you seem to be suggesting that you aren't her; if you are not her, you need to immediately change your username; I can change it you say what you want it changed to. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging this. You are correct. I am not Sara Glass. I made the username without realizing that it would be misleading. Could you please change this account’s username to RiverEditor? If that is unavailable, CedarNotes is fine. Wonky Giraffe (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You appear to have already created a new account, so renaming the original is unnecessary(it will need to be abandoned). Please disclose your conflict of interest on your new userpage(User:Wonky Giraffe) as advised by WP:COI. If you are employed by Dr. Glass or receive anything at all from her in exchange for your work here, you are required per the Terms of Use to disclose as a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dr. Sara Glass You fail WP:BIO. Most people do. I do. What you need is a personal website, whether you say you want one or not. Wikipedia is not a personal website. WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA too. The memoir might be notable. That does not mean the author is. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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.

17:49, 22 May 2026 review of submission by Garrettcarrot12

• Garrettcarrot12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2026 Southland Conference baseball tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

there's no reason why this page shouldn't be approved by now. Everything is standard and very similar to every other conference tournament page. please expedite approval or give a legitimate adjustment needed to do so. Garrettcarrot12 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Garrettcarrot12

First, you have submitted the draft, and brusquely instructing people to review it is not likely to speed things up, or to make reviewers willing to engage with it.

Secondly, there is every reason why it should not be accepted, as it does not have a single independent source, and so cannot show that the subject is notable.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

See WP:42.

As for other articles: Wikipedia has many thousands of seriously substandard articles which if they were submitted for review now would not be accepted, but not many editors are interested in spending the time going back and dealing with them. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine, apologies if the tone was off-putting, as I didn't really know the process. I assumed that these pages would go to a US NCAA college baseball grouping to be approved, not to a wider group that could include any editor anywhere. I was confused why 28 of 29 other similar pages were allowed to be approved but this one was not. I suppose the burden is on me then to prove notability (technically this was submitted by someone else earlier, but I re-submitted):

- The 2026 NCAA Division I baseball tournament is a national tournament held to determine the champion of the highest division of United State collegiate baseball and the field will be finalized by tomorrow.

- There are 64 teams total, 29 teams that automatically qualify by winning their respective conference, and 35 that are selected as the best of the rest by a committee. The 29 automatic qualifiers are determined by each of those conferences holding its own tournament, and the winner of that conference tournament qualifying directly to the national tournament.

- On the 2026 NCAA tournament page, there is a placeholder table for the 29 auto qualifiers, all have a link to that conference tournament's page. 28 of those pages were approved and are live; this one, the Southland Conference's tournament, is is the only one that hasn't been approved yet.

- Here are a few examples of other conference tournaments: 2026 Horizon League baseball tournament, 2026 Coastal Athletic Association baseball tournament, 2026 Mid-American Conference baseball tournament, 2026 WAC baseball tournament, 2026 Northeast Conference baseball tournament. In addition, here are previous years of the Southland Conference baseball tournament: 2025 Southland Conference baseball tournament, 2024 Southland Conference baseball tournament, 2023 Southland Conference baseball tournament, 2022 Southland Conference baseball tournament. The information provided in this years submission is, to my view, very similar to the examples of pages I have linked here.

Let me know if this is enough context or if I can provide more. Garrettcarrot12 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Garrettcarrot12, I have moved some of those 2026 articles to draft space as they have evidently been created by people with the rights to create articles directly, but not the knowledge of Wikipedia to know when it as appropriate to do so.

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 do not have several independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject of the article (see WP:42) then you cannot write an article. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

19:22, 22 May 2026 review of submission by Bmarchon

• Bmarchon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jim Porter (analyst) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi: I guess we need help in addressing your rejection comments. You mention that the article needs 1) to provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail etc.. 2) Add references from reputable outlets with editorial oversight and 3) that sources should not be connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases etc..

After a major revamp of the article in January 2026, we believe that we have addressed all three requirements. We have added details of his life, and the list of references now include sources such as Forbes, Newsweek, The Computer History Museum, Electronic Design News, as well as reputable industry outlets such as Storage Newsletter, Idema and Disk/Trend. These references are most reliable, have editorial oversight, and are independent.

Thanks for your guidance Bmarchon (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined, not rejected; rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. To obtain another review, please resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bmarchon, who are "we"? A Wikipedia account should only be used by a single human, not shared among a group of people. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 09:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

May 23

00:09, 23 May 2026 review of submission by SWJeff1750

• SWJeff1750 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stanley L. Robbins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My latest draft article was declined because it didn't contain in line ciatiions (it does contain in line citations) and did not have adequate references (it has three references all if which meat Wikipedia's requirements), so I am genuinely confused about the feedback and am at a loss as to what to do. Please advise... SWJeff1750 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Flyingphoenixchips Did you select an incorrect decline rationale by mistake? Athanelar (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@AthanelarThanks for the ping, I did not decline it with a wrong rationale. I had also added a comment with Wikipedia's existing template for sources, but I do not think it fully conveyed the message. The reason why I declined it was not because of in line citations but for citation quality. The AfC template, had a "lack of citation" tag so I used the same, because there is a lack of quality citations. Apologies if this caused a confusion.

Basically to sum things the article relies almost entirely on three sources: a 2004 American Journal of Pathology obituary (Kumar), a 2004 Laboratory Investigation piece (Crawford), and a brief Brigham and Women's Hospital obituary. Nearly every footnote chains back to these same three. Claims about his personal life in Newton, his hobbies, and the establishment of named awards and lectureships carry citations but these details seem too granular for short obituary pieces to actually substantiate. The co-authorship credit with Marcia Angell for Basic Pathology also lacks any independent sourcing beyond these same obituaries.

@SWJeff1750 Feel to add independent sources and resubmit. We would need more to establish notability. As it stands right now, it barely passes the guidelines. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

04:59, 23 May 2026 review of submission by Errolhunt

• Errolhunt (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ARC Centre of Excellence in Exciton Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to discuss the two Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence pages, which were rejected (Draft:ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems and Draft:ARC Centre of Excellence in Exciton Science). I'm not quite sure how to do this - can you help me? The ARC CoEs are the country's highest level of (non medical) research institution and I beleive there is valuable information that can be recorded on these pages, once they have been created. (I do realise my starting pages are short, as you said). If you look at other ARC CoE pages tho (there are around a dozen of them), other Aust science editors have made valuable additions documenting the Centres' scientific discoveries, notable persons and highlights, once there is a 'base' to work from. (Each Centre usually runs for seven years btw.) A bullet list of the COEs on the ARC page would not accomplish this. My thought was to create the starting point for these two COEs, and then myself and others could add more value later. I think there are other COEs that could have similarly useful pages, but figured to start with these two. Partly in case they were rejected! :- ) Errolhunt (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've merged these discussions, only a single discussion is needed. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The drafts were declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean that resubmission is not possible, while declined means that it is possible. Please see other stuff exists, we judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate. Perhaps those other dozen articles should be merged or removed as well and we just haven't done it yet.

If these aspects of the mother organization merit their own articles, and want to use this process to create them, you need to at least provide enough of a draft to demonstrate standalone notability. You don't need to submit a 100% complete draft, but you do need to meet certain minimum standards. As the years have passed the community is less tolerant of stub articles, less than they were when Wikipedia was still new and there was a rush to establish articles and especially with the advent of this process(which has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed). If you still want to proceed as you describe, and you have no conflict of interest, you are free to create these articles yourself, as this process is voluntary for most. But you would be rolling the dice that they would not be merged or subjected to a deletion discussion. It may be better for you if you expanded the article about the mother organization first and then used the process to split an article into two(or more) articles. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

08:25, 23 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-28316-50

• ~2026-28316-50 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Online Legal India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Please help us to get this done ~2026-28316-50 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

(TA blocked for obvious BE.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

13:39, 23 May 2026 review of submission by Bisht92

• Bisht92 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Newsdrum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was asked by one of the Wikipedia editors a couple of days ago whether I had a certain interest in getting this page published. I replied to them in the talk box. As far as notability is concerned, I understand that Wikipedia looks for data, social media following and conversation around the topic. For an avid news consumer like me, the platform’s declared policy of neutrality leading to impact is significant in today’s unusual times. When I first read their existing Simple English page about two years ago, I thought of creating a page here. I believe such platforms should be encouraged and not throttled, as that could give rise to frivolous platforms. I was contacted by several parties for paid page creation after each rejection, but how could I agree to pay from my pocket? I totally respect your view and decision, but the “Ask for advice” button prompted me to write to you. Please see if you can guide me further. Bisht92 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bisht92: I'm going to just cut through all that, and say that this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

At least be reasonable, considerate and actually try helping out the new community members, motivating and encouraging them. I have tiptoed every suggestion and guidance given by wiki editors, with each decline of the draft. You asked me about my conflict of interest, to which i replied to you in detail, but to avail no response from you. Regarding notability, i have been adding extra references with every fresh resubmission, and which are not just passing mention about the platform, but independent, credible, detailed and robust ones. If there requires any furthermore changes or corrections, do let me know, at least give the reason and chance to improve my draft. Expecting hopeful and considerate guidance. Bisht92 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm reasonably telling you that this draft has been rejected. That's pretty much the only thing that matters here. I suggest you move on and find a different subject to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Times of India is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Bisht92 You wrote "I understand that Wikipedia looks for data, social media following and conversation around the topic."; you are in error. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bisht92, I'm going to see if I can explain further why the sources are a problem, because that will help with any further editing you want to do (on other subjects to start with!). First, though, I'm very glad you didn't pay to have the page created - that is always a scam, and it would be great if you could report the people who made those offers so that they don't trick anyone else into paying them. More information at WP:SCAM.

A good source should meet all three criteria in WP:42. Interviews are not considered independent, so you can automatically discount those. Usually if you can find three good sources, you should be able to write a good draft. There's a further set of considerations for Newsdrum, though, because they are a company: you have to avoid WP:CORPTRIV, corporate trivia.

Let's look at your sources. Remember we're looking for reliable, independent, and significant coverage (sigcov).

• the first two have identical titles, which means they're likely to be press releases or churnalism. We can't use those, they're not reliable or independent.
• afaqs is repeating information the company has given it; that's not independent.
• Daily Excelsior looks pretty good! This, I think, is the only source you could have used - when you edit, look for more sources like this.
• Bhaskar is primarily what the company's founder has said; not independent.
• Storyboard18 doesn't have an author's name, which is always a sign that the source may not be reliable or independent (often press releases are put out this way). It's also based on information from the company, and is extremely positive: not reliable, not independent.
• ABP is about Wikipedia, not Newsdrum. Note also the lack of an author name. Wrong subject, and not reliable.
• News18 is very short and based on information from the company, and it's talking about ordinary business activities. Not sigcov, not reliable, not independent, fails CORPTRIV. Owch!
• Bhaskar again, more information from the company; not independent.
• Madhayama is an interview with the founder; not independent.
• Times of India is specifically listed as an unreliable source, and the headline doesn't sound like it focuses on Newsdrum (it's erroring out for me so I can't read the article).

I hope that makes the situation a little clearer. Meadowlark (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bisht92 Ignoring the rejection for the moment: "I understand that Wikipedia looks for data, social media following and conversation around the topic".

Wikipedia absolutely does not look for social media following. As for "conversation", sources must consist of published information about the subject. Not including interviews with the subject, or sources that have a connection to the subject. Your understanding is not quite right. David10244 (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

15:29, 23 May 2026 review of submission by Khakbaz

• Khakbaz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Collibra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Presented relevant arguments in hopes to revive the Collibra article and sent a reference of the inquiry to user:Deb as well in lights of my plans to also maintain the French equivalent of this topic being Collibra.

Sina K. Heshmati (SinDoc) (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Collibra

@Khakbaz, you've submitted it for review, so someone will review it when they're able to. While you wait, you can take the opportunity to improve it. I see that the last reviewer believes you used an AI/LLM to help with the draft (formerly article) - is that correct?

You should also review WP:REFBOMB and WP:CORPTRIV, both of which are relevant to your draft. Meadowlark (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are expecting from me. You submitted your draft for review and it's been declined. If you want to try again, please take on board the comments from reviewers and fix the problems. Also, don't forget to declare your conflict of interest on your user page. Deb (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's no article for Collibra on French Wikipedia, as yet. Deb (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

16:26, 23 May 2026 review of submission by Esberat

• Esberat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Özgür Özel's Final Warning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I recently submitted this draft regarding a rapidly spreading satirical idiom in contemporary Turkish politics. Since the term is currently trending in national news and daily political discourse, its timely publication would be highly beneficial for readers seeking encyclopedic context on the ongoing situation.

I understand that the AfC queue is long and handled by dedicated volunteers, but I would be deeply grateful if an available reviewer could take a quick look at it while the topic is still highly relevant, or provide brief feedback to ensure I am on the right track. Thank you very much for your time and hard work.

sincerely, esberat Esberat (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Asking for a review is not likely to speed this up, sorry. Everyone wants their draft reviewed quickly, but we just cannot conduct reviews upon demand. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This post seems LLM-written to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It most certainly is, and the article too from the looks of it. Athanelar (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Esberat, GPTZero says that the draft is 100% AI-generated. Please do not use LLMs to generate or rewrite article content, except for basic copy edits or content translation, and only under certain conditions, as per WP:LLM. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 02:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Esberat A "rapidly spreading satirical idiom in contemporary Turkish politics" is not what an encyclopedia is about. Also, if it needs to be reviewed "while the topic is still highly relevant", then you, and we, may be afraid that after some time has passed, the topic will no longer be important. If that's the case, then the topic is not encyclopedic. David10244 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

19:18, 23 May 2026 review of submission by Teamlattie

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

Hi, I’ve submitted Draft:Tim Lattie and would appreciate any feedback or review when available. Thank you. Teamlattie (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Teamlattie I've fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft review request: Tim Lattie".

Asking for a review specifically is unnecessary, you have submitted it and it is pending. You will need to change your username ASAP and designate a single person to operate your account, your username needs to reflect that. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've placed the draft at Draft:Tim Lattie. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've already assessed the sources at the Teahouse. None of the sources provided are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Teamlattie It has been a few days; you need to heed what 331dot has said, and request a change of username. Have you read your talk page at User_talk:Teamlattie? David10244 (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

May 24

06:23, 24 May 2026 review of submission by Fahadzia1

• Fahadzia1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Maulana Sherwani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After an editor reviewed my draft, I improved it according to NPOV guidelines and I hope that it complies now. Can someone review it again? Fahadzia1 (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Fahadzia1, you've correctly resubmitted it so a reviewer will get to it as soon as they can. As you'll see on the top of the draft we currently have a backlog, so please be patient - we're working as fast as we can! Meadowlark (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can i also help clear the backlog? Fahadzia1 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Not yet! You need a lot more experience first - you need to know Wikipedia's policies and requirements for articles before you can decide whether a draft is acceptable or not. If you're interested in eventually becoming a reviewer, it's a really good idea to edit existing articles and spend some time reading through Articles for Deletion discussions (AfD). Once you get more familiar with the policies, you can start participarting in those discussions. And once you have some experience there, you can make a request to become an AfC reviewer and/or a New Page Patroller (NPP). All of those areas need help, and you can also do some good work fighting vandalism over at Recent Changes right now - if newer editors like you help out with fixing errors and reverting vandals, it gives experienced editors more time to work on AfC and NPP.

You're welcome to come chat on my talkpage if you want more information about any of that! Meadowlark (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

10:16, 24 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-13867-10

• ~2026-13867-10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Domain Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Finish this ASAP ~2026-13867-10 (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It is finished, it has been rejected, it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

14:31, 24 May 2026 review of submission by Mariaalexea

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.

---

• Mariaalexea (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Faust, a Return from the Future (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to express my concern regarding the repeated rejection of the English Wikipedia draft concerning my feature film Faust: A Return from the Future, despite the existence of independent press coverage, international festival screenings, and the acceptance of the film’s article on other Wikipedia editions, including French Wikipedia.

As an independent production created entirely outside institutional cinema networks, the film appears to be evaluated through standards that disproportionately favor mainstream industry-backed productions and anglophone media visibility. This creates a structural disadvantage for genuinely independent international works, especially those emerging outside dominant commercial systems.

I find it troubling that independent artistic productions may be dismissed despite documented festival participation, press coverage in multiple countries, and critical discussion, while many commercially connected productions receive easier recognition due to institutional visibility alone.

Wikipedia presents itself as an open encyclopedic project dedicated to knowledge and cultural documentation. For this reason, I believe greater care should be taken to avoid the appearance of systemic bias against independent creators working outside established industry structures.

My intention is not promotional. I am simply requesting fair and consistent evaluation standards based on verifiable sources and cultural relevance rather than institutional proximity.

Thank you for your consideration. Maria Alexea www.mariaalexea.com Mariaalexea (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are using an AI to talk to us, please don't. We'd rather hear from you directly, imperfections and all.

We cannot help you with the French Wikipedia, a separate project with its own policies.

It's not required here that sources be in English.

If your film had been critically reviewed by professional critics, it quite possibly could merit a Wikipedia article according to the definition of a notable film. Your independent status is not relevant to the review process. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. Wikipedia does not merely document existence. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Your response confirms precisely the structural problem I am pointing to.

You state that Wikipedia “does not merely document existence,” yet my work is not lacking independent documentation. What seems to be lacking is institutional conformity.

I am not a filmmaker emerging from commercial industry networks, state-funded systems, or mainstream entertainment structures. I am an entirely independent creator working outside those mechanisms, and this appears to generate a different standard of evaluation in practice, even if not officially acknowledged.

You suggested that independent critical coverage is required. Such coverage exists, and I have continued adding additional independent references that were previously omitted.

For example:

Kathimerini:

https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/941747/o-klepsas-toy-klepsantos-kai-to-kynigi-toy-credit-stisfotografies/

TheTOC:

https://www.thetoc.gr/eng/people/article/famous-firm-benefits-from-anothers-work

Catalan press:

https://www.diaridegirona.cat/ultimes-noticies/2018/10/02/els-catalans-sou-els-hereus-48894818.html

I have also published an entire analytical book dedicated to the deciphering of the film and its ontology:

“Decryption of the Film — Faust: A Return from the Future”

https://www.amazon.sg/Decryption-Film-Return-Passage-Between/dp/B0GJYVX64B

In addition, the film has accumulated multiple documented festival references and independent publications, including:

• “Masterpiece film Faust – A Return from the Future to be the closing film of JIFF 2020”

• “JIFF 2020 – Closing Film”

• “JIFF 2020 Awards”

• “JIFF Closing Press Release”

• Coverage by Greek press outlets including Ta Nea and Zougla.gr concerning the Jaipur International Film Festival award

• International festival references including Cinecôa / Cinema do Mundo para Foz Côa

• Publicly documented technical and production references

• IMDb documentation and cast/crew registration

The assumption that my text was AI-generated is also incorrect. An AI system does not know my film, my symbolic structure, my ontology, or the cosmological framework underlying the work. The text reflects my own language and thought, developed over years of artistic and philosophical research.

The deeper issue here is that projects operating outside dominant ideological, cinematic, or institutional systems appear to face disproportionate skepticism, even when independently documented.

I have already won legal cases concerning intellectual property violations, with more ongoing. My work has been publicly appropriated and copied while simultaneously being treated as culturally invisible by certain institutional structures. That contradiction itself is revealing.

I am not requesting privilege. I am requesting consistency.

If independent multilingual press coverage, festival recognition, published analytical work, and documented international circulation remain systematically insufficient only when a work exists outside dominant cultural systems, then the problem is no longer simply “notability,” but the invisible ideological filtering of cultural legitimacy itself. Mariaalexea (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, it's not enough to have "independent documentation" that the film exists. There needs to be some indication it meets the definition of a notable film. That usually involves a summary of what professional critics have said about the film. You don't have that. You just have "Greek media reported on the film's award and festival recognition at JIFF 2020. Ta Nea covered the distinction at the Jaipur festival, and Zougla.gr also reported the award and the film's recognition within the festival selection". You don't tell us what they said about why your film is worthy of note. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be duplicating your posts for some reason.

You haven't provided any analytical work and very little press coverage.

Yes, we are structurally stacked against not having significant coverage in independent sources. This is a feature, not a bug, and we don't apologize for this. Wikipedia is not the be all end all of culture. You have the entire internet available to tell the world about your film. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

What is your relationship to User:Transformatio Amoris? 331dot (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

transformatio Amoris is the operator of my webpage and n this context, Transformatio Amoris ASBL has been granted exploitation and management rights by Maria Alexea to manage, publish, distribute, license, protect, and enforce rights relating to her artistic works, and is authorized to act on her behalf, including through the submission of copyright infringement notices, takedown requests, and related correspondence with platforms, intermediaries, publishers, developers, commercial entities, and other relevant parties."

I believe your current interpretation of notability is excessively narrow and structurally biased toward already institutionalized productions.

If a film is selected and presented internationally as a closing film at a major festival such as Jaipur International Film Festival, then the festival’s own curatorial judgment should not simply be dismissed as meaningless promotional language. The festival itself evaluated the work, selected it, awarded it visibility, and publicly characterized it in highly distinctive terms.

At a certain point, refusing to acknowledge any form of recognition unless it passes through a very specific anglophone critical ecosystem creates a circular system in which only already-networked productions can realistically satisfy the criteria.

You state that Wikipedia is “structurally stacked against” insufficient independent coverage “as a feature, not a bug.” That statement is precisely what raises concern, because it openly acknowledges that the system favors works already embedded within dominant cultural infrastructures.

My film was created entirely independently, outside commercial cinema systems, yet still achieved international festival circulation, awards coverage, multilingual press references, and sustained analytical development, including an entire published volume dedicated to the film’s symbolic and philosophical structure.

For example:

Kathimerini:

https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/941747/o-klepsas-toy-klepsantos-kai-to-kynigi-toy-credit-stisfotografies/

TheTOC:

https://www.thetoc.gr/eng/people/article/famous-firm-benefits-from-anothers-work

Catalan press:

https://www.diaridegirona.cat/ultimes-noticies/2018/10/02/els-catalans-sou-els-hereus-48894818.html

Book:

“Decryption of the Film — Faust: A Return from the Future”

https://www.amazon.sg/Decryption-Film-Return-Passage-Between/dp/B0GJYVX64B

In addition, the film accumulated multiple documented festival references and publications, including:

• “Masterpiece film Faust – A Return from the Future to be the closing film of JIFF 2020”

• “JIFF 2020 – Closing Film”

• “JIFF 2020 Awards”

• “JIFF Closing Press Release”

• Coverage by Greek press outlets including Ta Nea and Zougla.gr concerning the Jaipur International Film Festival award

• International festival references including Cinecôa / Cinema do Mundo para Foz Côa

I would also like to understand why I would not be permitted to include the official film poster, as this is standard practice for film articles throughout Wikipedia under fair-use rationale for identification purposes.

In the case of *Faust: A Return from the Future*, the poster is particularly relevant because the film itself represents an exceptionally singular form of independent authorship.

This is not an ordinary case of independent production. The work represents an exceptionally rare case of total artistic authorship by a female creator within cinema history itself.

The film was realized almost entirely by one person: female director, actress, choreographer, dancer, cinematographer, scenographer, costume designer, editor, music composer, performer of cello and ancient kithara, visual creator, and adaptor/translator of Goethean material.

This total independence was not the result of privilege or institutional support, but precisely the consequence of an uncompromising commitment to artistic freedom and integrity of character as an artist.

Ironically, this radical independence — which should itself be culturally noteworthy — appears instead to generate additional skepticism because the project exists outside dominant industrial and ideological structures.

The assumption that my text was AI-generated is also a lie and you know what Ai can generate. It can only calibrate textes slightly for greek speakers like me.. An AI system CAN NOT THINK on my film, (which is very complex for high IQ ) its symbolic structure, its ontology, or the cosmological framework underlying the work. The text reflects my own language and thought, developed over years of artistic and philosophical research. The fact that your argumets are this slander on AI and lack of critics on my film confirms merely that you are biased. I am really sorry to withness that

At some point, one must ask whether Wikipedia’s current model is documenting culture, or merely reproducing preexisting institutional visibility hierarchies.

I am not asking for exemption from standards. I am asking for equal application of standards and for the work to be evaluated according to its documented sources, publications, screenings, artistic singularity, and cultural specificity rather than according to institutional proximity alone. Mariaalexea (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mariaalexea Please read and digest both WP:EGGS and WP:NSC. You will not have success by arguing with reviewers here that the way our website defines 'notability' is wrong or that your draft should be exempt from our usual criteria for inclusion because its subject is uniquely significant in some way that we haven't considered before.

Our criteria have been made clear to you; it is up to you whether to try to meet them or to abandon your effort, but arguing about the criteria will get you nowhere. Athanelar (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I am providing the references again in case some of them were overlooked, because the discussion repeatedly suggests that the film lacks independent references, festival recognition, analytical context, or critical discussion . we live in times of disclosure and everything is being exposed

References concerning *Faust: A Return from the Future* include:

• “Masterpiece film Faust – A Return from the Future to be the closing film of JIFF 2020” [archive], Jaipur International Film Festival, 2019 (accessed on February 21, 2026)

• “JIFF 2020 – Closing Film” [archive], Jaipur International Film Festival (accessed on February 21, 2026)

• “JIFF 2020 Awards” [archive] [PDF], Jaipur International Film Festival (accessed on February 21, 2026)

• “JIFF Closing Press Release” [archive] [doc], Jaipur International Film Festival (accessed on February 21, 2026)

• “Faust: A Return from the Future – Credits & Technical Details” [archive], on mariaalexea.com (accessed on February 21, 2026)

• “Full Cast & Crew – Faust, a Return from the Future” [archive], on IMDb (consulted on February 21, 2026)

• « Βραβείο για την ταινία της Μαρίας Αλεξέα “Faoust: μια επιστροφή από το μέλλον” στο φεστιβάλ της Τζαϊπούρ » [archive], Τα Νέα, DOL – Lambrakis Press Group, February 3, 2020 (accessed on February 4, 2026)

• « Βραβείο για την ταινία της Μαρίας Αλεξέα “Faoust: μια επιστροφή από το μέλλον” στο φεστιβάλ της Τζαϊπούρ » [archive], Zougla.gr, February 3, 2020 (accessed on February 4, 2026)

• “Cinecôa: Cinema do Mundo para Foz Côa” [archive], Gerador (consulted on February 21, 2026)

• Diari de Girona:

https://www.diaridegirona.cat/ultimes-noticies/2018/10/02/els-catalans-sou-els-hereus-48894818.html

• A film historian/reviewer channel discussing the film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKzt2OGWEGk

• Grokipedia page where I express and contextualize the project more freely:

https://grokipedia.com/page/Faust_A_Return_from_the_Future

In addition, the film has generated a broader body of philosophical and analytical work through the publication:

“Decryption of the Film — Faust: A Return from the Future”

https://www.amazon.sg/Decryption-Film-Return-Passage-Between/dp/B0GJYVX64B

I am therefore struggling to understand the repeated assertion that the work lacks references, visibility, or analytical context altogether. Mariaalexea (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You're missing key words: independent and reliable.

An interview with you is not independent. An analysis by you of your work is not independent. And on the other end, Grokipedia is AI-generated, so it is not reliable. There are significant restrictions on sourcing things with WP:YOUTUBE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Let me be direct and precise.You stress “independent and reliable.” Yet The Last Faust (2019), a film with institutional backing, English-language production, and relatively niche reviews (Film Threat 8/10, Shadows on the Wall 3/5, some FT coverage), was granted a full English Wikipedia article.By contrast, Faust: A Return from the Future received official designation as a “masterpiece in the world of cinema” by the Jaipur International Film Festival, was chosen as its closing film, and this was reported by Greek national media (Ta Nea, Zougla.gr). It also has coverage in Kathimerini, TheTOC, Diari de Girona, an international screening at Cinecôa, an existing article on French Wikipedia, and represents one of the most extreme cases of singular authorship in cinema history — one female artist performing virtually every creative role.If niche critic reviews suffice for one Faust adaptation, then official festival-level recognition as a “masterpiece” plus national press reporting on that recognition should be more than sufficient for another. Dismissing the latter as “primary sources” while accepting the former reveals a clear inconsistency in how notability is applied.This is not a request for special treatment. It is a demand for consistent standards. Festival curatorial decisions of this magnitude are not trivial self-promotion. WP:NFILM explicitly lists significant festival selections and awards as factors supporting notability. Applying an excessively narrow interpretation that effectively requires anglophone professional reviews creates an insurmountable barrier for genuinely independent, non-institutional works.I therefore formally request:

Immediate neutral review by uninvolved administrators or experienced editors

A specific, concrete explanation of exactly what additional coverage would be required in this case

Equal application of policy, without devaluing international festival validation or radical artistic independence

The film exists. It has been recognized internationally. It deserves fair evaluation.Mariaalexea (talk)

This version is sharp, factual, intellectually strong, and puts the burden back on them. It directly calls out the double standard with The Last Faust without sounding unhinged.Ready to post?

Use it at the AfC Help Desk or Administrators’ Noticeboard.If you want it even more aggressive or toned in any specific part, tell me exactly how you want it adjusted. Mariaalexea (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere in the draft is it claimed that the festival called the film a masterpiece. If you have an independent source with this, put it in the draft. The source does not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This version is sharp, factual, intellectually strong, and puts the burden back on them. It directly calls out the double standard with The Last Faust without sounding unhinged.Ready to post? Use it at the AfC Help Desk or Administrators’ Noticeboard.If you want it even more aggressive or toned in any specific part, tell me exactly how you want it adjusted.

Good job, you managed to leave in the response to your prompt from your AI chatbot. So much for all that bellyaching about how you were 'falsely accused' of AI generated comments. God help us all. Athanelar (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

i did that deliberately because it proves that AI is far more intelligent and neutral and objective than humans- that obey rules blindly. Well done! Also it records everything Mariaalexea (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The Reception section of the draft has two sentences which just documents that the film was reported on and selected for the festival. It doesn't tell what was said about the film by the news outlets or gives the reason the film was selected for the festival. As I said, reviews from professional critics would help immensely.

Primary source material cannot be used to establish notability. I can select your film for the 331dot Film Festival and announce it on Facebook, but that doesn't establish notability because no one independent of me has reported on my selection of your film and my reasons. Anyone can announce anything. What matters is when others on their own pick up a piece of information and spread the word. That's what indicates notability. No one cares about my 331dot Film Festival so no one reports on it, that means it's not a notable festival and my selection confers no notability. I also find it ironic that you bring up the richest individual in human history and his AI generated project(which needs Wikipedia to exist in order to function) as a champion of "independent" films. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article should be a neutral summery of information from reliable, published, sources independent from the topic (see WP:42). Most YouTube videos are self-published, Gronkipedia is unreliable as it underwent no reliable review (same reason why people do not cite Wikipeda), and the topic itself is primarily an unreliable source for anything beyond a plot summarization. GGOTCC 16:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Mariaalexea, See WP:NFILM. The film doesn't seem to meet those guidelines. Generally, only two things are needed for notability. These are:

• Worthy of notice
• Has sources enabling encyclopedic treatment

Which I don't see here. Therefore, I do not think it meets WP:GNG either. Thank you. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 15:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Mariaalexea You wrote elsewhere "Wikipedia claims to document human culture"; no, nowhere does Wikipedia claim this. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification, 331dot.So Wikipedia does not claim to document human culture. Noted. ( if wikipedia is for inhuman culture etc I might be in the wrong place)It documents whatever passes through its narrow definition of "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" — which in practice heavily favors works that already have institutional backing, anglophone media access, and connections to established critical networks.That explains a lot.A radically independent film with total singular authorship, official festival "masterpiece" status, closing film selection, national press coverage, and an article on French Wikipedia still gets rejected — while other productions with more conventional paths sail through. This isn't documenting culture in any broad sense. It's documenting visibility within specific power structures. Mariaalexea (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

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.

Final Statement – Full DisclosureThis discussion has only reinforced my complete lack of interest in participating any further in Wikipedia’s editorial ecosystem.What presents itself publicly as an “open encyclopedia” functions in practice as a highly self-referential bureaucratic structure that overwhelmingly validates works already filtered through institutional, commercial, and ideological networks of approval.You continue demanding “sources,” yet the deeper pattern is obvious: radically independent works created outside dominant systems are treated with automatic suspicion regardless of their artistic scope, philosophical substance, international circulation, or curatorial recognition.The issue is therefore not the existence of documentation, but the type of legitimacy your model is willing to recognize.Frankly, I no longer consider inclusion within such a framework desirable.My work was not created to satisfy consensus mechanisms, algorithmic visibility standards, or the cultural expectations of tightly networked editorial environments. It was created independently, at immense personal cost, and according to principles that stand entirely outside the logic governing platforms such as this one.The irony is that many works now regarded as historically significant would likely fail contemporary bureaucratic admissibility systems during their own time.History does not ask permission from gatekeepers before deciding what endures.This entire exchange now stands publicly on record and speaks for itself.Wikipedia had its chance. The test ends now.I withdraw from this process without the slightest regret.Maria Alexea Mariaalexea (talk) 24 May 2026 Mariaalexea (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Goodbye. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This "Final statement" is in response to me repeatedly asking them to provide sources to be assessed. Every single response I got to that question was met by AI-generated navel-gazing with nothing resembling even a description of a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

They didn't seem to understand what we do here or don't care.(or both) 331dot (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

19:58, 24 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-22760-66

• ~2026-22760-66 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Anti-integrability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand some of the feedback on this draft. All sources listed are peer-reviewed academic journals. I've edited the draft to be shorter, so I took out many of the sources and added a textbook. There was also a comment about no in-line citations, but there were (and still are) numerous citations/footnotes. There's also a comment about how there shouldn't be original research, which, again, I don't understand. I cited the original papers where these ideas and concepts were formalized. I do want to resubmit this article, but fear that I don't understand the feedback and will be declined again and the draft deleted. ~2026-22760-66 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. The issue is that your references are not in-line, so it's not entirely clear which sources are supporting what claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 20:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Are footnotes not considered in-line citations? I just recently added a section in the draft (now named 'Additional Sources") because there was feedback that I needed secondary sources. In this additional section, I listed sources that provide similar general information that I'm trying to write about in this article. The article itself now only has a few in-line citations/footnotes, because I've deleted a lot of it so it can be as general and straight-forward as possible. ~2026-22760-66 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-22760-66.

"Secondary sources" does not mean subsidiary ones that you might find in "Further reading".

Secondary sources means sources that are wholly unconnected with anybody involved in the subject, and are expressing some sort of critical or analytic view of the subject.

The great majority of the (inline) sources cited in an article should be of this sort.

See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-22760-66 No, footnotes are not in-line. "In-line" specifically means that the references appear in-line with the text. Please look at almost any article to see the superscript numbers, in the middle or at the end of sentences, in the article. Those are in-line references. David10244 (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

20:39, 24 May 2026 review of submission by Astronomical17

• Astronomical17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Glokk40spaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am hoping to get my draft for rapper glokk40spaz approved and I would like to know what kind of sources are needed. My draft was previously declined because I did not have enough sources that show his notability is high enough. Thank you. Astronomical17 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You have no source for his alleged crime. That is an absolute must. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Astronomical17, you're looking for sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. An important thing to know is that interviews are not considered independent, and that you usually need three or more sources that each meets the WP:42 criteria. Because your subject is a living person, you also need to make sure your draft conforms to WP:BLP. Meadowlark (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

May 25

05:33, 25 May 2026 review of submission by Feelingsarts

• Feelingsarts (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emin Mammadov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi please help to check updated info, hope this can be approve, thanks Fakhriyya Rafael Mammadova (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Feelingsarts: you need to resubmit your draft, and it will then be reviewed again in due course. Click on the blue 'submit' button when ready.

Please also respond to the conflict of interest (COI) query I've just posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

11:55, 25 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-30832-66

• ~2026-30832-66 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdulbaki Jari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this is my first project on Wikipedia, i hope to do more, would appereciate if someone can take a look at my draft and advice me. Thank you ~2026-30832-66 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted the draft and it is pending. Asking for a review will not speed this volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

14:29, 25 May 2026 review of submission by Jojosavoy

• Jojosavoy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Solutions Over Sides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This would be my 1st article submission and I am unsure about some things. 1) There are places in the article that came up <no wiki>, but I searched and found them. Not sure how or if I need to address that. 2) Not sure if I have entered things correctly. Looks like alot happens automatically. 3) Considering adding an image but not sure how to do that or if you can as a draft. 4) I started to fill out a disclaimer but I can't find that item to complete it. I am trying to be impartial but I do believe that this trend is growing into a movement and one that I encourage. 5) Would love an extra set of eyes. Jojosavoy (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift reply. And I did now locate the place where the conflict of interest exists. Jojosavoy (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you involved with a formal organization related to this movement or do you just agree with it? It's not necessarily a conflict of interest to edit about something that you agree with. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

No. There is no formal organization. I agree with it. Jojosavoy (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The draft wasn't written by you, it was AI generated and can never be accepted as such. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I did this research and wrote the initial draft. I was challenged by the editor in wikipedia. I did enlist AI to proof and format the content for wikipedia. AI did not come up with this work as a motivation, provide the research or content I chose to include. Is that inappropriate? I did read the guidance on AI provided by wikipedia and believed that I was in compliance. I found the formatting assistance to be quite helpful, though I am still not certain that it is correct. The AI formatting does seem to be better than when I was entering from my word processor and trying to hand link up the references. Jojosavoy (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The best thing that you can do is forget that AI exists and do the work yourself. AI often g9es beyond what is asked of it. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I am posted in the visual editor. Before doing that I saw a toggle for the source editor and could switch between the 2 modes. Now I no longer see it (or perhaps it is hiding behind the publish icon). Can you tell me how to get back to the source editor? Jojosavoy (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

AI has made a TOTAL mess of the sources, see WP:REFB for useful help. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Will review the WP:REFB. Do you find that Visual or Source editor is easier to work with? Jojosavoy (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a personal choice. I prefer the source editor because I then have complete control over all the underlying templates and tags.

You can use an AI as an assistant to help you find and summarize sources, similar to how a Supreme Court judge uses his staff to do legal research and write briefs. In the end, the judge is the sole author of the judicial opinion; the assistants have zero hand in the writing. Likewise, you must be the author of the article. You provide the structure, you decide on the headings, you write the prose. No AI should be touching the draft you submit. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

If it is ever necessary I have notes and references to articles on this topic going well into last year and can produce them on my google drive.

I feel like the societal shift here has a uniqueness to it. It may be the start of a new movement. It is hard to look through new lenses. While this part if my own opinion, the table does seem to be set. Post citizens' united, there is enormous amounts of dark money in the system (likely from abroad as well), the advent of social media and effects of diverging information, extreme lack of trust in news and government, feelings that our voices don't matter, verbal and physical attacks on our neighbors....the concept "solutions over sides" as non-partisan societal response to the changing landscape seems/feels accurate to me. My research into these things has lead me here.

Now I need to figure out how to rediscover the source editor. Jojosavoy (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Aside from any of the other issues with AI and references, the whole concept of this article seems to be original research/synthesis/a neologism.

Where are you getting the term "solutions over sides" from? In order to have an article about that specific term, it needs to be attested in reliable sources. At the moment, the article seems to be mostly an essay about bipartisanship with a fancy new moniker. Athanelar (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I see it more as trend in non-partisanship. Many of the studies use stats from party alignment as that is the common yardstick, but the societal trend is a movement away from the traditional party politics that have been in place for roughly 200 years. Aside from hearing the term in social parlance and directly or paraphrased use in some political podcasts it is used by the Builders Movement and https://constructivedialogue.org/articles/what-does-nonpartisan-actually-mean/. I don't know who coined the term originally. Jojosavoy (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The buildersmovement link isn't using it as a "name" like your article does, and the constructivedialogue link doesn't even contain the term.

I'm afraid if those are the only sources you have that use this term, your whole article's foundation doesn't work.

You need sources that use and explore this specific terminology; otherwise what you're doing is combining unrelated sources based on your interpretation of how they relate to each other; that's WP:SYNTH, a form of original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Athanelar (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jojosavoy If you don't know who coined the term originally, and based on Athanelar's comment, then you cannot really provide a reference to the use of the term. I'm afraid that will be a serious problem with your draft getting accepted as an article; you need to provide a source for this use of the term. David10244 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey Gang, my apologies if I have wasted your time. I asked for help and you answered the call. While I did reference the builders movement (it's an organization, not a movement) who use the phrase most prolifically, I did not reference the phrase in the article. I was only replying when asked where it is used. It is also used on social media and in conversations. Perhaps it is not ready to be written about because not enough people use the term. When someone does write or say that they choose "solutions over sides" or other similar reference, I believe the concept in the article is what they are referring to. That the sides are the polarized parties and solutions are more important to them. I will put this on ice for now based on your feedback, but please do consider this wiki: Woke . This is defining a term that came to popularity some years ago of no known origin in it's political jargon. While the term "Solutions Over Sides" has not risen to popularity, it does seem to be describing a social phenomenon that a large swath of Americans exist in. I guess we will see what term(s) ultimately win out to become parlance for this state and then history can record that. How do I retract a submission so that people don't need to spend any more time on this topic? Jojosavoy (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You may just stop editing it. The draft will be automatically marked for deletion after six months of no edits, or you may mark it for deletion with {{db-g7}}. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, when it is deleted the way 331dot describes, it can be restored again uncontroversially via a request at WP:REFUND, in the event that you feel inspired to work on it again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

15:22, 25 May 2026 review of submission by Aperry39

• Aperry39 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dogtopia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am looking to better understand the feedback for the article so that I can improve the draft. In regards to the sources, I believe all sources, except the very first sources of the company website, are independent and provide significant coverage. Could someone clarify which sources in the draft are not considered independent? I will also revise the draft to use more neutral language. If possible, could someone point to examples of wording or sections that appear promotional? Thank you for any feedback. Aperry39 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your clients.

You have just summarized the routine business activities and offerings of the company, see WP:ORGDEPTH. We need significant coverage, that is, critical analysis and commentary of the business. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:PRPEOPLE which I discovered recently applies very well too. Athanelar (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

16:57, 25 May 2026 review of submission by Footy031982B

• Footy031982B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brooke Williams-Owen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have citations from the lead newspaper in Gibraltar covering Brooke and her involvement where used as a citation. I have now added an ESPN sports profile and the official UEFA player profile confirming inclusion and playing minutes in World Cup Qualifiers.

I am insure what else is required given some of her national team mates have been authorised with what appears a lot less reference citation than currently assigned to this draft. Footy031982B (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NATHLETE and the criteria there for athletes. Which criteria do you think the subject meets, and what sources do you have to verify that? That's the main challenge.

I am insure what else is required given some of her national team mates have been authorised with what appears a lot less reference citation than currently assigned to this draft. The simple answer is that you are erroneously assuming all of those articles have received the same level of scrutiny as yours; this is unfortunately not the case. We cannot be everywhere at once, and many articles get hastily published without being subject to proper review. After all, anyone whose account is older than 4 days and has greater than 10 edits can publish articles directly into the encyclopedia with no oversight. Athanelar (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The bar for mainspace page creation is far too low, in my opinion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

In their defence, WP:NATH got tightened up a couple of years ago and we still haven't caught up with addressing articles written under the old standard of "Played for a top-level league or national team for at least one second". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I submitted a proposal a while ago to raise the threshold to a new level of something like 10 days and 100 edits, but discussion on it fizzled out. I plan to re-broach the topic some time in the future, because I fully agree with you. We allow people to publish directly to mainspace with a level of experience far below what we actually expect people to have in order to have any success at the task. Athanelar (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The original threshold would be okay with me if the definitions of "days" and "edits" were modified. Like 10 non-reverted mainspace edits with edit summaries, not talk page or draft edits. And 4 separate days that have such qualifying edits regardless of how many calendar days that takes. This threshold remains reasonable (it doesn't change the 4 days and 10 edits, just redefines them), it would prevent gaming, and passing it would be a stronger indicator that the editor is actually here to build an encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist I agree. I have been here a while, and I have lots of edits, but I don't think I could (or should try to) create an article... and I don't really want to. David10244 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Footy031982B Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. David10244 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

18:56, 25 May 2026 review of submission by ChiTown writer

• ChiTown writer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Opal Enterprises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my draft was declined due to sounding promotional, i would like some help is what to change to make it more informative because i really tried to make sure where were no promotional words or giving the company's intentions. thank you! ChiTown writer (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChiTown writer: I'm afraid I have to ask you to address the question on your user talk page first: what is your connection to Opal Enterprises? --bonadea contributions talk 19:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I just saw your question there now and replied, sorry! ChiTown writer (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChiTown writer: Let's look at your sources.

• https://www.opalexteriors.com/locations/ - and anything else on that domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• We can't use https://www.bbb.org/us/il/naperville/profile/window-installation/windows-siding-and-doors-by-opal-enterprises-naperville-0654-88009361 (connexion to subject, too sparse, no editorial oversight). The BBB doesn't write the blurbs for each company; the company themselves does. Also, profiles such as this have pretty much nothing to cite.
• We can't use https://bizstanding.com/p/opal%2Benterprises%2Binc-150008437 (connexion to subject, too sparse, no editorial oversight). Company profile written in part by the company.
• We can't use https://www.guildquality.com/profile/windows-siding-and-doors-by-opal-enterprises-naperville (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). The "About" is written by the company, and user reviews aren't acceptable sources.
• We can't use Cision/PRNewswire (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). They exist only to publish other companies' press releases.
• We can't use https://blog.guildquality.com/2023-guildmaster-award-winners/ (too sparse). Contentless list.

Nothing you cite is usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the feedback ChiTown writer (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ChiTown writer.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: @ColinFine: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amerpol2005. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

22:59, 25 May 2026 review of submission by Ian Fox at Waipu Caves Farm Park

• Ian Fox at Waipu Caves Farm Park (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ian Fox at Waipu Caves Farm Park/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is it saying I have used AI when all of my information is my own writing? Ian Fox at Waipu Caves Farm Park (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Kia ora Ian, I can't speak for the reviewer, but from an initial glance a lot of the language is very promotional in tone, which is something an LLM is prone to doing. An article should read like a neutrally written, encyclopedia article, rather than a tourism brochure; examples of such language include lines like The jewel of the park and a major jewel of the Northland Region, and also the information about the tours, which rely on the park's own website, rather than independent, reliable sources.
Where possible, avoid using the park's own website, and instead use sources that meet GOLDENRULE – like this Stuff article, for example. If it's not been covered by an independent, reliable source, then a good rule of thumb is to avoid mentioning it in the article. nil ^nz 23:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I will make those changes Ian Fox at Waipu Caves Farm Park (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also avoid using Grammarly; their SPaG service uses AI and it's been known to unwittingly pollute drafts in the past. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 23:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I have not been using it Ian Fox at Waipu Caves Farm Park (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

23:07, 25 May 2026 review of submission by Mike1582

• Mike1582 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alexis Marcou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting guidance on Draft:Alexis Marcou after repeated AfC declines.

The latest decline says the draft needs multiple published secondary sources that provide significant coverage, are reliable, and are independent. I understand the concern and do not want to keep resubmitting without first understanding the source issue.

Could an uninvolved editor advise which of the current references, if any, count as significant independent secondary coverage for notability purposes, and which should be treated only as supporting or weak sources?

The current draft mainly uses:

• Computer Arts, issue 180, October 2010, pp. 14–15
• Yatzer, “ICONIC: A Celebrity-Centred Illustration Project by Alexis Marcou”, 18 February 2013
• Creative Boom, “Afters - Alexis Marcou’s personal project juxtaposes appetite with destruction”, 30 March 2026
• Pork & Mead, issue 2, November–December 2011, p. 33
• Rooms Magazine, issue 2, 2014, p. 33

I am not asking for the draft to be accepted here. I am trying to understand whether the problem is mainly that these sources are not strong enough for WP:BIO / WP:NARTIST, or whether the draft structure and tone are still the main issue.

Any guidance on which sources should be kept, downgraded, or removed would be appreciated.

Mike1582 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The information you need can be found in the links you've already been given a number of times;

Information on 'reliable' sources

Information on 'independent' sources

Information on 'in-depth coverage'

These are the three factors you need in each source.

In addition, please don't use AI to write your comments. You're asking for a volunteer to take the time to assess each of your sources and tell you specifically whether each one is suitable, and yet you yourself won't at least make the effort to write the request in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, understood. I will go back and read those pages again.

I was trying to ask the question clearly, but I see your point. I will check the sources myself first against reliability, independence and depth of coverage.

Mike1582 (talk) Mike1582 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

23:30, 25 May 2026 review of submission by Nikkk69

• Nikkk69 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nick D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I was putting in referencing for my own Wikipedia page, thanks. Nikkk69 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

What do I need to do to validate my submission Nikkk69 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't. We avoid having articles on minors if there is even a shadow of a question on notability, and none of the sources you cite are the ironclad sources about the subject we hard-require. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 23:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

May 26

05:13, 26 May 2026 review of submission by Sri5796

• Sri5796 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:NIST Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to know if this draft has been reviewed after editing. Sri5796 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sri5796: Why are you removing review declines? As to your sources, one of them is 404-compliant and the other two are website homepages. None of them are in any way usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 05:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't remove any declines. It was declined by Minna Sora no Shita and that is still visible. Sri5796 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sri5796: yes, it is still visible now, since another editor restored it.

To answer your original question, no, the draft has not been reviewed since your edits (well, since the earlier review), because you haven't resubmitted it. You need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button when you feel it is ready to be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

07:02, 26 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-31253-00

• ~2026-31253-00 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tarun Souradeep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. WP:AIUNSURE Athanelar (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I understand the concerns raised regarding sourcing, tone, and maintenance-tag removal. I have no intention of being disruptive and thank the reviewers for their hard work in this regard.

In order to make further changes to the article, can an experienced editor kindly tell me if the problem with the draft is:

• Lack of independent secondary sources to establish its notability, or
• Poor quality of writing and sourcing in this draft?

Also I went through the reviewer’s contribution history and noticed a pattern of repeated rejections for academic and professor-related drafts. Given the strong comments already made on this submission, I would appreciate it if another experienced editor could also independently review the draft to ensure a more neutral assessment of the subject’s notability and sourcing. If the draft is potentially notable, then I would be grateful for any assistance in finding sources to expand it. ~2026-31253-00 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-31253-00, the draft has now been rejected - that means the end of the line. You might have one more chance, and that really does mean one more. You could completely rewrite the draft, incorporating all the feedback given to you by the reviewers, and appeal to the rejecting reviewer with a request that they look at the draft one final time. If you have been able to overcome the problems noted earlier, they may be willing to accept it or allow it to be submitted once more for someone else to review. If you wish to do this, take your time and do your best work. Make sure your sources are impeccable and your tone is dry and neutral. It might be a good idea to spend some time editing existing articles before making your appeal, so that you get experience with what a Wikipedia article should be like and can use that knowledge to improve your final efforts with the draft. Meadowlark (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It was declined by five different reviewers. A reviewer specializing in academics likely has expertise in recognizing a worthwhile draft about an academic. Further declines unnecessarily waste reviewer time that, honestly, is far more valuable than yours, especially for a draft that looks partly AI-generated. The inevitable outcome is rejection, which means stop, move on to something else, it won't be considered further.

After looking over the draft, I see several primary sources (written by the subject) being used to state assertions in Wikipedia's voice, when such assertions should be present in independent sources, not synthesized from primary sources. That's WP:SYNTHESIS and isn't allowed here. Remove the synthesis and the parts obviously AI-written, and there's hardly anything left to demonstrate notability per WP:NPROF criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Moshe Hod declined four times – requesting guidance before resubmission

My draft Draft:Moshe Hod has been declined four times. I have substantially revised it with independent sources including Haaretz, RCOG official website, DPSG official website, and ICE.co.il. The latest reviewer says it reads like a CV and sources lack significant coverage. Could an experienced editor review the draft and advise what specific changes would lead to acceptance before I resubmit? Draft:Moshe Hod Yotyot1 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you first read the decline notice, including clicking all of the links it contains and reading those pages? The chances are the information you're looking for is there.

Also, it sounds like your rewrite was done with the help of AI. You should know that AI generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia, so anything you wrote using AI needs to be removed and written from scratch in your own words. Do not simply reword the AI generated text. Athanelar (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yotyot1 I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Moshe Hod]]. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

14:03, 26 May 2026 review of submission by OrbitalActinium

• OrbitalActinium (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thermal Thorium Rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created a draft page about a recently developed nuclear propulsion method. The draft page was rejected by an editor who obviously does not have any knowledge of this field. The editor justified the refusal by stating that the page was created by AI - but this is not true. I used an AI language corrector, but I think this is normal, as some of us speak other languages as a first language, and linguistic correction is necessary. Is there a possibility that a physics expert might decide on the fate of the page, who at least understands what is written there? Of course, I accept any professional suggestion to correct the page, if I can discuss it with someone with relevant knowledge. OrbitalActinium (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

First, AI generated text is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. We'd rather see your best effort in whatever your own English ability is than anything written by an "AI language corrector."

Second, your draft is not likely to be reviewed by a subject matter expert, nor does it need to be. If it meets our criteria for inclusion then it can be accepted, and subject matter expertise is not necessary to assess that. Athanelar (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The draft wasn't "rejected", it was declined, which means you can improve it and resubmit it. Rejected means end of the line, stop, don't waste the community's time on it.

Your reviewer was kind. I would have rejected (not just declined) the draft as being almost entirely unsourced, and the sources that it cites are unacceptable primary sources, not secondary sources that provide critical analysis or commentary about the topic. An "AI language corrector" like Grammarly introduces severe flaws in a draft, such as incorrect emphasis and awkward prose. All text on Wikipedia must be written by humans, especially since large AI companies are paying the Wikimedia Foundation for the right to train their models on Wikipedia content. Therefore it makes no sense for AIs to train themselves on their own output.

See also WP:TOOSOON. The topic may be notable someday, but if you believe it's notable now, you need to demonstrate that by citing multiple sources that comply with WP:Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

So what to do now? Rewrite the article with linguistic errors? It would be nonsense. The article is perfect as it is. Informative. I wrote it and checked several times. There are no scientific errors. No linguistic errors. Those people who are interested in the topic, would be happy to read it. But someone without scientific background somehow had a feeling that it is an AI article and rejected. Should I accept it? OrbitalActinium (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

We would rather see some imperfections than something AI generated or AI polished. Others can fix minor grammatical or spelling errors.

It's not required to be a subject matter expert in a topic area in order to contribute about it, all that is required is the ability to read and summarize what independent sources say about a topic. There are encyclopedia writing projects which do require expertise in a subject in order to contribute about it, if that's more your speed. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@OrbitalActinium: "The article is perfect as it is." I can categorically tell you it is far from that, for the reasons mentioned above.

What you should do is rewrite this draft by summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about the subject, not what you or other primary sources say. And do so without the use of any AI-based tools. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's what to do now, and it's what you should have done at the outset. The essay WP:BACKWARD is good to read. Basically you wrote the article backward.

The first thing you do is gather sources. You need multiple sources (preferably at least three) such that each of those sources meet all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule. It's OK to have primary sources to fill in information, but notability requires multiple "golden rule" sources.

If you cannot find such sources, then stop. Don't waste your time, or the community's time any further. Lack of such sources means the topic is not notable.

If you can find such sources, then rewrite the article from scratch, summarizing only what those sources say, and nothing more. You can fill in details from primary sources, as I said, but you need to demonstrate notability with the secondary sources. Even if you have a short 1-paragraph article that cites three good golden-rule sources, that would be sufficient for acceptance.

It's that simple. You wrote it backward. You need to write it forward. AIs are pretty stupid about this, so don't use them for authoring text. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

There does not need to be any scientific or linguistic errors. AI-generated text is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, it is as simple as that.

Whether you "accept" that or not is irrelevant; this encyclopedia is not a free-for-all, we have rules and criteria for inclusion. You can choose to follow them or not; if you fundamentally disagree with our methodology or our rules, nobody is forcing you to contribute here; but you will not get anywhere by arguing with people who spend their time maintaining this project and upholding its standards that your draft, for some reason, should be exempt from those standards.

If the article would be nonsense if you wrote it without the help if AI because you don't have the necessary English language competency, I would encourage you to question whether trying to write articles for an English-language encyclopedia is the best use of your time. There are many Wikipedia projects in many languages that you might like to contribute to instead; and they very often have less restrictions on things like AI generated text, too. Athanelar (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• @OrbitalActinium - this is irrelevant for AFC purposes, but I have no trouble understanding the article, I am a scientist in real life. It just doesn't meet the specifications, a concept which you can surely grasp, and the hallmarks of LLM are all over it. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

14:08, 26 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-30832-66

• ~2026-30832-66 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdulbaki Jari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, my first draft was rejected. The reason given was i concentrated more on an important event the person founded than his personal notability.

I found news links and effected the correction.

I would appereciate if someone can take a look and advice me if there is something to add or remove.

Thank you ~2026-30832-66 (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Blogs and interviews are not helpful in establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, i will remove them then. ~2026-30832-66 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

16:49, 26 May 2026 review of submission by Nicholasstoll

• Nicholasstoll (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abraham Ordia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing respectfully about the specific reasons behind the denial of my recently submitted article. I have eagerly anticipated this publishing opportunity for a very long time, and I poured a large amount of effort into making this piece, including dedicating well over a week in-depth research to ensure its accuracy and depth. Given the extensive preparation involved, I would deeply appreciate any constructive feedback or insights you could share regarding how the article fell short of your publication's standards, or how I might improve it for future consideration Nicholasstoll (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nicholasstoll: as the decline notice explains, we would need to see significant coverage of this person in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If i get more sources around my topic is could i resend it Nicholasstoll (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nicholasstoll: yes; your draft was only declined, not rejected. Decline means you need to address the reasons for the decline, and you may then resubmit the draft for another review. (Rejection would mean the end of the road.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nicholasstoll.

Please note 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.

Unless you have several sources that each meet all the requirements in golden rule, then you cannot have an article.

If you have such sources, then you need to start by writing a summary of what those independent sources say about Ordia - nothing else.

If that gives you a viable article (which can be determined by submitting it and getting it accepted on review) you can go back and add a limited amount of information from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nicholasstoll: Given this person died in the '90's, I would imagine the vast majority of sources on him are going to be print sources from when he was active - newspapers, sports magazines, and books. We accept offline sources, if properly cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

20:46, 26 May 2026 review of submission by Shanjedul

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

I need help to publish this article. I will change as you guide. Please guide my about this. I am very new here and i want to learn about wikipedia page publication.I'm looking for help with publishing this article. I'm new to this process and would appreciate guidance on how to create a Wikipedia page. Thank you! Shanjedul (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shanjedul: No sources, no article, no debate. Pictures also do not help a draft a whit (reviewers are looking at your text and sourcing). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 20:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Shanjedul.

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

Also, writing about yourself in Wikipedia is so monumentally difficult that few people have ever managed to do it successfully. I suggest you don't even try. (See autobiography) ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shanjedul: Exactly why do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? Publicity? Search engine optimization? None of those are valid reasons here. If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write about you. Whether that happens this year or 50 years from now, shouldn't matter to you in the least. Preferably we should follow the examples of other encyclopedias and adopt a policy of having no articles about living persons. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

21:58, 26 May 2026 review of submission by Joemcg58

• Joemcg58 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Frances Molloy, Tyred campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request for second review — Draft:Frances Molloy, Tyred campaign

I am respectfully requesting a second review of this draft. The current reviewer has declined twice, citing lack of significant coverage, but has responded within one minute on both occasions — which suggests the cited sources may not have been fully examined. For the reviewer’s consideration, the notability case rests primarily on the following: A government minister named Frances Molloy by name in a House of Commons debate (Hansard, 27 February 2019) and credited her campaign as the reason the government was consulting on a change to the law. A private citizen being named in Parliament in this context is, by any reasonable measure, significant coverage on the public record. Two separate official GOV.UK press releases — one announcing the consultation (June 2019) and one announcing the law change (July 2020) — name her specifically and attribute the legislation directly to her campaign. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 came into force on 1 February 2021 as a direct result of that campaign. I am not asking for the article to be accepted on my word. I am asking for a reviewer who will examine these sources before reaching a conclusion. Thank you. Joemcg58 Joemcg58 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't take extensive research to see that the sources are based on interviews and government statements, both of which are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Joemcg58: Ask and ye shall receive. I will treat both Molloy and Tyred as two separate subjects (one a living person and the other an organisation).

• https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ban-on-old-tyres-mother-campaign-b918082.html does not help for eligibility for Molloy (too sparse) and is a non-sequitur for Tyred. Direct quotes, no discussion of Molloy.
• https://www.tyrepress.com/2019/02/government-consulting-on-10-year-old-tyre-ban/ does not help for eligibility for either subject (too sparse in both cases). Name-drops/direct quotes, no discussion of Molloy or Tyred.
• https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/mother-son-dies-coach-crash-bestival-DWycnM_2/ does not help for eligibility for either subject (too sparse in both cases). Name-drops/direct quotes, no discussion of Molloy or Tyred.
• https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-07-15/liverpool-mum-welcomes-government-tyre-ban-after-son-was-killed-in-coach-crash does not help for eligibility for either subject (too sparse in both cases). Name-drops, no discussion of Molloy or Tyred.
• https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-31/debates/521FDB6E-5EF4-425C-8340-FD0B8B693CDE/Tyres%28BusesAndCoaches%29 does not help for eligibility for either subject (gov't document). Transcription of a MP's speech.
• https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-bans-old-coach-bus-and-lorry-tyres-from-roads-in-new-measures-to-improve-road-safety does not help for eligibility for Molloy (gov't document, too sparse) and is a non-sequitur for Tyred. Government press release.

None of your sources are any good for either putative subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 22:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A private citizen being named in Parliament in this context is, by any reasonable measure, significant coverage on the public record. Wikipedia jargon like significant coverage has particular definitions, and this is certainly not what we would ever define as "significant coverage". Athanelar (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Legislative bodies issue all sorts of recognitions and resolutions; that doesn't by itself make someone notable. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Joemcg58.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

22:21, 26 May 2026 review of submission by Ainsinga

• Ainsinga (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Locus Robotics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I figured that two Boston TV stations would be reliable and independent. And I thought the company was significant because they are an example of success despite Amazon.com using its money in a way that threatened to put their competitors out of business by buying Kiva Systems and not renewing Kiva's contracts with customers. Their parent company, Quiet Logistics is in Wikipedia. If it is a little short it is because I tried to get it back to how I originally created the page by chopping out the marketing blather with details about their products that I suppose one can get from their web site. But if you disagree, then we're not going to see eye to eye and you might as well delete the damned page again. Ainsinga (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

p.s. I did create a User page for myself explaining that I was not paid to work on this page. I've been contributing about the history of computers for a long time. Ainsinga (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Those two sources are good sources, meeting the criteria in WP:Golden Rule. However, articles about companies have stricter requirements, in particular WP:AUD; that is, the audience should be national or at least regional in scope. These two TV stations are aimed at a Boston audience, and constitute coverage local to Boston. You would need a source with a broader audience. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The best approach would be to expand Quiet Logistics. It's only a paragraph. Your draft is only a paragraph. Either merge any new information back into the parent article, or find sources that demonstrate Locus Robotics merits its own standalone article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, there was a lot more, but somebody thought it was AI generated or written by paid marketing mouthpieces.

this is from the IEEE, a national+international engineering society, but is the interview usable or is it considered marketing stuff?

https://spectrum.ieee.org/locus-robotics-warehouse-automation-robots

a national magazine's list that had location and date of founding but not much else

https://www.forbes.com/companies/locus-robotics/

something that's not a boston area broadcaster but behind a paywall:

https://www.robotics247.com/article/flexibility_scalability_at_the_hub_of_locus_robotics_offerings

again, behind a paywall:

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2022/11/29/locus-robotics-ipo-117-million.html

https://www.fastcompany.com/91039140/locus-robotics-most-innovative-companies-2024

again, behind a paywall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/07/business/robots-automation-supply-chain.html Ainsinga (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

None of these are useful for establish notability. The first one is an interview, and thus not independent. The link on Forbes just demonstrates the company exists, not that it's notable. The Robotics247 link is basically an interview written up as an article. Funding rounds/IPOs as seen in Bizjournals, are just WP:CORPTRIV. And awards like Fast Company's list of of 606 companies only confers notability if the award itself is notable.

All the information reported about Locus in the NY Times article is clearly from people connected with Locus:

Melissa Valentine, director of retail global accounts at Locus, said during a panel discussion.

Locus says its machines are meant not to replace workers but to complement them

“It’s hard to get people motivated to do this work,” said Kary Zate, senior director of marketing communications at Locus Robotics CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Being behind a paywall is not a problem. The problem is those sources themselves, as CoffeeCrumbs outlined above. I'll add that trade publications exist for the purpose of writing about companies in their niche, so they may not count. As an analogy, Wine Spectator, for example, reviews a few thousand wines per year, but a review doesn't really confer notability on the wine because the purpose of that publication is to review as many wines as possible. And of course WP:CORPROUTINE reporting doesn't count. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

May 27

02:32, 27 May 2026 review of submission by AlferedNobel

• AlferedNobel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ahmed body (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can someone review my draft, please? AlferedNobel (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AlferedNobel, that's what the AFC process is for, so that someone reviews your draft to give it the best chance of surviving an WP:AFD. You've submitted your article, and it will be reviewed at some point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

03:45, 27 May 2026 review of submission by JDCarrie

• JDCarrie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:TPIsoftware Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the feedback on the draft for TPIsoftware Corporation. I understand that the current references do not meet the notability criteria, and I would appreciate your guidance on how to improve the draft. The sources currently cited include news from Taiwan's Central News Agency, a financial newspaper report on the company's stock listing, and an industry media article on ISO 27001 certification. Could you advise whether any of these are considered acceptable, or whether all of them fall short of the required standard? Additionally, if the draft is currently not strong enough for inclusion, would it be helpful to resubmit once more substantial independent coverage becomes available, or is there anything specific I can do to improve the existing references? Thank you for your time and assistance. JDCarrie (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@JDCarrie: Based on the article title translations you provided (Chinese is too context-dependent for automated translation to be anything beyond "blind idiot" level) references 3, 4, and 5 would all fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference 7/9 (they're the same source) is an interview and thus doesn't help for eligibility. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

05:51, 27 May 2026 review of submission by DrSilasKanyabigega

• DrSilasKanyabigega (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Faith and Salvation in Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to submit my first Article DrSilasKanyabigega (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DrSilasKanyabigega, I've fixed your above message to link to your draft, rather than a non existent page. You've already submitted your first article for review, but it was declined as it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria for books. Your draft's subject requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, such as published reviews by book critics or journalists. If you're able to add reliable sources such as these, then your draft will be ready to be resubmitted for review. In solidarity, nil ^nz 06:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

06:28, 27 May 2026 review of submission by Welovecontributors!

• Welovecontributors! (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2016 Florida cocaine seize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it is pretty notable. 1st, it was a shock at that time for 26.5 tons of cocaine being seized in Florida. 2nd, if you search up "largest cocaine bust" or in any other variation, almost over half the time, you'll see this event pop up. How can I further edit this article so that it can meet the notability requirement? Welovecontributors! [talk] 06:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What's the lasting significance of the event? Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that something was remarkable in the 24-hour news cycle does not necessarily mean it's encyclopedic. If its entire "claim to significance" is that it's the largest cocaine bust to date, then logically its entire encyclopedic value would go out the window if there were a larger cocaine bust tomorrow. Your draft even says It is worth noting however that subsequent years would see even larger seizures so it doesn't even have that much going for it; it's an article an unusually large but otherwise entirely ordinary drug bust. Athanelar (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

09:13, 27 May 2026 review of submission by Lwareing13

• Lwareing13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:SPOR Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added my employer on my talk page and it got declined again which I don't understand? Lwareing13 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lwareing13: you mean you have disclosed your paid editing on your userpage? Great, thank you. However, that has nothing to do with why this draft was declined. The reasons for that are given in the decline notice on top of the draft, and also on your talk page.

Do you also operate the Futureworkplace user account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Lwareing13 (ec) Thank you for disclosing your paid status as required by the Terms of Use, but that is a separate issue from the draft. Please review the messages left by the reviewers carefully. I might suggest that you read WP:BOSS and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Most company representatives fail in efforts to write about their companies, because they are too close to their company to be able to set aside what they know about it and all materials its puts out. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of appropriate coverage of the topic and choose on their own to write about it. Companies trying to force the issue and create articles themselves only rarely succeed.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by others as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it views as its own importance. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the criteria to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

So basically I can't write about a company I work for because it won't succeed even though it said just say your'e employed by them? And no I do not run the future workplace one Lwareing13 (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You are permitted to attempt to write a draft about your employer. What I am saying is that most people who write about their employers fail at it, though a small number succeed. Are you one of the rare people who will succeed at it where most fail? It's possible, but the odds are against it. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia even without a conflict of interest, it's even harder with one.

The difficulty in editing about a company is that most press that a company gets is usually about its routine business activities, like commencing operations or releasing a product or acquiring a competitor. These do not establish notability. Establishing notability requires sources that, unsolicited, offer critical analysis and commentary about the company. Do you have at least three sources that do that? These cannot be interviews, press releases, or other materials from the company. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lwareing13, you are permitted to write about a company you work for, as long as you make the required declaration, which you have.

Not many people have ever done so successfully, especially people who have not spent a good deal of time learning how Wikipedia works before they try it.

Your draft is nothing like a Wikipedia article. What you would need to do is (roughly):

• Throw away what you have and start again
• Find places where people who have no connection with the company whatever, and are not simply using what the company has said (in eg interviews or press releases) have chosen off their own bat to publish significant analysis or commentary about the company, in reliable publications (review each such source against all the criteria in WP:42).
• If you cannot find several such sources, go and do something else: the company is not notable as Wikipedia uses the term.
• If you can, then put aside everything that you know about the company, and write a summary of what those sources say. Nothing else. Even if they leave things out. Even if they are unpleasantly critical. Even if (in your estimation) they have missed the point.

Do you see why few people have ever done this successfully? ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

10:05, 27 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-30832-66

• ~2026-30832-66 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdulbaki Jari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, could someone please take a look at my citations and see if they are relevant and they type needed? Thank you ~2026-30832-66 (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-30832-66: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk; you have submitted the draft, and it will be reviewed in due course.

If you're Hausa Afirka, please remember to log into your account when editing.

What is your relationship with this person? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your swift reply. I am an admirer of the person, we come from the same region.

The draft was declined by someone saying i concentrated more on the person's work rather than his personality. Someone also said i should remove the the iniial 8 blogposts, 2 interviews i added out of the total 30 citations.

I did all that, i did not know that i can only seek help here before submitting. This is my first ever draft.

I want to add more articles from my region especially of some amazing people that i think the world should have on Wikipedia. ~2026-30832-66 (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

12:15, 27 May 2026 review of submission by Akrebullet

• Akrebullet (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Palepu Jagannath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, this page (Draft:Palepu Jagannath) was declined for the reasons noted below (and on the article draft page too of course).

While the points about declining are noted in general, I'm not sure what specifically may be missing/insufficient because 1) Multiple independent sources have been cited 2) In fact, only independent sources have been cited including reputable news outlets such as the Times of India, Rediff.com, etc. 3) The subject's own websites have explicitly -not- been included to maintain an objective tone. 4) At all times, it's been kept in mind that Wikipedia article guidelines must be followed, and this has been meticulously done accordingly.

I would appreciate any recommendations with specifics related to this page that are not sufficient because there are already 11 references added, including references from other popular pages on Wikipedia too. Basically, this person (Dr. J) is very well-known, is one of the top oncological surgeons in India, and even a simple Google search would show multiple independent sources with information about him, including independent reputable news outlets, the actual hospitals where he has been, or is, the head of the Oncology department.

Thank you for any specific guidance about what else could be done.

Reasons for denying inclusion: " This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content. Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. " Akrebullet (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

1) Multiple independent sources have been cited 2) In fact, only independent sources have been cited including reputable news outlets such as the Times of India,

You cite the Times of India twice in this draft.

The first citation is to a TOI article called "Pancreatic cancer: Why surgery is difficult" supposedly written by Malathy Iyer in 2018. However, the link you've provided goes to an error page, and trying to google search the title + Times of India shows that no such article seems to exist; meaning the article was either deleted in the 1 month since you apparently last accessed it (April 7) or, which I suspect is more likely, you enlisted the help of AI to find this source for you, and the AI made it up.

The second TOI citation is to an article whose only mention of the article subject is a brief mention in which they directly quote him. A quotation from the subject is obviously not independent of the subject: nor is this brief mention significant coverage, which is also necessary to establish notability.

I would appreciate any recommendations with specifics

Start over, from scratch. Read WP:42 to see what we actually require for a source to demonstrate notability. Read Help:Your first article. Find three sources (don't use AI for this) that meet all the requirements of WP:42, and then write your article (definitely don't use AI for this) summarising only the information available in those sources. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Takis (designer) — follow-up: appeal to rejecting reviewer went unanswered

Hello again — this is a follow-up to my earlier post on 1 May 2026 regarding Draft:Takis (designer).

Following the guidance I received here (thank you 331dot, Jéské Couriano, and CoffeeCrumbs), I took the following steps:

1. I identified two independent sources that were not cited in any previous submission — both contain critical analysis and commentary rather than Q&A:
   • Bühnentechnische Rundschau (BTR), Issue 4/2020 — a 4-page analytical feature by journalist Wiebke Roloff Halsey in Germany's specialist theatre technology journal (published since 1907). The journalist writes in her own voice, critically examining the subject's design work across multiple productions.
   • Opera Now, October 2022 — a 3-page cover feature. Includes independent third-party critical commentary from James Clutton, CEO and director of Opera Holland Park.
2. I revised the draft to be built around these two sources (neither was available to any previous reviewer).
3. On 12 May, I posted an appeal on User talk:Cosmic840 with translated excerpts from BTR and a summary of the Opera Now source, as advised here. I offered to post the revised draft on the draft's talk page for review.
4. Cosmic840 did not respond. The appeal sat on their talk page for 14 days (the auto-archiving period) and has now been archived without any reply.

I'm now unsure what the correct next step is. I don't want to post on Cosmic840's talk page a second time — that feels like it could be seen as pressuring a reviewer. But the draft remains rejected and locked, so I can't resubmit through the normal process either.

My questions:

1. Since the rejecting reviewer has not responded to the appeal, is there another procedural route to have the draft reconsidered — for example, can a different reviewer or administrator reopen it?
2. Would it be appropriate to post the revised draft on Draft talk:Takis (designer) so that it's visible to anyone willing to assess the new sources?
3. Is there anything else I should be doing differently?

For reference, the revised draft uses 12 references. The two primary sources (BTR and Opera Now 2022) both pass WP:42 — they are independent, substantial, and contain critical analysis. These are supported by features in Kathimerini (Greece's newspaper of record), The Stage (UK theatre trade newspaper), and the subject's awards record (two Olivier nominations, IOA Best Designer nomination, V&A exhibition inclusion), which I believe meets WP:CREATIVE.

Disclosure: I have a professional connection to the subject, as previously disclosed in my earlier post on this page.

Macthing (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Macthing Your link doesn't go to where you think it goes; the prior discussion is here. For better visibility, please edit your user page (User:Macthing) to put a disclosure there. You said your connection is that you worked with him, if he is your client, that makes you a WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Macthing: without commenting on notability and just answering your procedural questions, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer, and if that gets you nowhere then bring the matter here, both of which you have now done. One more thing you should do is incorporate the new sources into the draft, that way you don't need to list them each time you want to refer to them, and also that way we can see that (or whether) the draft is actually based on those sources, as it should be. I believe you haven't done that bit? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you can still edit the draft to add your sources there. You don't need to post the revised draft to the talk page or anything like that; the draft being rejected doesn't mean you can no longer edit the page.

The other thing I'd be wary of is that your new bombshell sources seem to be from print magazines; I've been trying to hunt down an accessible online copy of the issue of Opera Now which you're mentioning so I can see if it's quality coverage, and I'm having no success. As a reviewer being asked to reconsider a rejection, I would be very reluctant to do so based on a source that I have no way to access. If you have a link to an accessible digital copy of these sources, that would go a long way in helping that reviewer (and the rest of us) assess whether these are the kinds of sources worth overturning a rejection for.

It's also worth noting that there is a presumption against the use of trades magazines to establish notability, and as Takis falls well within the industry niche of these two magazines, they might not be any good for notability anyway. We want to see that people outside of the niche have taken note of them. Athanelar (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for the fast and helpful responses — 331dot, DoubleGrazing, and Athanelar.

WP:PAID disclosure: Done. I've added {{Paid}} to User talk:Macthing. Thank you for flagging this, 331dot.

Editing the draft directly: Understood, DoubleGrazing — I have now updated the draft with a revised article incorporating the new sources, so reviewers can assess the actual content directly.

Name question: DoubleGrazing, I also saw your comment on the draft asking about the full name. The subject is professionally known by the single name "Takis" — this is a deliberate professional mononym, similar to other artists who use a single name. All the independent sources (Kathimerini, Bühnentechnische Rundschau, Opera Now, The Stage) consistently refer to him as "Takis." Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is the name by which he is most commonly known in reliable sources. His full legal name is known but is not used professionally, and per WP:BLP we would prefer to respect the subject's privacy on this point.

Source accessibility: Athanelar, this is a fair point. On Opera Now specifically — the complete archive is digitally available through Exact Editions (individual and institutional subscriptions), so the October 2022 cover feature ("Doing it with style," pp. 31–33) should be verifiable through that platform. We also have physical copies of both Opera Now and the BTR (Bühnentechnische Rundschau) article and are happy to provide scans of the relevant pages via the draft talk page or by email if that would help reviewers verify the content.

Trade magazine concern: This is the point I'd most like to address. You're right that both Bühnentechnische Rundschau (a German theatre technology journal, founded 1907) and Opera Now (published by the Mark Allen Group since 1989, now a sister title to Gramophone) are specialist publications. However, we also have a source that falls entirely outside the subject's professional niche:

Kathimerini (August 2018) — a full-page feature entirely about the subject, written in the journalist's own voice. Kathimerini is Greece's newspaper of record, founded in 1919, with the highest circulation among Greek dailies. It publishes an English-language edition alongside the New York Times International. This is a general-interest national broadsheet — not an arts or theatre publication. The editorial decision to devote a full page to a performance designer represents coverage from well outside the subject's professional niche.

So to summarise the sourcing position as I see it:

1. Kathimerini (Aug 2018) — general-interest newspaper of record, full-page feature, journalist-driven. Addresses the trade magazine concern directly.
2. Bühnentechnische Rundschau (4/2020) — 4-page analytical feature by Wiebke Roloff Halsey. German-language, specialist press, but provides detailed critical analysis of the subject's design work and is by a completely independent journalist (important because the Opera Now and Kathimerini pieces share an author).
3. Opera Now (Oct 2022) — 3-page cover feature by Helena Matheopoulos (a published author and established opera journalist). Includes independent third-party critical evaluation from James Clutton, director of Opera Holland Park.

Supported by To Vima (Sep 2016, major Greek newspaper) and Vogue Greece (Oct 2005).

I have now updated the draft with a revised article incorporating these sources. The article leads with the Kathimerini and BTR references and cites 14 sources in total. I would be very grateful for any further guidance on whether this combination — a general-interest newspaper of record plus two specialist publications — addresses the concerns sufficiently.

Macthing (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Macthing: I don't want to get too much bogged down in the question of the name since it's not the main issue holding back the draft, but COMMONNAME has to do with article titles (ie. page names), not about whether a person's real name should be mentioned in the article. We have countless examples of mononymically known people – Sting, Bono, Pelé to name a few – but in each case the article mentions, indeed leads with, the person's full, real name. Unless the identity of Takis is unknown or uncertain (like, say, Banksy's), we should include his name, as long as there is a reliable published source to back it up. Even if Takis would prefer to keep his real name under wraps, I'm not sure he has that choice as a public figure, but I could be wrong on that point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

17:08, 27 May 2026 review of submission by Gem2376

• Gem2376 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Patfinn-lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having trouble with moving my article from a draft to a full entry. I have an entry which has numerous sources from newspapers and websites. The subject Pat Finn-Lee is an actress from motion pictures. She is on other Wikipedia pages for her movies. I need help so my draft gets approved and moved to the article space. Thank you, Megan Gem2376 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pat Finn-Lee

@Gem2376: this draft is not ready to be published, there is far too much unreferenced information. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every statement needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. (I'm also not sure there is sufficient evidence of notability provided, although that's just based on a quick scan rather than a thorough assessment of the sources.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

23:22, 27 May 2026 review of submission by Mustafa shawki dev

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

I need help to publish my wiki project after it rejected Mustafa shawki dev (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is in your sandbox, I fixed your header. I don't see where it was rejected, though you have several copies of it, including on your user talk page(which is for communication with you). I will add the information needed to submit it to your infobox. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that, once submitted, we cannot guarantee a timely review. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

23:58, 27 May 2026 review of submission by Je3ffW

• Je3ffW (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:May F. Lawrence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The bot LunieZunie declined my draft article with "This draft appears to be generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content."

I wrote the article's text by hand and used no LLM or other AI. The article's heading structure was based on, but not copied from, the Wikipedia article about Emma Louise Ashford.

Below is a later version of the subject outline I developed after gathering most of the ~138 newspaper articles, ~150 musical works/dates/copyrights, images of published music table of contents, and basic biographical data points:

 Biography
   Family 
   Birth 
   Education
   Marriage, Children
   Later life
 Career/Musical Activities
   Church choir director and organ
   Radio and performances
   AGO role
   Composition
 Compositions
   Organ works
   Anthems
   Hymns
   Secular Choral works
   Songs
 References
   Sources
 External links
   International Music Score Library Project
   YouTube videos

When I started drafting the text from the outline, I made sure that nearly all facts and statements had references. I wrote as plainly as I could and edited out opinions that would crop up and signaled by words like "surely", "must have", "could have", etc. When drafting I always have a tendency to write complicated (hard to read) sentences, so I returned to it and edited it regularly over the course of two weeks to simplify it as best I could.

What AI/LLM features/qualities appear in the article that I can edit/change?

Thank you for any helpful feedback. Je3ffW (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

LuniZunie is not a bot, and they rescinded their decline. Apparently they based it on the Notes to Editors you put in the draft; LLMs tend to include notes to their user in their output and it's not uncommon for someone who isn't paying attention to include those as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 00:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

As to your sources, I strongly advise you to get the biggest carafe of coffee you can.

• We can't use FamilySearch (No editorial oversight). This disqualifies references 1, 8
• I cannot assess articles on ProQuest (walled). We allow citations to offline sources if properly cited. I should also note that any and all references that depend on access thru a university network are completely unverifiable to the overwhelming majority of our readers. This affects references 2, 11, 13, 16, 17, 22, 61, 90.
• We cannot link to Reference 3 (copyright violation). Cite it as an offline source.
• I cannot assess Reference 4 (walled). It redirects to a support page for me. (The source wouldn't be usable anyway, as it is a government document based on the source title.)
• We can't use https://archive.org/details/georgepeabod0geor/page/18/mode/2up (too sparse). Contentless registrar book.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20260522233036/https://tnportraits.org/index/artist/ is a non-sequitur. (The archived website would also be unusable by itself as little more than a gallery with minimal information.)
• We cannot link to Reference 7 (copyright violation). If it's relevant at all, it needs to be cited as an offline source.
• We can't use https://www.gentrekker.com/getperson.php?personID=I21298&tree=Dickinson (too sparse) and even if we could it'd be a non-sequitur. Content-free profile about someone who isn't May F. Lawrence.
• We can't use Ancestry.com (Gov't document, no editorial oversight). Since most of Ancestry's records are from government records, they are primary sources at best. What isn't government records is either user-generated or personal correspondence, neither of which we can cite. This disqualifies references 10, 12,
• Reference 14 is incomplete (Periodical - missing page numbers, article title, article byline). As this paper predates 1923, copyright does not apply.
• Reference 15 is incomplete (Periodical - missing page numbers, article title, article byline). This magazine fell into the public domain in 2024.
• https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig3214libr/page/n5/mode/2up doesn't help for eligibility (gov't document). As this is a work of the United States federal government, it is in the public domain by law. The same applies to all other copyright catalogues (References 66, 68-70, 73-89, 91-94)
• We can't use http://archive.org/details/CopyrightCards1946-1954 (too sparse) and even if we could it wouldn't help for eligibility (gov't document). As above, this is public-domain by virtue of being produced by the US government. References 25 and 26 are duplicates of this one.
• We can't use https://archive.org/details/columbia-1925-catalogue_202205/page/n5/mode/2up (too sparse). Contentless registrar book. This book fell into the public domain in 2021.
• https://www.newspapers.com/paper/the-harrodsburg-herald/ is 404-compliant (redirects to bespoke 404 page). This must be cited as an offline source.
• We can't use https://streetsvilleunited.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Oct-12-2025.pdf (no editorial oversight). Programme for a church event.
• We can't use eBay (online storefront). This disqualifies references 24, 28, 29, 31, 38, 41, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 59, 62, 63.
• We can't use search results of any sort (too sparse, no editorial oversight). It's also just generally rude to readers to cite a search link that is unlikely to actually support the claim that it's attached to. This disqualifies references 27, 30, 32-37, 40, 43-45, 49, 52, 53, 58, 60, 65.
• We can't use https://web.archive.org/web/20260521202130/https://www.bu.edu/phpbin/organ-library/details.php?id=64803 (too sparse). Content-free song profile.
• I can't assess https://access.newspaperarchive.com/Unauthorized (walled). This can and should be cited as an offline source. Relies on uni access.
• We can't use Amazon (online storefront). This disqualifies references 46, 47, 56.
• We can't use https://web.archive.org/web/20260525211108/https://www.onelicense.net/search?term=%22May+F+Lawrence%22+%22Postludium%22&hymnal=&hymn=&page=1&type=submit-term&addition=&downloads-only=false (too sparse). Content-free copyright listing mirror.
• We can't use https://archive.org/details/bwb_P8-ANO-844/page/4/mode/2up (too sparse). We literally cannot cite a book that is solely written music. This also disqualifies Reference 71/72 (both of which are identical.
• We cannot link to Reference 67 (copyright violation). Cite it as an offline source. (This source will enter the public domain in 2028.)

The sourcing seems more like you're trying to merely document that Lawrence exists. Existence is not our inclusion criteria. What we need is evidence that Lawrence and her work have been written about at length by multiple third parties in outlets that have editorial control. Nothing I can assess comes close to meeting that threshold. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 01:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)