Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


Skip to top
Skip to bottom


April 25

[edit]

03:40, 25 April 2026 review of submission by Kandiyoordevitemple

[edit]

Hi, I have created a draft article for Kandiyoor Devi Temple (Alappuzha district, Kerala) with multiple independent sources, including coverage in Malayalam newspapers (Malayala Manorama, Mangalam, Suprabhatham) and a published book (Temples of Alappuzha District by S. Jayashanker).

I believe the subject meets notability guidelines for geographic/religious sites. Could someone please review the draft or advise if it is suitable to be moved to mainspace?

Draft: Draft:Kandiyoor Devi Temple Kandiyoordevitemple (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

04:31, 25 April 2026 review of submission by HRobel

[edit]

Article was declined for not including inline citations but it does have them, or it was done improperly? Request for elaboration HRobel (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HRobel - there is quite a lot of text without citations, but where there are citations you've done them correctly. As a heads-up, don't cite Wikipedia; if an article has information that's useful in another article/draft, use the cited source(s) rather than the Wikipedia article. You probably also want to go through your draft and remove all the bold that doesn't conform to the manual of style.
Pinging RangersRus to see if the decline reason was indeed for not enough citations or whether the reason was a misfire and they meant something else. Meadowlark (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Random boldingis often due to the use of AI, hopefully not in this case. Theroadislong (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first concern too, and I admit I only skimmed looking for inline citations but nothing else especially LLM-y caught my eye. I don't bother mentioning tells if I think LLM is involved, the chatbots don't need any more help! Also hoping we have a real human this time around, it's lovely to get something written by a person in the sea of AI slop. Meadowlark (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

07:46, 25 April 2026 review of submission by StarEditor92

[edit]

Can I know exactly what the article is missing? StarEditor92 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have little more than sources documenting the existence of the tour, no significant coverage of it, meaning critical analysis and commentary of the tour. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for the Syncopation World Tour and there is nothing from the things you mentioned, yet it was accepted and published. Why is the tour I am writing an article about not being published despite the abundance of sources? StarEditor92 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@StarEditor92: firstly, no it wasn't (accepted); someone overwrote an existing redirect with content to create Syncopation World Tour, and it has not been patrolled yet and has already been tagged for dubious notability. And secondly, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – we don't assess drafts by comparing them to whatever may be out there, but rather by evaluating whether they meet the prevailing policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for the clarification.
I've resubmitted the article for review with more sources and a more detailed tour.
I hope you'll accept it this time. StarEditor92 (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the draft, you mostly just expanded what was already present. We need critical analysis and commentary about the tour itself or specific performance on the tour by a professional music critic or other critic. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that you may be too much of a fan of this group to be able to edit dispassionately about it; this is a common issue with fans, they are so much of a fan that almost seem like they are employed by the band/musical group itself. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ajunews.com/view/20251102193955402 https://www.hankyung.com/article/202511028663H https://v.daum.net/v/XwYGasPKhL https://blog.naver.com/racheladams/224062257643 https://www.dizzotv.com/site/data/html_dir/2025/11/02/2025110280044.html https://www.imbc.com/broad/enews/view.html?idx=482503 https://www.edaily.co.kr/News/Read?newsId=01800726642361784&mediaCodeNo=257 These articles contain detailed reviews from trusted journalists and critics. Can I find out if they will be accepted or not? StarEditor92 (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm relying on a translation of those sources I looked at, it is possible that those could work. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
word "리뷰" Which means "review" in Korean and is used by Korean media and critics to evaluate any media event.
It is used to review any important work, and you can see the name of the critic or journalist at the top. StarEditor92 (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is possible that those could work; you should add a summary of those sources and then resubmit; someone else will review the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful replies, they have helped me a lot. StarEditor92 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 25 April 2026 review of submission by HindPeople

[edit]

I am requesting a review for a new article about Indian actor and singer Raaj Vishwakarma. I have compiled reliable third-party sources including IMDb, Filmibeat, and Cinestaan to verify his filmography in major Bollywood productions like Gangubai Kathiawadi and Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2. I would appreciate guidance on ensuring the tone meets neutral point-of-view standards and that the formatting is correct for a biographical stub. HindPeople (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HindPeople - IMDB and Filmibeat are not considered reliable, see WP:RSP. You will need to find some better sources there. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't necessarily need his filmography verified; if his name is in the credits of a film, no citation is needed since the credits can be viewed. You would need a citation if his name is not in the credits. You do need to summarize critical analysis and commentary about him, not just document his work. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HindPeople Did you use ChatGPT or another AI to write your question here? David10244 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 25 April 2026 review of submission by Lapageria

[edit]

I converted this to a stub article to allow me time to collect more relevant information. is this OK? I think it is potentially an interesting and significant topic that links with other contemporary ideas, but I don't currently have time to do it justice. Lapageria (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In its current location in draftspace it will not be eligible to be deleted until 6 months after the last edit. (There are a few exceptions, but on the surface, this doesn't appear to be like any of them.) Naraht (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a completely valid use of draft space. Even if the draft was deleted due to inactivity, it can be restored via WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 25 April 2026 review of submission by Altamura64

[edit]

I am seeking guidance on a declined AfC draft: Draft:Nicola Maggi.

The draft concerns a pharmaceutical chemist who is:

  • first author of the 1966 paper that first reported rifampicin
  • first-named inventor on the U.S. patent covering rifampicin

The draft has been declined twice on the grounds that the references do not provide sufficient secondary coverage about the subject.

The current sources include:

  • historical reviews of rifamycin research and tuberculosis therapy
  • sources documenting the development and importance of rifampicin
  • the original discovery paper and patent

My question is: under WP:ACADEMIC / WP:GNG, would authorship of a widely cited discovery paper for a major drug (rifampicin), together with patent inventorship and coverage of the discovery in secondary literature, be sufficient to establish notability?

Or are independent secondary sources that discuss the individual directly required?

The difficulty is that independent sources tend to discuss the discovery of rifampicin rather than Nicola Maggi individually. In such cases, how is notability typically evaluated?

Any guidance on how to proceed or what types of sources would be needed would be appreciated. Altamura64 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Altamura64 I fixed your header so the link to your draft is there as intended, instead of a link to a nonexistent page entitled "Notability of academic based on discovery paper and patent (AfC question)".
You seem to be writing more about the drug, rather than Mr. Maggi. I think this content would be better suited in an article about the drug rather than Mr. Maggi personally. Maybe others will disagree. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Altamura64 If you want to write an article about Maggi, then you need sources that talk about him. David10244 (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

[edit]

01:03, 26 April 2026 review of submission by Honeypumpkin23

[edit]

One of the problems I'm running into is that many of the articles and reviews are not archived online. I do have scans of newspaper and Magazine articles. How do I get around this problem? BTW, I have stopped using LLM for working my copy. Honeypumpkin23 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome! There is no need to limit yourself to online sources! As long as the sources are reliable and beneficial to the article, we assume good faith that you accurately summerize the source. Just make sure there is enough information in the reference (ie. title, page number, ISBN) for others to find the same claims. GGOTCC 01:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Honeypumpkin23 As @GGOTCC says, the sources do not need to be online. You need to properly cite them, though. You do not need to upload scans of the articles. I think that WP:REFB has info about how to cite the references. David10244 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 26 April 2026 review of submission by Stefan Micu

[edit]

Why can;t it get aproved Stefan Micu (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan, drafts that haven't been edited for 6 months get deleted. If you'd like to continue working on it, you ask an admin to undelete it at WP:REFUND/G13. nil nz 06:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if the draft is the same as your sandbox, then it won't be accepted unless you can show he's received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet our inclusion criteria.
I'd recommend having a read of WP:YFA before progressing any further with your draft. nil nz 06:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan Micu As Nil said, the draft needs sources. It has none. David10244 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 26 April 2026 review of submission by RigsTech34

[edit]

What am I missing for this draft that's causing it to be rejected? I'm doing my best to find the correct citations. RigsTech34 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the reviewer, you did not address the reasons a previous article about him was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bradley (journalist). It is challenging to write about journalists, because they don't often write about each other unless one is on the level of Tom Brokaw or Walter Cronkite. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll have to write some stories he covered at NBC, is that right or not? RigsTech34 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You need to summarize what is said about him, like critical analysis and commentary about his work, not just tell us his work. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. I know. Maybe I can write how his university taught him how to write. RigsTech34 (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a secondary, independent source discussing that? --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only independent coverage is useless trivia ... "Matt Bradley spat into his palm twice before sliding it through his tresses" Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @RigsTech34.
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. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:18, 26 April 2026 review of submission by Kadzo

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for feedback on Draft – Runway denial bomb, a draft article about the Brazilian BAPI anti-runway bomb.

The draft was previously declined at AfC because one of the sources used at the time, Rootsweb, was considered user-generated and unreliable. I have since removed that source and expanded the article with additional references, including sources from Notaer / Brazilian Air Force material, Portal Defesa, Sistemas de Armas via the Internet Archive, the Instituto de Aeronáutica e Espaço, the Brazilian Ministry of Defence, Tecnodefesa, and other sources for comparison with similar anti-runway weapons.

I am not asking for an immediate AfC review, but I would appreciate comments on whether the sourcing, structure, and notability are now strong enough, or whether there are still issues that should be fixed before the AfC reviewer looks at it again.

Thank you for any advice. Kadzo (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:BAPI – Runway denial bomb
I am not asking for an immediate AfC review, but I would appreciate comments on whether the sourcing, structure, and notability are now strong enough, In other words, you are asking for an immediate AfC review, given that is what the AfC reviewer will do.
Be patient, somebody will get to it in time.
One comment I do have is to be mindful that AI generated content is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, as there are signs of AI generated text both in the draft and in your comment here. Athanelar (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 26 April 2026 review of submission by Expressturbodelivery

[edit]

Hi, I have update the article please look on it and let me know Expressturbodelivery (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 26 April 2026 review of submission by Aishik09

[edit]

My draft Draft:Pawan_Kumar_Patodia has been declined four times by the same reviewer RangersRus on notability grounds. My sources include four independent feature articles in Calcutta Times (Times of India), a feature in t2 (The Telegraph), and three articles in The Statesman. I believe the subject meets WP:NBIO as owner of the Kolkata Thunderbolts (an existing Wikipedia article) and as Vice President National of Special Olympics Bharat (an existing Wikipedia article). I am requesting a second opinion from a different reviewer Aishik09 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aishik09 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "multiple rejection".
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.
Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to Mr. Patodia. You have essentially posted his resume, and not a summary of what independent sources have said is important/significant/influential about him. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has been declined five times by four different reviewers – twice by RangersRus, but also by three other people. In addition to the link provided by 331dot, you should also read this information, which explains why owning a notable sports team or being on the board of a notable organisation don't, in themselves, make a person notable. --bonadea contributions talk 19:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And now finally rejected after the sixth opinion by the fifth reviewer. Probably correct at this point as the improvements between drafts were extremely minimal. Too much of an LLM stink remaining, too many sources that barely mention the subject or even not at all. If these are the best sources someone highly motivated to write about this subject can find, I don't think there's much hope for a draft that establishes notability. Patodia doesn't just get notability by osmosis from Special Olympics Bharat or the Kolkata Thunderbolts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

[edit]

08:25, 27 April 2026 review of submission by Regina Edward-Uwadiale

[edit]

I have worked on the previous decline comment that talked about secondary citations but it was rejected because it reads like an essay or opinion piece. How do I go about this? Regina Edward-Uwadiale (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Edward-Uwadiale You have essentially posted her resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her; "significant coverage" being critical analysis and commentary as to what makes her a notable person. You wrote that she is quoted in the media or is on panels- why was she selected to do these things, and not someone else? 331dot (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:40, 27 April 2026 review of submission by BhagavanY

[edit]

Could you help me with possible improvements. BhagavanY (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

67th Filmfare Awards South - refer best lyricist section with Rambabu Gosala – "Kola Kalle Ilaa" from Varudu Kaavalenu BhagavanY (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BhagavanY The whole url is not needed when linking, just [[67th Filmfare Awards South]].
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. We don't do co-editing here, you could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. You have not shown that he is notable according to our notability guidelines.
Do you have a connection to this man? You took his picture where he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see him on the awards page you mention. He would need to have been specifically named as a nominee or winner. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please check this.
Yes, he is my close friend and here, I have attached the reference from 67th Filmfare Awards South BhagavanY (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 27 April 2026 review of submission by Nekoko41

[edit]

The whole article is not created by AI or LLM. Probably, the only parts are the source format of reference because I didn't know how to create them. Nekoko41 (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nekoko41 The disclosure on your user page is insufficient- if you have a connection to the subject of your editing, that needs to be specifically disclosed- saying you "may have a professional connection" is not acceptable. You either have a connection or you don't. You must disclose a specific connection- like "Wabilogic is my employer" or client.
Please learn how to create references at Referencing for beginners. We want humans to do the work here. LLMs can only be used in two limited cases, see WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Independent reporting on the company’s distribution network and market scale remains limited, and much of the available information about its commercial reach is derived from product listings and company materials rather than detailed third-party analysis.
Yeah, the LLM slop isn't limited to formatting citations. Not only is this obviously not written by a human, actual humans writing an article don't tend to insert sentences directly explaining why their subject is not notable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since LLM use is implicated here, I am going to BHFH the sources:
None of your sources discuss Wabilogic, with two being outright whammies (one 404'd and the other irrelevant). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 00:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:52, 27 April 2026 review of submission by ~2026-25685-22

[edit]

Hey team please review these article it's great initiative taken from goa government deposit refund scheme it definitely change in indian waste management it should be there in wikipedia that lot of people yet to know it's a great cause if you rejected it may loss of you only . If you want check type goa drs in social you find lot content vedioes ~2026-25685-22 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been rejected. That means it will not be considered for inclusion. Stop resubmitting it. Athanelar (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 27 April 2026 review of submission by 4hgoat

[edit]

Hi, I’ve submitted a draft for a 2026 Cannes Un Certain Regard film (The Meltdown). It has coverage from Variety and Deadline, would appreciate a review when possible. 4hgoat (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Meltdown (film)
@4hgoat: you have only submitted this today. Yes, it will be reviewed "when possible", meaning when a reviewer gets around to doing so. As you may have noticed, it says on top of the draft "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,459 pending submissions waiting for review." We don't provide fast-track reviews here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing as I mentioned in your talk page, let the unreleased film premiere and it will hopefully generate multiple critical reviews that you can add to the page. RangersRus (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 27 April 2026 review of submission by Niamh Ryan

[edit]

how can i cite succesfully Niamh Ryan (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good read of WP:REFB and WP:YFA first. But it's probably more important that you practice on improving existing articles first. The bulk of articles in Wikipedia need some form of improvement. Have look at the edit tasks that show up on your main page, click on your name in the top right on many browsers. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Niamh Ryan There is no content in this sandbox. David10244 (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

[edit]

&== 00:09, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Mercuredior ==

Hello so i made a wikipedia page that keeps on getting wdenied I changed he source what can I do to know that id had a clear shot of getting approved? 

Mercuredior (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercuredior: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We do not cite streaming services (connexion to subject as a licensor) and this includes Soundcloud. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 00:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercuredior are you the same person as the account @Mercuretchabong? If so, please stick to using a single account. Athanelar (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes I am, I made some changes to the citations Mercuredior (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercuredior: It doesn't matter how your cites to Soundcloud are presented, they're still cites to Soundcloud and thus worthless. I refer you to what I wrote above and on my talk page. Please drop the matter lest you end up attracting an administrator's attention. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 00:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by matter lest? Please elaborate because I’m trying to get approved ~2026-25883-13 (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no chance of this draft being approved because you have given no indication that you meet our criteria for inclusion. That is why the draft has been rejected. Athanelar (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-25883-13, @Mercuredior, and @Mercuretchabong. If you don't know what "lest" means, @Jéské Couriano is saying that you should stop using two accounts (while also posting while signed out, which is a third account) and that the references to IMDB and Soundcloud are not acceptable for an article to be accepted in Wikipedia.
Yes, we know that you are looking for a "clear shot" at getting this approved. You did not answer Jeske's question "@Mercuredior are you the same person as the account @Mercuretchabong?". Can you please answer that? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I took this reply as them answering to the affirmative that they are nil nz 06:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

03:26, 28 April 2026 review of submission by ~2026-24425-81

[edit]

why is it not allowed to be published ~2026-24425-81 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article is blank. No information has been added to the draft. GGOTCC 03:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 28 April 2026 review of submission by ~2026-25853-89

[edit]

I want to create a page for myself. I tried to used all sorts of external sources like journal websites and official websites to support what I wrote. But my submission was still declined due to “single source”. What can I do to avoid this? Thanks. ~2026-25853-89 (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you edited while logged out, and you did not provide the title of your draft(instead putting the words "single source issue") so I'm unable to see what it is that you are asking about. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 28 April 2026 review of submission by PollurRamanKumaraswamy

[edit]

Hello.

My draft was declined, but the remarks are general and lack clarity. Could you help me, please? I am sure the reviewer had reasons, but it doesn't help if I don't know exactly what the issues were. Was it a specific source? Or Text? Because, as far as I know, I consulted multiple third-party sources over which neither the person in question nor I have much control. Kindly help. thanks. PollurRamanKumaraswamy (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to disclose your connection to this man, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You apparently took a picture of him where he posed for you.
You have essentially posted his resume, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about him or his work. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be the OP's professor, per this usertalk message. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PollurRamanKumaraswamy To emphasize what @331dot said, the references that will establish the subject's notability will be things publushed about that person. Things said by that person, or wriiten by him or her, do not demonstrate notability. David10244 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's also really important that if you continue trying to work on this draft, you do not use an AI/LLM. See WP:NOLLM for more information. Meadowlark (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Heavywick

[edit]

This draft article was put together as I saw that there was more information on Richard Polsted than on many of his fellow parliamentarians of the period who do have articles.

Many examples can be found in the following category of figures whose articles cite only, and only contain scant information from, a single source: Category:English MPs 1553 (Mary I) stubs

Would it be prudent to begin deleting those articles as not meeting notability/referencing standards? Heavywick (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heavywick We judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, see other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist and even remain for years. Standards changing over time is the most common reason, stubs are much less accepted today than they were in the early days of Wikipedia(during the initial "rush" to create articles).
If you want to propose other articles for deletion, you are free to do so(but I would be clear that you're doing so because your own draft was declined). I would also note that this process is usually voluntary, unless you're under a formal restriction from creating articles, you are free to move this into the encyclopedia yourself(though you would be rolling the dice as to a deletion discussion taking place).
Cosmic830 can you be more specific as to why you declined this draft? Members of national legislatures are considered notable, and information about a 14th century politician is likely to be scant. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Typo....try again; Cosmic840. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's because it doesn't have enough sources and details about the person. Plus it doesn't have the infobox about the person's details. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 09:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never known infoboxes to be a requirement to pass this process; a nice to have, certainly, but not a requirement.
What more details are you looking for with a 14th century politician? 331dot (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Forecast Researcher

[edit]

Hello, I recently submitted this draft through Articles for Creation. I understand that there is a review backlog and I am not asking to bypass the queue. However, the page is time-sensitive for an application this week, so I would be grateful if someone could advise whether there are any sourcing, notability, neutrality, or formatting issues that I should fix while waiting for review. Thank you. Forecast Researcher (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Forecast Researcher You say you aren't asking to jump the queue, but you are asking for a pre-review review, because the reviewer will do exactly what you are asking for. Unfortunately we cannot accommodate any deadlines you might be under. I'm curious as to what sort of application requires you to create a Wikipedia article- which is a poor requirement and puts you in a difficult position. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I understand, and I apologise if my message came across as asking for a pre-review or special treatment. That was not my intention. The application does not require the creation of a Wikipedia article; it would simply have been helpful if the page happened to be live by then. Thank you again for clarifying. Forecast Researcher (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any professional or personal affiliation with any of the researchers you cite in your draft? If so, you must disclose this per our conflict of interest guidelines.
Mathematical drafts are more difficult to review considering they require a certain amount of subject matter scrutiny. You can expect that this draft will take a while to be reviewed. Athanelar (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:05, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Foundationalman

[edit]

I have created a draft article in my sandbox, but it has not yet been approved. I would appreciate guidance on improving the draft to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements. Specifically, I would like help reviewing the references I have included and advice on whether they are sufficient and properly formatted, as well as any suggestions to make the article more neutral and compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. Foundationalman (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been stated to you multiple times in the comments on the draft itself, your draft is completely unsourced. You have not included any references, so I have no idea what you (or rather, your AI chatbot) is referring to here. Athanelar (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Foundationalman.
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) 15:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Foundationalman I expected this draft to get rejected, and it was. Weird how AI can create an article with no sources, then later post here to say "Specifically, I would like help reviewing the references I have included" when, as @Athanelar pointed out, there are none. No references at all. Did you (the human) read any of what your AI submitted here?
Woe be the day when AIs are posting here with no human review or control at all. I fear it may be very soon... David10244 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Saksak

[edit]

I am a beginner and need to learn and profesionalise my content. Could you give me some simple advice in steps on how to move forward or can anyone contribute to perfection of this page? Thank you very much in advance. Will be gone for 2 hours and come directly back. Please do not confuse me with too much data at a time. I need small steps at a time if no one offers more direct help. Saksak (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am a beginner and need to learn and profesionalize my content. Could you give me some simple advice in steps on how to move forward or can anyone contribute to perfection of this page? Thank you very much in advance. Will be gone for 2 hours and come directly back. Please do not confuse me with too much data at a time. I need small steps at a time if no one offers more direct help. Saksak (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I am currently working on improving the article to better meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. My focus is on adding independent, reliable sources and ensuring all claims are properly referenced. If possible, I would appreciate specific feedback on: whether the current sources are sufficient for notability which sections need stronger sourcing whether the structure aligns with similar accepted musician articles I will continue improving the draft based on these points. Saksak (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is your association with this man? You took what appears to be a professionally taken image of him.
Please see Referencing for beginners to learn about how to format references. References are important in all articles, but especially biographies of living people. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Joe19830227

[edit]

Dear team, I want to create a page for myself. I tried to used all sorts of external sources like journal websites and official websites to support what I wrote. But my submission was still declined due to “single source”. What can I do to improve? Thanks for your kind support. Joe19830227 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We advise against people writing about themselves, please read the autobiography policy, as well as why an article is not necessarily something to desire.
If you wish to proceed anyway, you need to write less about your work and media appearances and more about what independent sources choose on their own to say about you. Why is it that media outlets select you to appear, and not someone else?
You should not say things like "Professor Zhou’s research addresses major global challenges" unless you have independent sources that say that specifically. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying it up. I didn't know that. I will try to edit it, but the reason why media outlets chose me for the interview is probably only known by them. Joe19830227 (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean why did an outlet specifically select you- i mean, generally, why would you be asked to appear? If it's due to your reputation, we need sources that discuss what your reputation is. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification. They chose me generally because they read about my articles and my previous media contributions. Will it be acceptable to Wiki to say that? Reputation is a bit difficult to quantify or verify. Thanks again. Joe19830227 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation is easy to quantify on Wikipedia. Reputation equates to notability on Wikipedia. Notability is defined in boring detail in Wikipedia:Notability, but for your purposes, WP:Golden Rule is a concise summary of what kinds of sources are required to establish that you are notable. Interviews don't qualify. Your own works don't qualify. Even reviews of your own works don't qualify (it is possible, for example, for a book to be notable while the author is not). In your case WP:NACADEMIC may be applicable to quantify and verify notability.
Also, why do you want an article about yourself? Vanity? Search engine optimization? Publicity? None of those reasons are valid here. If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write an article about you. Whether that happens next month or 10 years from now or after your death, shouldn't matter to you in the least. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the reviewer (Cosmic840) meant by "single source", but one necessary change would be to add bibliographic information to the citations. They are currently bare URLs, which are not helpful to the reader. As in any other list of references, you need to include information about author, title, publication, and date – in fact, the URL is the least important piece of information, though it is helpful to have it there as well. See this information about how to use citation templates in Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. Yes, the URLs link to official websites or journal websites. I will spell them out. Your suggestion is very helpful. Thanks again. Joe19830227 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Wedmarch

[edit]

Hi, I hope you're doing well. my AppAgent draft was declined by MSK on April 20th for two reasons: LLM generated content and insufficient independent sources. I want to address both before resubmitting and would appreciate some guidances :) On the LLM issue: the draft wasn't generated bu an AI. I wrote it myself but I understand it may read that way due to the structure and phrasing I used. I'm rewriting it entirely in a more neutral, encyclopedic style based (which btw is pretty hard when you're human...). On the sources issue, I'd like to know whether these specific sources would qualify as independent significant coverage before I resubmit: Business of apps marketplace listing, app growth awards coverage (2018, 2020, finalist 2024), clutch 1000 list mention, PocketGamer, Gameindustry? Wedmarch (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Namedropping sources usually isn't very useful. It's not just about who says the information, but about what they say. Please read through WP:CORPDEPTH to see what I mean. Any source which merely reports on the routine business activities of the company (such as hirings, firings, acquisitions and mergers, funding rounds, etc) cannot be used to establish notability.
I will say however that Business of apps marketplace listing, app growth awards coverage (2018, 2020, finalist 2024), clutch 1000 list mention these ones are all going to be useless to establish notability; being listed on a marketplace merely proves the company exists, not that it is notable. The "app growth awards" are not notable awards, and so cannot confer notability. Being merely mentioned on a top x list also does not confer notability becauss it's not WP:SIGCOV
PocketGamer and Gamerindustry also probably can't confer notability by themselves, because they're trade publications relevant to the subject in question, and as that link says there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Athanelar (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You make a lot of assertions, and you cite almost nothing. You need to start over from scratch. Find multiple sources that each meet all the criteria of WP:Golden Rule as well as WP:CORPDEPTH. Once you have those sources, write an article base only on what they say.
Absolultely do not write what you know, or what the company wants the world to know. Write only what unconnected sources have to say beyond WP:CORPROUTINE activity. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Nsinacore

[edit]

Hi there, As I am new to this, I just want to make sure I understand what I need to fix. The Physician this article is about is a Pioneer in the field, whom along with his father developed a valve used in heart transplants that reduced the mortality rate from around 90% to 10%. Beyond that invention and contribution to the field, the Physician has received numerous accolades and has left behind a pretty significant and documented legacy. Heart transplants would not be able to be preformed, at least not without a significantly higher mortality rate, without the contributions of this Physician and his father. There are dozens of scholarly articles, medical journals and so on that reference all of this. That said, I have provided many citations to credible sources, including the hospital this physician served at, in which they received awards and recognition in the form of a wing and even different divisions named after them.

I am more than happy to provide additional details and sources if needed, but to say this individual is doesn't fit "Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people" has left me a bit confused. If that is indeed the case, my apologies.

Any help is greatly appreciated. I believe this article and the information within to be important and significant both to the field of Medicine/Cardiothoracic Surgery but also mankind as this physicians contributions are pretty significant and without them many would pass away during transplants. Nsinacore (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, have you actually clicked the blue links in the decline notice and read about things like our criteria for inclusion for articles about people? That's tbe first place to go to answer any questions you might have about those criteria.
As the article creator, demonstrating that your subject meets those criteria is your responsibility. Looking at your draft, I see a completely unformatted wall of text, which certainly doesn't help. Athanelar (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nsinacore.
To add to what Athanelar said: please note that while it is nice for a Wikipedia article to be "important and significant" to somebody or something, that is absolutely not a substitute for meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability. In fact, even if the things he did are notable (in Wikipedia's sense), that does not necessarily mean that he is notable - it all depends on what the independent reliable sources say about him.; ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 28 April 2026 review of submission by ~2026-25899-47

[edit]

idk ~2026-25899-47 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected as contrary to Wikipedia's purposes and will not be considered further. We don't accept Shark Tank-esque product pitches or research whitepapers; we are an encyclopaedia and have no use for novel research. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 21:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Noah lovelace 57

[edit]

Please bro, do it for the bit 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 Noah lovelace 57 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noah lovelace 57: Wikipedia is a (relatively) serious encyclopedia--we're not here to be a platform for a "bit" that was made up in school one day. Your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. --Finngall talk 20:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Our comedy is reduced to making snarky references to pop culture standards, with or without a towel or dancing crazy. Not creative writing. There are better options available for that sort of thing, chooma. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 21:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 28 April 2026 review of submission by InfoLover14

[edit]

Hello, the article I drafted was declined and I'm seeking more clarity on why. I provided more than 20 citations from valid, external sources. I have modeled this page after several other Michigan credit union Wikipedia pages, most of which have fewer citations. For example:

Lake Michigan Credit Union Genisys Credit Union Lake Trust Credit Union Michigan Schools and Government Credit Union

As this is my first article, please help me understand how the page I drafted is less valid than the examples I've provided. Thank you. InfoLover14 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

InfoLover14 I have fixed your links, the whole url is not needed(and using in in the headers on this page breaks the formatting that provides a link)
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 and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles or even featured articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It will certainly help me to use a better model. Much appreciated. InfoLover14 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have just told of the activities and offerings of the CU, a Wikipedia article about an organization should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). so "Detroit's top workplace" is meaningless in terms of notability. Most organizations on Earth actually do not meet the criteria for inclusion, just as most people do not.
If you are associated with this credit union, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for identifying other articles that indeed are problematic, and I have marked them as such. We are only as good as the people who choose to help us. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 28 April 2026 review of submission by PrasannaKUSA

[edit]

@greenredflag: Thank you for reviewing this submission. I have noted your three concerns and would like to address each with reference to sources already in the article. 1. Secondary individual references including news media: The article already contains multiple independent published sources that specifically discuss Karpur Srinivasa Rao as an individual:

D.V. Gundappa (1970/2019), Jnapakachitrashaale, Vol. 3 — a dedicated biographical essay by one of Karnataka's most celebrated writers (Sahitya Akademi Award recipient), published in English translation at Prekshaa.in. This is significant third-party literary analysis. T. Ramakrishnan (2024), Cauvery: A Long-Winded Dispute, The Hindu Group — a 2024 published book by one of India's major media houses that explicitly names KSR in the context of the 1924 Cauvery negotiations. Ashwathanarayana G. (2015), Kannada Sahitya Parishattu 100, Kannada Sahitya Parishat — the institutional centenary history of the KSP dedicates a biographical section to him. Dakshini MarathiAdda (2020) — an independent biographical article about KSR specifically. Star of Mysore (2015) — newspaper coverage of the KSP founding.

2. Career impact and historical significance: The article contains a dedicated ==Legacy== section documenting the current impact of his works: the KRS Dam now supplies 1,450 million litres per day to Bengaluru (The Hindu, 2023); the 1924 Cauvery Agreement he negotiated governed inter-state water sharing for 50 years (Guhan, 1993); the Chamarajpet layout he designed became the template for Malleshwaram and Basavanagudi (Nair, 2005, Oxford University Press, pp. 38–41); and the KSP he co-founded now has 500,000 members. I will strengthen the framing of these points in the opening paragraph. 3. Third-party analysis for notability: In addition to the published sources above, the article cites:

S. Visvesvaraya (1951), Memoirs of My Working Life, Government of India Publications — India's most celebrated engineer (Bharat Ratna, 1955) names KSR by name and quotes him at p.48. History of the Mysore Public Works Department (1856–1956), Government Press, 1956 — official government publication naming KSR at p.115. Janaki Nair (2005), The Promise of the Metropolis, Oxford University Press — academic book citing his urban planning work. S. Guhan (1993), The Cauvery River Dispute, Madras Institute of Development Studies — gold-standard scholarly source on the dispute he helped resolve.

I will make these sources more prominent in the article. PrasannaKUSA (talk) PrasannaKUSA (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the following changes to address the concern of the declined draft Change 1 — Strengthened opening paragraph (addresses concern 3: notability) Added a second paragraph immediately after the biographical introduction that explicitly cites four independent published sources about KSR:

DVG's dedicated essay in Jnapakachitrashaale (1970), describing him as a literary and cultural figure — with DVG identified as a Sahitya Akademi Award recipient Ramakrishnan (2024), The Hindu Group — naming him in the Cauvery negotiations PWD History (1956) — official government publication naming him Nair (2005), Oxford University Press — documenting his Chamarajpet work

Change 2 — Legacy section moved earlier (addresses concern 2: historical significance) The Legacy section now appears immediately after the Career section, before Personal life. A reviewer reading the article will encounter the current real-world impact (1,450 MLD water supply, Cauvery framework, Chamarajpet template, KSP scale) much sooner. Change 3 — Further reading section added (addresses concern 1: secondary references) A new ==Further reading== section lists four published third-party sources with full descriptions, placed before See also. This makes it immediately visible that independent published literature exists on the subject. Change 4 — DVG strengthened in Association section DVG now identified as "one of Karnataka's foremost writers and a Sahitya Akademi Award recipient" — making it clear this is significant third-party recognition, not just a family account. Change 5 — Shrinivasa spelling note restored This had been lost in v8; now restored with the additional Palace letter confirmation. PrasannaKUSA (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PrasannaKUSA You don't need to tell us your specific changes here; if you feel you have addressed the concerns of the first review, you may submit it for another. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 28 April 2026 review of submission by PrasannaKUSA

[edit]

Shortened the article substantially as per the recommendation of the second reviewer and removed words and sentences that can be seen as puffery. PrasannaKUSA (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create new sections for every comment, just edit this existing section. Again, please resubmit the draft if you feel you have addressed the concerns. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Understood. Also, how do I get someone from 'Project India' and 'Project India: Karnataka' reviewers to review this page? They will be able to read the Kannada language articles referenced and see the significance, importance, and contributions of Karpur Srinivasa Rao to the development of the state as well as to the Kannada language literature. PrasannaKUSA (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot guarantee a reviewer with specialized knowledge will review the draft. If it meets the criteria, it shouldn't be necessary for a specialized reviewer to see it. If sources are in a non-English language, you could briefly describe them on the draft talk page. You may also ask for help from the WikiProjects you mentioned. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A much better approach to demonstrating the notability of the subject and readying this article for publication would be to much more aggressively trim the fat in both the prose and the citations. Cut the various cites to government documents and secondary sources in which Rao is either only mentioned in passing or tangential to the focus of the article or passage. There might very well be a good article here on a notable subject, but it's really hard to tell since there's so much bloat. Get to the core of the exact reason Rao is notable and the secondary sources that speak directly to that reason. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following non-English sources cited in the article each provide significant independent coverage of the subject:
DVG (D.V. Gundappa), Jnapakachitrashaale Vol. 3 (1970), Essay 12 — A dedicated two-part biographical essay about Karpur Srinivasa Rao by D.V. Gundappa (Padma Bhushan 1974, Sahitya Akademi Award 1960), one of Karnataka's most celebrated writers. Published by the Gokhale Institute of Public Affairs, Bangalore. English translation available at Prekshaa.in (linked in External links).
Ashwathanarayana G., Kannada Sahitya Parishattu 100 (2015) — Institutional centenary history of the Kannada Sahitya Parishat published by the Parishat itself. Contains a dedicated biographical section on KSR as co-founder and Vice-President, and reproduces a primary source Palace letter (No. 58, 14 September 1926) addressed specifically to him.
Mysuru Mithra, 7 July 2024 — Established Kannada newspaper published from Mysore since 1973. The article appears in their "Extraordinary people of our Mysore" series (item 26) and is specifically about Karpur Srinivasa Rao.
Dakshini MarathiAdda (2020) — Dedicated biographical article in English about KSR specifically, published by the Dakshin Marathi community of Bangalore.
T. Ramakrishnan, Cauvery: A Long-Winded Dispute (2024), The Hindu Group — A 2024 published book by a senior journalist of The Hindu that specifically names Karpur Srinivasa Rao as the lead engineer of the Mysore delegation in the 1924 Cauvery negotiations. Page references to be added on receipt of the physical copy. PrasannaKUSA (talk) PrasannaKUSA (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How much help did you get from an AI for this? Some of the passages in the article look like the output of an LLM chatbot. This isn't permitted. You can use an AI as an assistant only, not as an author. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of the writeup is directly from a LLM. Since English is my second language, I asked LLM to correct any grammar and spelling errors. Hope this is permitted. PrasannaKUSA (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember to carefully review the output. LLMs can go beyond what is asked of them. We'd rather see imperfect grammar from a human than a perfectly written text from an LLM in talk page posts. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the feedback. Yes, I read carefully any changes before incorporating. I have often seen them make mistakes. PrasannaKUSA (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LLM-based grammar checking almost always introduces unwelcome LLM features. Just don't use it for authoring text. Use it as a research assistant instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information. PrasannaKUSA (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whuat do you mean "page references to be added on receipt of the physical copy?" How would you cite a book that's only available in print if you don't have access to a copy? And in any case, simply namedropping someone's role isn't the same thing as establish why they're notable for that. Even the limited materials you've provided so far that are proper secondary sources frequently only mention this person in passing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was a comment for my own reference that inadvertently made into my response. Initially I had a photocopy of relevant pages of the book my friend had sent me where page numbers were smudged and not legible. So I made notes to myself that I need to update the page numbers when I received the book I purchased which I did and updated now. PrasannaKUSA (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

21:52, 28 April 2026 review of submission by Hankitab

[edit]

I am trying publish my work which I wrote for an university assignment. The assignment has been checked and approved by my professor, I just need to upload it to wikipedia. Hankitab (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Unfortunately we cannot accommodate deadlines you might be under. Your professor should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials; requiring the creation of a Wikipedia article is a very poor assignment to give students, as they have limited control of the process. Is your professor an experienced Wikipedia user? 331dot (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hankitab: See Wikipedia:There is no deadline.
Your professor should not be assigning Wikipedia projects to students without following the directions at Wikipedia:School and university projects/Instructions for teachers and lecturers.
While you wait, you may want to clean up the formatting. Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings, and there is no need to add extra boldfacing to headings; this is done automatically. We also prefer straight quotation marks to curly ones. Finally, use the {{cite book}} templates for the books you cite. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 28 April 2026 review of submission by SirBoBtheGreatest

[edit]

My draft has been submitted and fixed but has not been revied for a month. SirBoBtheGreatest (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is an all volunteer process, with people doing what they can, when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you haven't really resolved the problems. It's still basically restating NOAA data. There's a rudimentary introduction now, but it doesn't really explain why this tornado outbreak is a notable one, as it simply notes that it existed. A notable tornado outbreak ought to produce quite a good amount of actual WP:SECONDARY sources. It's meterologically interesting in that there are only a couple tornadoes in Idaho every year, but I'm not really seeing a small outbreak of F1 tornadoes as notable.
The article for a notable tornado or tornado outbreak would look more like this or this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

[edit]

06:28, 29 April 2026 review of submission by The visual communication of religion

[edit]

The reasons for rejection appear to be very general. I would still like to adjust the submission. Would it be possible for you to provide more specific advice on which elements are unsuitable and how to alter them in order to comply with your regulations. Thanks The visual communication of religion (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The visual communication of religion: it seems, from your username and the way the draft is written, that this is your own research you're writing about? In which, please note that we don't publish original research, nor do we want you to try to summarise what your research report into this topic said. We want to know what independent and reliable sources have said about this subject matter, possibly but not necessarily including what they may have said about this piece of research.
Also, if you do have some sort of connection with this study, you are likely to have a conflict of interest (COI) with regard to it, and should disclose that as instructed in the message posted on your talk page a couple of weeks ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really intend your username to be "The visual communication of religion"? Or did you confuse creating an article with creating an account? 331dot (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 29 April 2026 review of submission by ~2026-26116-47

[edit]

Would you be able to let this one pass just once for good times sake? You and I have been friends for so long so can I please have this favour ~2026-26116-47 (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious project to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge. Please use social media to do what you're trying to do. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm happy that you appear to be adjusting well to a new life in Australia, like the vast majority of wonderful people on this planet, including those on this noticeboard, there's nothing that justifies an entry in an encyclopedia. Go live your life and be happy; having your life being documented publicly is a double-edged sword. In a very real sense, a notable person has little control over how their life is considered by others.
One bit of advice: don't invoke friendship to get a favor. Friends don't need to be reminded of the friendship to help you, and it's insulting to people who haven't ever met you for you to pretend that you have a long-term friendship with them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 29 April 2026 review of submission by ~2026-25094-90

[edit]

Hello! I submitted a draft article about a living person, but it was declined for not meeting Wikipedia's criteria requirements. The reviewer stated that the draft lacks multiple independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. I have however included several German news articles, sports publications, and interviews, but some are being considered insufficient or too close to the subject. Could someone advise whether there are additional types of sources I should look for, or whether coverage in this field (fitness coaching / HYROX development) is generally considered notable enough for inclusion?

Thank you so much in advance! ~2026-25094-90 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From an initial search, I do not believe this individual is notable by English Wikipedia's definition at this time. What we're looking for is significant commentary about Tilly, without it being an interview or clearly sourced largely by direct quotes from Tilly.
Looking at the sources:
  • - The Well.Being cite is for an interview with Tilly, so can not establish notability
  • - The eishockey-magazin cite is explicitly a press release, so can not establish notability
  • - The Hyrox cite can not establish notability as Tilly is closely associated professionally with this competition (beyond simply being a competitor)
  • - A link to a book written by the subject or the article can not establish notability
That just leaves the two cites to the same Hamburger Abendblatt piece, but that's one I can not review; even if it's a wonderful source, that leaves this article in a state in which there's only one usable source to establish notability. It's likely that English Wikipedia has the highest bar for notability of any of the language editions, and lots of older articles that were passed in the early, chaotic days and would not pass muster today are being culled regularly when discovered. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the sources and explain this.
Based on this, would it make sense to try submitting the article to the German-language Wikipedia instead, given that some coverage exists in German media? Or would the same notability concerns likely apply there as well without additional independent sources?
Alternatively, would you recommend waiting until more substantial independent coverage becomes available? ~2026-25094-90 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in if you are the draft's creator. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 21:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with German Wikipedia's exact sourcing requirements, so any guidance I could provide you would suck. For English Wikipedia, unless ther eare better things out there that haven't been found, I'd just hold off on the article while waiting to see if the subject ever receives more substantial coverage. I just don't think there's any way to shuffle the sources you currently have into a sufficient English Wikipedia article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 29 April 2026 review of submission by GlobalGovind

[edit]

It is second time editors rejected the draft blaming the LLM. This was totally human written piece and I am not able to understand how exactly it needs to be re-framed. If you have any guidelines other than the standard guidelines please do let me know. Also, this is about a social movement and mainly aimed at the advocacy of human rights. Please help! GlobalGovind (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GlobalGorvind: Did you use Grammarly or a similar SPaG service? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 18:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir....I am Indian so we usually use Grammarly to polish the text for global audience. GlobalGovind (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GlobalGovind Grammarly incorporates an AI. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am resubmitting without using Grammarly now. Would that pass? Kindly let me know. GlobalGovind (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

[edit]

06:33, 30 April 2026 review of submission by BhagavanY

[edit]

Rambabu Gosala already notable telugu film lyricist and he got with his telugu wiki page - https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%97%E0%B1%8B%E0%B0%B8%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B2_%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%82%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%AC%E0%B1%81 kindly check and consider. BhagavanY (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, whats the meaning to his wiki draft page rejects. Draft:Gosala Rambabu BhagavanY (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BhagavanY: this draft is poorly referenced, promotional, and provides no evidence that the subject is notable; accordingly, it has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That this person has an article on another language Wikipedia is irrelevant; each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. It is possible for something to be acceptable on one verson but not another. If this person meets the criteria for inclusion at the Telegu Wikipedia, that's where you should focus your efforts. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the premier Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the matter that en.wp tends to be amongst the strictest, if not the strictest, when it comes to enforcing its sourcing and eligibility guidelines and policies. What's suitable for Telugu (or pretty much any other) Wikipedia will often need to be redone from scratch to match English Wikipedia's expectations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 16:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 30 April 2026 review of submission by ChristianKarnick

[edit]

I will have some help here to editing before creating this children's show Interstellar Ella please. ChristianKarnick (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKarnick: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 16:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:48, 30 April 2026 review of submission by Corto lu

[edit]

The proposal was refused for the following reason: "not adequately supported by reliable sources"

The references are two monographies (one written by a major Luxembourgish historian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Trausch), two academic articles and one newspaper article inside the most important Luxembourgish weekly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27L%C3%ABtzebuerger_Land). These sources seem reliable to me. Corto lu (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HitroMilanese Care to comment? Athanelar (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Athanelar
Responded on user's talk page where they pinged me earlier. Thanks. Hitro talk 14:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 30 April 2026 review of submission by BCWsea

[edit]

As mentioned in my response to the review of my submission, I am working to understand the standard that is equally applied, as I have worked to provide reliable, independent coverage from notable sources (Seattle Times, University of Washington, etc.)

In reviewing other entries from people who have held this particular role (and Fimia, as noted and cited in the article, has a deeper list of political offices held than many who already have articles) I am struggling to understand why most of the others qualify for articles, but Fimia does not.

Appreciate any additional clarification you can provide. BCWsea (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check the creation dates on those other articles. I predict a large number of them will predate April 2018 (when AfC was made mandatory) or March 2011 (when the drafting process was formalised). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 16:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the feedback. Many of them were created quite long ago. However there many others that were created within the past five years, and cite the same or similar sources. Which has me confused as to what the next steps would be, other than just adding more citations and blindly resubmitting. It appears that there are no uniform standards that apply, or clear unambiguous guidelines to follow. BCWsea (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BCWseaIt's certainly true that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you would be helping us no end if you could identify and fix/delete incorrect material. But there is one totally clear, totally unambiguous guideline: the WP:GOLDENRULE - and particularly the significant coverage aspect. If your draft had met that, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. One particular point about local politics is that "presumed notability" does not apply, hence the GOLDENRULE has to be met. There are some local politicians who once served in Ottawa or provincial/territorial assemblies. Or perhaps were long-time mayor of Vancouver. They may be covered by presumed notability (it doesn't guarantee a trouble free entry though, yes this is a grey area). Other politicians have to establish notability via the GOLDENRULE, excluding routine election material; moreover the content has to be source driven, a summary thereof. So just adding more citations absolutely isn't helpful, it's not possible to summarise in any meaningful way 40 sources which have 1 or 2 sentence drive-by mentions. What I often find is that the politician has a life story they want to project, but then use sources to confirm the details, which is totally wrong, indeed WP:BACKWARDS. Most politicians do not get a Wikipedia entry, along with most other humans, most other companies, schools, Pokémon "species", charities, race horses, family pets, boats..... ChrysGalley (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This has been very helpful. After reviewing these comments and the notability guidelines, I think that my initial draft took the wrong perspective, focusing simply on Fimia’s political resume vs her clear notability as an import regional and state-level policy figure. There are substantial sources that are available when I take the “write forward” approach from that angle. Again, appreciate the guidance. BCWsea (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 30 April 2026 review of submission by Chowell53

[edit]

I was told it did meet the criteria, but that I was doing something wrong. Can you please advise? Chowell53 (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer stated "Woefully undercited BLP, and given the numerous previous declines pointing out the same problem, I see no reason to allow this to be continuously resubmitted". 331dot (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying. Please give me a chance to fix it. Please Chowell53 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chowell53: Unless you begin supporting claims in the article with sources, there is zero chance this draft will be reconsidered. This is why the first thing you do when writing an article is find sources, so that you can summarise them. Writing the text and then backfilling with sources generally does not work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 17:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will put them up. Thank you Chowell53 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has been declined 9 times and now rejected, it will not be considered further, totally devoid of independent reliable sources, you are wasting everyone's time here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do have reliable sources. I am just trying to figure out how to add them. Please don't reject me. Not yet, please Chowell53 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chowell53. 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.
Doing anything at all towards an article without first finding the required independent reliable substantial sources is like building a house without first surveying the plot to make sure it is fit to build on, and without checking local building laws: your house is likely to fall down, or you'll be told to pull it down.
The only way you have any hope of creating this particular article now is by finding at least three three sources each of which clearly meets all the criteria in WP:42. If you can find these, you can approach the reviewer who finally rejected your draft, cite the sources, and show how they all meet all the criteria. (I advise you not to bother them unless you have a cast-iron set of sources to cite).
If they agree, then you can have another go at the draft. Forget absolutely everything that you know about Altringer, and write a summary of what those independent sources say: nothing else. Even if you disagree with them. ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 30 April 2026 review of submission by Chowell53

[edit]

Can I please have a few days to fix this page before it gets rejected? Chowell53 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected. You may still edit it, and if you can fundamentally fix the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you may then appeal to the rejecting reviewer. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

[edit]

04:31, 1 May 2026 review of submission by ZyTun

[edit]

Please check this article. I polished. Is it ready to move main space? ZyTun (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last decline, the only changes you made were adding an unsourced sentence about the head coach leaving, adding a redlink to a player, and adding a source for Shan United's standing in the league that doesn't mention Shan United at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
https://www.moi.gov.mm/npe/2024-mnmaaamiusmiiligpiungpaiattk-pngchngnesnny-rmyuuniukttkasng
is this link realibale source? ZyTun (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I also added source sentence about Head coach leaving. Thanks for your caring. ZyTun (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 1 May 2026 review of submission by Kobayashikolin

[edit]

Todd, Susan. "MIT Sloan School of Management Career Development Office - Spring Dale Invest Japan - Circulation Manager Intern". MIT Sloan School of Management Career Development Office

Please review the latest edit and give the permission of publishing. Kobayashikolin (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kobayashikolin: We don't cite LinkedIn or Medium (no editorial oversight in both cases) and the MIT source doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). This draft has been rejected for refusal to heed reviewers' comments and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 07:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11:03, 1 May 2026 review of submission by Macthing

[edit]

Hello, I'm looking for some guidance on Draft:Takis (designer), which was rejected on 30 April 2026.

The draft has been through seven revisions over seven months with six different reviewers (Wikishovel, Bobby Cohn, Timtrent, Nighfidelity, Cmajorftw, and most recently Cosmic840). I've tried to address each round of feedback — removing promotional language, unsourced claims, cherry-picked review quotes, and venue/credit lists. The current version has 10 references, each of which either directly discusses the subject or verifies a specific achievement.

Cosmic840's rejection was a single line: "The subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion." On their talk page they added it's "not notable enough" and "still not written from a neutral point of view," and suggested I come here. I've since revised the article to address the NPOV point.

The subject is a set and costume designer working in opera, theatre, and circus. I've been making the notability case under WP:CREATIVE — he has two Laurence Olivier Award nominations for Outstanding Achievement in Opera (2020, 2022), an International Opera Awards Best Designer nomination (2025), and work included in a Victoria and Albert Museum exhibition (2018). He's also faculty at RADA.

I'll be honest about the weakness: there are no independent English-language feature articles about him. The two most substantial sources are a LiFO profile (major Greek newspaper, but mostly Q&A) and a Stage feature (paywalled, so I can't fully confirm the format). Production reviews in the Guardian, Telegraph, and Independent mention his design work, but they're about the productions not about him personally — previous reviewers rightly flagged this.

So my questions are really:

  1. Do the Olivier and IOA nominations plus the V&A exhibition meet the WP:CREATIVE threshold on their own? Or is independent secondary coverage always needed on top of awards?
  2. Does the current draft read as neutral enough, or is there still a promotional tone I'm not seeing?
  3. Since this was rejected rather than declined, what are my options practically? Can it be reopened, or would I need to start a new draft?

I'd rather hear "the sources aren't there yet" than keep submitting something that doesn't qualify. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you. Macthing (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English. You may provide a brief explanation of what a non-English source says on the draft talk page, for the benefit of the reviewer.
Notability may be met by an award or nomination for one, but there still needs to be other sources to summarize in the article, to indicate why they got an award. That should involve some form of critical analysis and commentary.
Rejected means that a draft may not be resumbmitted, that it's probably the end of the road for the draft at this time. If you are able to change the draft to address the concerns that led to rejection, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask them to reconsider the rejection(instead of just resubmitting the draft as you would after a decline).
Do you have a connection to this person? 331dot (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A set and costume designer working in opera, theatre, and circus is highly unlikely to have the sources to merit an article in the first place due to their status as backstage personnel; most of the news coverage is going to be focused on the actors, with any discussion of the staging and costuming being minimal and unlikely to discuss Takis in significant form. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 15:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 1 May 2026 review of submission by Trees research

[edit]

What is "various issues with templates possibly do to LLM?" Trees research (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The previous reviewer was stating that there are problems with the formatting in the draft which might indicate the text was AI generated.
They also indicated "unclear notability." In order for this person to have an article on Wikipedia, they need to meet our special definition of a notable person. Athanelar (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Energy 106

[edit]

I tried to make a submission citing the Energy106 website which got declined, upon searching through the draft submissions I found that there was another draft that mentioned the radio station, it would be good to have a wikipedia page going through the history of the station and its legal present day form, it is hard to find any sources about the station online as it was a pirate radio station during the troubles and directly after the good friday agreement. There is also a lot of rumour and speculation in regards to why the station stopped broadcasting in the early to mid 2000s. ~2026-26547-19 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We do not deal in rumour and speculation, and we have zero tolerance for copyright violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 15:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

16:48, 1 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-24855-28

[edit]

I don't think any of my declined pages at User talk:~2026-24855-28 should have been declined. Being head of the USPTO is a very notable position according to WP:NPOL.

Therefore, in this special case, secondary sources are not necessary as long as their notability is verified, of which it is easy to do on the official USPTO website.

Example: See Teresa Stanek Rea. Everyone I put is just as notable or more notable than her.

~2026-24855-28 (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1352036893"