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


March 15

04:48, 15 March 2026 review of submission by LongTeng82

Hello, I am seeking guidance regarding my draft article Draft:Rising Dragon School, which was recently declined with the comment that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

The draft currently cites coverage from China Daily, China Central Television (CCTV), Sohu News, and Europe Times, which all independently discuss the school. I asked for clarification on the draft talk page but have not yet received a response.

Could someone please advise whether the issue relates to the type of sources, the number of sources, or how the sources are used within the article? I would like to improve the draft appropriately before resubmitting.

Thank you for any guidance. LongTeng82 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer was blocked as a sockpuppet account, so I have un-reviewed it. It is now waiting for review again.
Regarding your question about sources, see WP:Golden Rule to understand the kind of sources required. Ideally a reviewer likes to see at least three sources that each meet all the golden-rule criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@LongTeng82 - apologies for the slight hiccup in the review process. I don't know the details of that, but I've given a more detailed set of responses than I would normally give in order to assist you. Basically ditch AI, it's definitely not your friend, and look for rock solid significant coverage of the school as institution, rather than Scott giving interviews. I have to say I think it's unlikely that can be met, typically this sort of school won't get over the notability hurdle, some universities struggle! ChrysGalley (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello ChrysGalley,
Thanks for such a detailed response, I appreciate the guidance.
You are correct that I used an AI tool to help polish the wording and grammar of the draft. My intention was simply to improve the clarity of the writing rather than generate content, but I understand the concern and I will rewrite the article myself to ensure it reflects Wikipedia’s expected tone and style.
Regarding the sources, I understand your point about the distinction between coverage of the school as an institution and interviews focused on Scott Bird. Looking again at the sources, it does appear that much of the media coverage discusses Scott Bird personally and his work in China rather than the school alone.
In that case, would it potentially be better to create a biography article about Scott Bird instead? Several of the sources focus on his background and journey training and teaching martial arts in China. There is also earlier independent coverage from the Solihull Times in the UK from the 1990s relating to his martial arts career.
If that would be a more suitable approach under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, I would be grateful for your advice on whether pursuing a biography article first would make more sense.
Thank you again for your time and assistance. LongTeng82 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@LongTeng82 It's just a simple question: does that subject, any subject, have 3 rock solid secondary, truly independent, sources, with significant coverage per WP:42? If so, summarise those 3 sources, don't do WP:BACKWARDS. So if SB meets that then you can certainly consider it. Forget LLM, we can edit out dodgy grammar and spelling mistakes in seconds, but LLM takes hours to unravel. However writing about yourself is (a) hard to impossible, I don't have the skill-set to do it (b) strongly discouraged under WP:FAQAS. Fixing, improving, repairing, sourcing existing Wikipedia articles will not get you many thank yous, but is a much more creditable thing to do. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

05:41, 15 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-16311-81

Why not any wikipedia page about Jitendra Singh Nimod even he is a well known Web Developer. Many writers wrote about him. ~2026-16311-81 (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

There were zero sources cited in that draft. If "many writers wrote about him" then those writers should be cited.
We also don't accept LLM-generated drafts.
The draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Full stop. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

07:38, 15 March 2026 review of submission by Youssuhhh

The subject is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you can fix this please Youssuhhh (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Youssuhhh: I asked you already yesterday, why do you keep submitting a blank page? We have actual drafts to review, you know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
The content appears to be misplaced here User:Youssuhhh. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Which has since been deleted under G11. Athanelar (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

09:06, 15 March 2026 review of submission by Devolver789

I significantly updated the draft page and even became aware if both the sources and the formatting of the draft have met Wikipedia's standards and policies. MrDevolver (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered for inclusion anymore. The only way to reverse this would be to appeal to the rejecting reviewer, @Zxcvbnm, directly. Athanelar (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Alright then MrDevolver (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

March 16

02:09, 16 March 2026 review of submission by GRGURJAR

I have created the Wikipedia page of Mridul Tiwari on the basis of all the news pages and it is based on all the facts, there is nothing wrong in it. GRGURJAR (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Mridul Tiwari has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion unless the rejecting reviewer, @Theroadislong, can be convinced to overturn their rejection. Athanelar (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft review request – Kissa Court Kachehari Ka

Hello,

I would appreciate some guidance from WikiProject Film editors regarding Draft:Kissa Court Kachehari Ka.

The film was released on 13 March 2026 and the draft now includes coverage and critical reviews from several publications such as The Times of India, India TV, News18, Lokmat, Jansatta and Film Information by Komal Nahta.

The draft has already been submitted for AfC review. Since the film has now been released and reviews have been published, I was wondering if any editor from the project could kindly take a look and suggest improvements or help with review.

Thank you.

Sadda 022 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted it for a review; we don't do reviews on demand(because then everyone would demand a speedy review) so asking for a review does not speed this volunteer driven process. If you want to communicate with the Film Project, please communicate with it directly.
Also, if you have no conflict of interest with the film, you are free to place it into the encyclopedia yourself with the 'Move' function(though its inadvisable unless you have had drafts accepted in the past). 331dot (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

10:56, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Charles 091

I’m requesting assistance because I need to find reliable sources. Charles 091 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not likely to find anyone willing to help co-edit here at the AFC helpdesk. In addition, with small games like this, if you can't find significant secondary coverage at a cursory search, it's not likely to present itself. The vast majority of video games, just like the vast majority of things in the world in general, are not notable by Wikipedia standards and do not need a standalone article here. Athanelar (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

10:57, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Elektra Techno Labs Pvt Ltd

what are the reason of rejection Elektra Techno Labs Pvt Ltd (talk) 10:57, 16 March 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. The reason for declining it was left by the reviewer. Do you have a more specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

12:00, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Jarxdanthony

Hello, could someone please move my sandbox at User:Jarxdanthony/sandbox to Draft:Jarxd Anthony (page title: Jarxd Anthony) so I can submit it for review? Thank you! Jarxdanthony (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jarxdanthony: no, but I have declined and deleted it. Please do not write about yourself, and whatever you do, do not promote yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
ok, sorry I didn't know, So who can write about me🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽 Jarxdanthony (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
The news, professional critics, something like that. Once others who are not associated with you write about you, there would then be things to summarize in an article about you. If you want to tell about yourself, that's exactly what social media is for.
Please see WP:PROUD; there are good reasons to not want an article. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
PS: Please don't start multiple threads at once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
ok thank you Jarxdanthony (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

13:30, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Writersdesk2022

what can I do so my work was not for nothing and this Draft is being accepted? Writersdesk2022 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Rejection means it's the end of the line for the draft, at least for the time being. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

13:59, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Kainoa Cortez

How do I make my article meet the Wikipedia criteria? Kainoa Cortez (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not notable in Wikipedia terms, your draft has zero independent reliable sources, it has been rejected there is nothing you can do except wait until reliable sources have covered you in significant detail and then wait until somebody entirely unconnected to you decides to write an article based on those sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

14:18, 16 March 2026 review of submission by FilmViewer05

Why was my submission declined? Can you please help? FilmViewer05 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer linked to WP:TOOSOON; it is too soon for an article about this unreleased film. Please see the notability guidelines for unreleased films; in short, there must be something particularly notable about the production of the film itself for it to merit an article before its release. You just have routine information about the film. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

22:04, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Brianbram

Hi. I'm not an experienced submitter, and I really need your help in understanding why this entry got rejected a second time and how I can modify it for approval. The subject seems to meet the criteria for inclusion, and the references in this revised entry are correct, I think. What am I doing wrong? I would like the entry to be successful. The subject has been publishing his indy autobiographical comic series for more than a decade, and is an Eisner Award nominee. Any advice you could provide is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the advice. brianbram (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason it was declined is precisely because in the reviewer's opinion it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Relevant information is in the decline notice, and you can always ask @MCE89 (the declining reviewer) if you need further clarification. Athanelar (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

23:56, 16 March 2026 review of submission by Wikiman2230

Requesting for my draft to be lifted from a rejection to a decline. I was originally going to edit on this further and improve the draft more. Wikiman (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

If you can present three independent, reliable sources, per WP:42 which give significant coverage of this conflict (as opposed to statues, islands in the sun, assorted dead dictators and what-not) then I may be receptive. I wouldn't want you to get your hopes too high though. ChrysGalley (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure this "conflict" is discussed on the micronation's article as well as that of its leader. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

March 17

01:09, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Rickypriv

Keeps getting denied due to music repertoire. Rickypriv (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The decline notice on that page mentions nothing whatsoever about music repertoire. The article has been declined because the draft is currently completely lacking references. See WP:Verifiability and Help:Referencing for beginners. Athanelar (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

05:51, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Noushad shereef

does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion Noushad shereef (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

05:55, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Dhanyalal26

I made an article about Shibu Prabhakar. I know him very well. because he is my husband. And the team rejected the article? Can you help me to publish the article? Dhanyalal26 (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Dhanyalal26 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended; the full title is needed. However, it was generated by an AI and has been deleted. We want you to write in your own words without using an AI. It's best if you don't attempt to write about your husband and allow an article to develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of the topic and chooses to write about it, summarizing what that coverage says. Know that an article is not necessarily something to desire; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

06:06, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Dr. Mamatamayee Choudhury

how can it be published?

Dr. Mamatamayee Choudhury (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dr. Mamatamayee Choudhury: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't host curricula vitae and you cite zero sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

08:47, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Infinityeditor

I have made this article reliable and honest as possible. What change does i need to do in this. Infinityeditor (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

He seems to be more than "a friend of a friend", as you took a picture of him where he posed for you.
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not shown that he is a notable actor. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I dont have any personal connection with him.He is a friend of my friend and i just know him as his friend, so im not connected with him. Infinityeditor (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
You're connected enough to meet with him to get him to pose for a picture for you. Was he aware it was for Wikipedia? Did he direct any of your editing? 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I get why you might think that, but it’s not really the case. I just happened to take a photo of him it doesn’t mean I have any close personal or professional connection with him.
He didn’t know the photo might be used for Wikipedia, and he hasn’t been involved in writing or editing the article at all. Everything I wrote was based only on publicly available information, and I tried to keep it neutral.
He hasn’t guided or influenced any part of the content. Infinityeditor (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
That's not what you told Thilsebatti. You told him Ajikumar "personally asked me" to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
All I'm looking for is honesty. Where I live, "friend of a friend" would not include something like this, taking a picture and editing at their request. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

12:15, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Renfluence PC

Our page got rejected. What must change for it to be approved? Renfluence PC (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It was blatant promotion and has been deleted.
You disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft; if you are an employee, you must mame the stricter paid editing disclosure instead, ideally on your user page.
Please read WP:YESPROMO and WP:BOSS; Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

14:42, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Revelly

I want to understand what areas can be improved for this article to get published Revelly (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Revelly: Wikipedia does not publish original research, nor is it a place for you to tell the world about your ideas. When the only source you're citing is a paper you've authored, and in particular when you're describing the subject as a "proposed" system, it is blatantly obvious that the subject is not notable, at least not yet. Once it has been discussed by multiple independent and reliable sources, you can then summarise what they have said, cite them as references, and you might be in with a chance, not before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

16:05, 17 March 2026 review of submission by AltaiAdygea122

i want the page AltaiAdygea122 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what Wikipedia wants is something very different from what you appear to want, @AltaiAdygea122. Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

16:19, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Newmyths

Hi there. I am trying to improve and expand the currently inadequate WKP entry on the London-based, American journalist Stryker McGuire (a living person). I recently submitted my expanded and improved draft of this article for approval, but it was declined with two lines of feedback from an account which is a confirmed SockPuppet who, it seems, didn’t even realize that there is already an existing WKP article on this subject.

Regardless, I have tried to address the reviewer's concerns and improve the article by adding more sources commenting on the subject’s writings, in addition to referencing articles written by the subject. Most often, I am linking to articles written by the subject for the sake of the biographical information the sources (all reputable news organizations) provide. The subject is a political & cultural commentator, and so it’s difficult to summarize the significance of his writings without linking to his own articles.

I would truly appreciate any feedback, the more specific the better, concerning the problems relating to my draft since I still hope to re-submit it for approval.

Here’s the existing entry: Stryker McGuire

…& here’s my proposed rewrite: Draft:Stryker McGuire Newmyths (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Newmyths The whole url is not needed when linking, just [[Stryker McGuire]].
Rewrites are not done via this process. As the article is not protected, you are free to place your text in the article yourself; but you would likely be quickly reverted. You only have one source. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the topic. You are incorrect; a Wikipedia article should not reference someone's own work, it should summarize what is said about the work. If you have no independent sources, there can be no article. It is true that journalists don't often write about each other unless one is Tom Brokaw or Walter Cronkite, but they don't get a pass on the independent and verifiability requirements.
I suggest that you propose small, incremental changes, not a wholesale rewrite. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Newmyths This rewrite is, to be blunt, a complete mess. It's promotional in tone, full of overlinking and refbombing, the lead is overlong, contains citations, and even contains information which is not actually present in the body of the article (the lead should summarise the content in the article; there's a mention of a story about 'Cool Britannia' which has three sources of its own (again, see the fact that the lead should not contain citations) but is never actually mentioned in the body of the article.)
Rather than outright reverting it to the pre-rewritten version it I'm going to take a scythe to it and cut out the most problematic parts. Athanelar (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
In fact, I am going to revert it to the pre-rewritten version, because there are also blatant source to text discrepancies. The claim that For more than three decades between 1978 and 2009, he was a writer and editor at Newsweek is sourced to an article that makes no mention of either of those dates, nor of his position at Newsweek; its only mention of his career is that McGuire has worked for Newsweek for more than 20 years. Athanelar (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Athanelar, I apologize for not better understanding WKP editing conventions and for my misguided attempt to improve the currently inadequate article. At the time of your reversion, I was attempting to remove primary sources on account of the article's "excessive reliance" on them (e.g https://www.thedailybeast.com/author/stryker-mcguire/ , which does confirm the fact in question - that McGuire worked for Newsweek for 30 years); hence the source to text discrepancy. To clarify, I am not actually connected to the subject but admire his work and had hoped to make a valuable contribution to an online institution I value. Obviously, I failed but thank you for clarifying why. Newmyths (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
You haven't 'failed,' I encourage you to work on the rewrite some more at Draft:Stryker McGuire being aware of the feedback I've given. It is certainly true that the article as it stands is in need of a rewrite. Athanelar (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

17:44, 17 March 2026 review of submission by 21stcenturycoelacanth

Hi all. I'm looking for advice as to how best to cite this particular site. It's Melon's official site for music chart rankings in Korea. See this link: https://www.melon.com/chart/search/index.htm For example, Aoi Sangoshou peaked at number 3 on the J-Pop chart the week of July 15th. I can view this information by selecting 'Weekly Chart' in the table in the link, '2024', 'July', '07.15-07.21', and 'J-Pop'. It's quite easy to use if you translate the page using Google Translate or similar.

The trouble is finding a permanent link to this information, because if you copy the link to this page, it just shows the chart index page, not the information you've inputted. If I was to cite a chart ranking using this site, how would I go about it? Just link to the search index? I wouldn't be sure how to go about saving an archive/snapshot of the site with that information visible either. I'd be grateful for any advice. 21stcenturycoelacanth (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Before you get to the final page you're looking for, can you right click on the link and select "open page in new tab"? That might open a page with the correct link on it.
Right now the page you linked is not operational for me, as if the site is down. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for getting back to me! Sadly your suggestion doesn't work, trying to open the page in a new tab by any means gives an about:blank#blocked error. I'm thinking of just linking to the index page instead? 21stcenturycoelacanth (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
You could, if the link worked. What you posted above gives HTPP error 406. It doesn't work. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That may just be on your end, because I can access the link fine. May be a region lock thing? I'm EU based and can access the exact above link no problem. 21stcenturycoelacanth (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Possibly. I'm in the US and I consistently get "HTTP error code 406 not acceptable". Tried with three different browsers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

19:17, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Noushad shereef

If you can, please edit and set Noushad shereef (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

We don't do co-editing here at this help desk; your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

19:28, 17 March 2026 review of submission by Gpsinggh

Why my draft declined? Gpsinggh (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Gpsinggh Your draft is actually in your sandbox, I fixed your header. There is already an article at Sukhvinder Singh (cricketer) and you have edited it. Why are you attempting to submit a draft about the same person? 331dot (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I see now. You edited the article and replaced it with your draft. Please review the Biographies of Living Persons policy; every fact about a person that potentially could be challenged needs a reliable sources; you only had one source. You don't need to submit a draft, you can just edit the article- but you need sources, we need to know where you are getting your information. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Sukhvinder Singh is related to me, and I am creating this article on his behalf. Another article about him was previously created by a different editor. However, the editor has been repeatedly removing the content I added. Therefore, I created a new draft to include the correct information. My intention is to ensure that the article contains accurate and complete details. Gpsinggh (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Gpsinggh You should disclose a conflict of interest on your user page.
Instead of using the draft process, you should use the edit request process to propose edits on the article talk page(the edit request wizard can facilitate this). You should propose incremental changes, one or two small changes at a time, to increase the chances a volunteer will review your request; large changes or wholesale rewrites take more time to review and reduce the chances a volunteer will look at them. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I would also suggest that you read why an article is not necessarily desirable for someone(and show it to your relative); there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@331dotThanks, I appreciate. Gpsinggh (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Gpsinggh Your changes to the article Sukhvinder Singh (cricketer) were reverted because they are not properly referenced to reliable sources. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and is all the more important for biographies of living persons. All of the information you add must be referenced to a reliable source. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance. Athanelar (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Draft:Anu Shah — biography of Indian-American entrepreneur

Hello. I recently submitted Draft:Anu Shah for review.

The draft is a biography of Anu Shah, an Indian-American

entrepreneur and technology executive who has held roles

at Amazon and Meta Platforms.

The draft has 18 citations from independent sources

including Bloomberg, University of Leeds, CNBC Africa,

TEDx University of Leeds, e27, DealStreetAsia, and others.

I would appreciate any feedback on:

1. Whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish notability

2. Any areas that could be strengthened before review

3. Estimated likelihood of acceptance

The draft can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anu_Shah

Thank you for your time.

~~~~ BusinessProfileEditor (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted it; we don't do pre-review reviews. Please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@BusinessProfileEditor: Let's test that hypothesis.
You have a single usable source. This is fatal for the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, @BusinessProfileEditor your username implies you may be editing in return for payment. If so, you need to follow the disclosure instructions at WP:PAID. Please respond to this question before you edit any further, or your account may be blocked on suspicion of undisclosed paid editing. Athanelar (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
They did curiously disclose that they don't have a COI and are not paid, which leads me to think the opposite. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

March 18

Request for second review — Draft:Presolv360

My draft Draft:Presolv360 has been declined three times by the same reviewer with identical template feedback. I have rewritten the draft significantly each time per WP:NPOV, WP:YFA, and WP:RS guidance. I am a disclosed paid editor per WP:PAID on User:Legalwiki123. I would appreciate a second reviewer looking at the current draft and pointing to specific sentences that remain promotional, as the same generic feedback has been given three times without specific examples. Legalwiki123 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

There have been two reviewers, not the same one all three times. Did you actually read the links in the feedback you have been given?
It is evident that this wasn't written by you, but by an AI, given the name dropping of sources and formatting features. That isn't permitted; see WP:NEWLLM. The draft also cites Times of India multiple times, which isn't considered a trusted source on Wikipedia; see WP:TIMESOFINDIA.
The publicity purpose is evident from going into unnecessary detail about WP:CORPROUTINE business activities, and unduly emphasizing services and founders.
Finally, as a paid editor, you are being paid to learn the rules here without help from unpaid volunteers, whose donated time is far more valuable than yours. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Legalwiki123
Would you expect to take on a new task in your work without first getting the requisite training? (Writing for Wikipedia is very different from any other kind of writing that I've encountered).
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

05:07, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Anchlrbh

Hey, Can you tell me why you rejected this? This person is working in theatres from last 8, 9 years and have done many advertisements for Fair & Gold cream,Road safety with Amitabh Bachchan,Many ads for mobile phones with Farhan Akhtar,in 2024 he was in Apne Ram documentry by Priydarshan. Now Worked in Bhoot Bangla in Upcoming bollywood big film. I have references in 50+ newspapers. So now where is the mistake? Anchlrbh (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The draft failed to demonstrate notability as defined in WP:NACTOR. If you can make a strong case for notability, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft to re-open it for improvement and resubmission. Right now you cite only two sources, and in a biography of a living person, every assertion you make about the person needs to be verifiable by a reliable source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok So, please revive this draft. I will add more references Anchlrbh (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Please pay attention to what I wrote. I am not the reviewer who rejected it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Then why you are texting for this? I think You rejected this. Anchlrbh (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
You asked a question on a help page. I and many other people monitor this page and answer questions. That's why. If you want to ask the reviewer a question, then use the reviewer's talk page.
Can you not read the reviewer's name in the rejection notice? Theroadislong rejected it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I have removed my rejection, please add more sources, read WP:REFB and re-submit when you think they pass the criteria ay WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Ahnchlrbh This help desk is monitored by many people, not just the reviewer of your draft. If you intended to communicate with just them, you should do that on their personal user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

05:20, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Mouadh.jaber

Could you advise me what how to publish biography Mouadh.jaber (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a resume, not a biographical encyclopedic article. May I suggest you publish it on LinkedIn instead. nil nz 05:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
You can't publish it. It was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. And, it has been deleted because its existence was purely for publicity purposes, which is prohibited on Wikipedia.
Please answer: Exactly why do you want an article about yourself? Vanity? Publicity? Search engine optimization? Job search? None of those are valid reasons.
If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write an article about you. Whether that happens next week, 5 years from now, or after you are dead, shouldn't matter to you in the least. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

08:23, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Lots3000

Hi, I have submitted a draft about a Norwegian musician (member of Circus Maximus) with multiple sources (NRK, LouderSound). I would appreciate a review when possible. Thank you! Lots3000 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

You have already submitted it for a review, so it will be reviewed at some point; there's no need for a separate request for a review. I would advise you to continue improving it while it's in the queue as I think it's very unlikely to be accepted in its current state. The vast majority of the sources are interviews, which can't establish notability, the few independent sources are reviews talk very little about Mats Haugen directly, and there's poor direct sourcing of much of the prose in the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Lots3000.
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) 12:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

08:57, 18 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-16958-57

I am requesting assistance with my draft article, Draft:Beck_Martin. I would appreciate feedback on whether the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and advice on improving the article’s structure, sourcing, and overall quality. If there are any specific issues preventing the draft from being accepted, I would be grateful for guidance on how to address them. ~2026-16958-57 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly @~2026-16958-57 - it's best not to use LLM, including when liaising with other editors. Secondly at the time I rejected it, and despite multiple previous declines, the YouTube and Amazon source were once again presented in the draft, which made me feel you were not taking previous review advice into consideration. They have now gone, which is good, and what you need to do now is look very carefully at WP:MUSICBIO and check that the notability criteria works for the subject AND that you have really solid sourcing for it. This list is for music albums but you may find it helpful in this context: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. If you are the subject then you need to declare it on your talk page (you have probably logged out of your account here), but it's then hard/impossible/strongly discouraged to do, see WP:FAQAS. But first of all, read the advice already given on your draft to understand the previous draft's problems. It's not easy doing article. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

09:07, 18 March 2026 review of submission by DineshKumarDelhi

"I am a new editor and I need guidance on the rejection of Draft:Surya Sonal Singh. I have addressed the previous concerns regarding AI-style phrasing by manually rewriting the entire text in simple language. Additionally, I have now included a significant, independent secondary source from News24 (a major national news outlet in India), which provides in-depth coverage of the subject's environmental activism and 'Surya Model' of digital outreach. I would like to know if this new evidence meets the WP:NPOL or WP:BIO criteria, or if further specific improvements are required." dinesh kumar (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

He does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as he does not hold elective office or has not won election to elective office. You wrote that "Singh is known for his work in environment and wildlife protection in the Palamu area" but there is very little indication of this in the draft; you mention a film and a speech but give no indication that those things were particularly influential in public policy or led to widespread public awareness cited to him personally. I agree it's the end of the line for this draft, sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Vapid phrases like "received attention in the media" clearly indicates that the AI slop hasn't been cleaned up. The draft has been rejected, so it won't be considered further. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

11:54, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Creative ssr

Hello,

I have created a draft article about an Indian author, but it has been declined three times due to concerns about notability and reliable sources.

I have added references from newspapers such as Dainik Bhaskar and Rajasthan Patrika, along with some other media coverage. However, I understand that the current sources may not be considered sufficient.

Could you please guide me on:

1. What type of sources would be considered strong enough for notability in this case? 2. Whether regional newspaper coverage is sufficient, or if national-level sources are required? 3. How I can improve the draft to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for biographies?

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Creative ssr (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Creative ssr.
Please see golden rule for information about the kinds of sources that are required.
Your user name suggests that you may be professionally involved in PR: if this is the case, please note that paid editors must make a formal declaration of that status.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

12:33, 18 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-17235-55

  • ~2026-17235-55 (talk · contribs) (TB)
    • No draft specified!

I have no idea why there’s an issue with this article, first it was removed because there isn’t enough sources but then after adding more it was removed again. What is wrong with it? It’s a blockbuster film that is going to be released in a couple days and already has the trailer out. ~2026-17235-55 (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you edited while logged out, and you did not provide the title of the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-17235-55.
Has there been reliable, independent material published, going into detail about the film? If not, then it is probably WP:TOOSOON. (Note that neither brief mentions, nor articles based on press-releases or interviews, will count towards that). ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

14:07, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Editormed4445354

Hello i just want some advice or an editor to edit my draft because i have over 9 media coverage in it but it still declined thank you Editormed4445354 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Your article has been rejected, and will not be considered for inclusion unless you can convince the rejecting reviewer to overturn that decision. Athanelar (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

14:08, 18 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-17102-59

Can you identify which sources are not considered valid or significant? Can you tell me which sections or phrases to rewrite? What copyright issues are violated? I've cited public sources. Thank you ~2026-17102-59 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how she's notable; she owns a particular vehicle and goes around the country promoting it. That might be relevant to the vehicle itself(Pivotal BlackFly) and could be used to expand that article instead. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see copyright issues being flagged. The possibility of copyright issues is just part of the description of some of the issues related to LLM usage.
In this case, the article was clearly written by an LLM. It's the same formal-but-stilted style, with some of the favorite go-to phrases of LLMs, and the strange tendency of LLMs futilely making a Wikipedia article to, rather than describe the coverage in sources, talk about the existence of sources saying something. The whole article is problematic; I'm not taking a position on whether this individual is notable, but this article would need to be WP:TNT'ed and written properly without the use of LLMs to be taken into consideration. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
It's been TNT'd. Now we'll see if it can be created properly the second time around. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

14:53, 18 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-17024-10

how can i get this published it got labeled LLM generated. i put it in one to format ~2026-17024-10 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I can see that LLM was used in an acceptable way, however the article would still be unacceptable as the sourcing does not indicate they meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The Opry profile and his own site have zero value as they are not independent, nor are tour listings or interviews. We need to see published stories about him from people not connected to him. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

15:56, 18 March 2026 review of submission by Music Article Creator

Hi,

I have submitted a draft on T. S. Nandakumar (Carnatic percussionist). The draft includes coverage from Sruti Magazine, The Times of India, Bhavan’s Journal, and other independent sources. I would appreciate a review when possible.

Thank you. Music Article Creator (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not necessary to submit and then ask for a review; your draft is submitted and pending. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Declined as evidently AI generated. Rewrite from scratch as a summary of the information in your sources. Athanelar (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Times of India is not considered a trustworthy source. LLM chatbots seem to love citing it, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

March 19

02:46, 19 March 2026 review of submission by HarshBharti556

Can you help me how I be more professional HarshBharti556 (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

For one, you need to disclose your WP:COI with this article immediately, before doing anything else. See WP:DISCLOSE for guidance on how to do this.
As for the draft itself, for an article about Harsh Bharti to exist, you need to have significant coverage of Harsh Barti, in sources that are both reliable and independent. Just a list of kickboxing results does not demonstrate this is a notable athlete. Every fact about Bharti ought to have a citation to a reliable and independent source of that information. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

05:27, 19 March 2026 review of submission by Anisha at Increff

Why the page was rejected? Anisha at Increff (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What part of the reviewer's feedback do you not understand? It would be a good idea for you to click on all the blue links within that feedback and read what they lead to.
I am not a reviewer, but having read the draft myself, I cannot see anything in it, summarised from independent third parties writing about the subject, that suggest anything Noteworthy about the subject company. Routine business operations like fund raising and executive personnel changes do not contribute to encyclopedic notability, nor do mere descriptions of what the company does.
Wikipedia has little use for what a company says about itself, only in what other unconnected third-party Reliable sources have said about it at some length (rather than just passing mentions or list entries). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Anisha at Increff I suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues; most company representatives fail in their efforts to force the issue of creating an article about their company instead of allowing one to organically develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and chooses to write about the topic, summarizing what those sources say. Company representatives, especially without prior editing experience, have great difficulty doing that, as they myust set aside what they know about their own company and all materials it puts out, as well as all reporting of routine business activities(like commencing operations, raising capital, acquiring competitors). 331dot (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Hey i am very new to this can you explain in simple Anisha at Increff (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Anisha at Increff. Have you read the various pages linked in the decline notice and in the replies above?
In simple terms: it is likely that what you are trying to do is impossible, and you should stop trying. ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

09:53, 19 March 2026 review of submission by Jakob Øverland

Hi, I’m new to Wikipedia and was wondering why my draft was rejected, and what changes are needed to make it suitable for publication. Thank you for your help. Jakob Øverland (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jakob Øverland.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Your draft does not resemble that description in any way.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

15:50, 19 March 2026 review of submission by Azmi03editor

Why article not Accepted Azmi03editor (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Azmi03editor: welcome back. Have you read the answers you got here and here? If anything in those answers is unclear, you can come back and ask about that, but please start by reading the information you have already been given. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
You have received answers twice already. The draft has been rejected, which means stop, move on to another topic, this won't be considered further. The community's donated unpaid time is far more valuable than yours, so please don't waste any more of the community's time on this, especially if you ignore previous replies you have received. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

18:22, 19 March 2026 review of submission by OperaNewMusicFan

Hi! I'm new to this and sometimes doing a shoddy job out of ignorance! I'm still working on finding proper coverage! But I wrote this article because I think this artist is notable specifically as a major figure in the niche of new music and especially the New York new music scene, but not more notable than others as a mainstream traditional music conductor--any advice? OperaNewMusicFan (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

In editing for Wikipedia, "Notable" does not mean "important in the subject's field of activity". It means "has been written about at length in several published sources completely independently of the subject (i.e. as journalism, not publicity)." Passing mentions, such as a line in a concert review saying that X was the conductor, do not count towards this, and "reference bombing" sentences with multiple citations of this nature is counterproductive.
For this subject, see in particular Wikipedia:Notability (music). Hope this helps, and good luck, because we do want articles about people who are notable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

20:24, 19 March 2026 review of submission by Vero11up

Hi- I'm having an issue re-submitting my Wikipedia profile as my band was around pre-internet. I have articles from qualified newspapers / magazines & have downloaded them (that are about my band) and should work as references, but these publications don't have active archive links that I can send. Also, I was told that some of the links that I sent weren't from usable websites even though many other bands from the same era are using the same websites as their main links. I can send the links for my band if that is helpful. Thanks! Vero11up (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Vero11up Please formally disclose your conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not host social media style "profiles", it is an encyclopedia of articles.
Sources do not need to be online, you just need to provide enough information for someone to locate it(title, author, page numbers, publication date, etc.) See Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the information. Vero11up (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Vero11up, I just wanted to quickly address the usable websites point. There are two possibilities: one, the other articles may be using those sites in a different way to you; two, which is more likely, the other articles may have been created a long time ago and not tidied up/improved/removed simply because no editor has found them and had the time and inclination to do so. If you wanted to point out which articles you've seen that might need some tidying, we'd be very happy to either tag them for maintenance (which flags them for other interested editors), improve them, or begin the process to remove them. Meadowlark (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

22:25, 19 March 2026 review of submission by Anamgill

It is saying it requires external sources, these are all external sources from reputable newspapers and organizations. why is this declined? what can i do to publish this. Anamgill (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be writing about yourself, this is inadvisable, please see the autobiography policy.
You say with the photo "students took it"; that is unacceptable as copyright belongs to the photographer, it is not your copyright to waive. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
yes makes sense, I made changes to the copyright. And by the way I did provide external reputable references for the article even if it is about myself. Is it not about correct references that waive the bias then discarding the submission stating it is biased. Anamgill (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
You can't change the copyright, it is not yours to change. Only the photographer can change it.
If you want to upload a picture of yourself to Commons, the easiest way is to upload a selfie. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
You appear to have encountered a common misunderstanding about what a Wikipedia article actually should be.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
Your article reads like a resume/CV, and the majority of the sources you've included are to works that you have written. This is great for proving things that you have done, but notability on Wikipedia is not really determined by what you've written, it's determined by what others have written about you; so the references to articles you've published, and more references to academic publications you've been involved in, can immediately be disregarded as they do not confer any notability onto you.
That immediately eliminates references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. 18, 19 and 20 merely exist to confirm your educational achievement, which again tells us nothing about your notability. Of the remaining references, none give us anything useful either.
We need to see in-depth coverage of you, written by sources that are reliable and completely unaffiliated with you in order for us to determine that you are eligible for a Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
You ask "What can I do to publish this". For starters, you don't use an AI chatbot as an author. That isn't allowed; see WP:NEWLLM.
Second, you don't write a draft first, your first step is to find multiple sources that each meet all the criteria described in WP:Golden Rule. If you cannot find such sources, you cannot have an article on Wikipedia.
It's that simple. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

22:34, 19 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-15553-39

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. I agree that broader representation of the literature is essential to provide notability and avoid over-reliance on a single source. While Andrew Adamatzky provides a useful starting point, the current draft can and should be strengthened by explicitly grounding it in related, well-established fields. To that end, citations from peer-reviewed and widely recognized work in adjacent domains can be included. Some perspectives on reservoir computing are provided by Herbert Jaeger and Wolfgang Maass, while broader treatments of nonlinear and complex systems can be drawn from Steven Strogatz and Ilya Prigogine. In neuromorphic and unconventional hardware, relevant context includes work by Carver Mead. Also references to established reviews in physical and reservoir computing, as well as books such as Unconventional Computing (Adamatzky), situate this topic within a broader scientific framework. In addition, explicitly can be cited Electrodynamic Intelligence by Aur as a distinct and emerging contribution, that can be identified as a primary or developing source rather than evidence of established consensus. This distinction will help maintain compliance with Wikipedia’s standards regarding verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. These revisions will clarify that the page is not presenting an isolated or speculative idea as established fact by situating electrodynamic intelligence within a continuum of recognized research areas while transparently identifying newer contributions. If there are specific sources or review articles you would recommend to further improve balance and verifiability, I would greatly appreciate your suggestions

~2026-15553-39 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
I have no idea what you hoped to achieve by copypasting your AI chatbot's advice to you as a question here. Athanelar (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-15553-39 and pinging in @Dnaur123. I suppose one of the issues of over-reliance on LLM is missing the nuance of communications between humans. In this case Ldm1954 kindly pointed out that this was essentially one person's essay which LLM has wrapped up into some supposedly widely accepted concept (but therein unsourced). I think your robot missed that bit, since the text above completely misses this point. How to fix it? You need clear, robust evidence that notability is established in multiple independent sources, and of the subject sui generis. And also see WP:ONUS. Many editors take a dim view of conducting debates via LLM, since we don't actually find out what you are thinking. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

March 20

01:49, 20 March 2026 review of submission by HiGuys9

umm i guset idk HiGuys9 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)


sorry i need a ad HiGuys9 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Then please use social media. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize existing information from reliable sources. GGOTCC 01:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

02:42, 20 March 2026 review of submission by Peter.Schlesinger

I intended to write a neutral, well-cited article about the company I work for—with citations from WSJ, Frommers, Forbes, NYTimes etc.—and it was flagged as spam / promotional. I disclosed that yes, I work there, and attempted to keep the entire thing neutral. Any tips? Peter.Schlesinger (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Peter.Schlesinger, I'm going to strongly suggest your first step is to read WP:BOSS and show it to anyone who's asked you to do this. They have set you a basically impossible task. BOSS helpfully links you to basically everything else you might need as a paid editor, so take the time to click the links and understand what you're attempting. Meadowlark (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Tips:
If you're using an AI to communicate or write, don't do that, it isn't allowed and repeated incidents can lead you your account being blocked.
Read WP:Golden Rule. Do it now. It's a short easy read. Then explain which three sources you cite do you feel meets all the criteria listed, in addition to the WP:CORPDEPTH requirement.
Note that coverage of the founder isn't the same as coverage of the company, and coverage of WP:CORPROUTINE activities does nothing to establish that the company is notable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! Super helpful. Peter.Schlesinger (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
LOL @Meadowlarktruly appreciate this. I had not seen this article. Thank you for sharing! Peter.Schlesinger (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

06:18, 20 March 2026 review of submission by Literaryanalysis11

I've revised the text but I appreciate any insight about how to meet Wiki's standards for this kind of article. Literaryanalysis11 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You have just summarized his work- basically posting his resume. Instead, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable person as Wikipedia uses the word.
You write that he is a commentator- why do sources select him to offer commentary, and not someone else? You wrote he is "associated with F$B initiatives". What initiatives? How is his involvement in them important or influential? Why him, and not someone else? 331dot (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

08:44, 20 March 2026 review of submission by LTakoz

Hello, I was wondering why the English version doesn't meet the criteria, but there is actually a German version and a French version that were accepted, and they're literally almost the same, so I don't understand why this one is not accepted.

German Version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_it_Meme French Version: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_it_Meme LTakoz (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to make sure that the draft meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating.
Most of your sources are YouTube and social media, which are not acceptable sources here. YouTube is only acceptable when the video is from a reputable news outlet on its verified channel. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

16:28, 20 March 2026 review of submission by Colintoast

Hi - I'm a bit confused because I submitted an updated draft for this with multiple new links to stories about the subject in global publications and it was rejected, and I've now seen that the mod who did it has been banned for using sock-puppet accounts. What do I do now? Thanks Colintoast (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Colintoast: the last reviewer being blocked (not 'banned', which is more serious) doesn't in itself invalidate the review. I've had a quick look, and I would agree that the sources don't yet establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm obviously new to this, but he has profile interviews in the Telegraph, Bloomberg and a few others, plus the UK Government has its own page for him. What would you suggest I add? Colintoast (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
PS: Could you also respond to the conflict of interest query I posted on your talk page months ago? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Where can I find that? Colintoast (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
You answered it, although you didn't disclose the nature of your association.
I have reverted the prior decline notice because it was put there by a sockpuppet. It is now waiting for review again. In the meantime, while you're waiting, you can make improvements. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you - I'll see if there's anything else I can add. Appreciate the help, ta Colintoast (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Just cleanup. The lead section contains unsubstantiated puffery, which would cause the draft to be declined as non-neutral.
Also, everybody is an "entrepreneur". Seeing that in the lead sentence is a turn-off and gives the impression described in WP:ENTREPRENEUR.
When you mention "OBE" you should spell out the acronym and wikilink it. That's something significant. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Colintoast.
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.
Consequently, interviews don't help. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

18:50, 20 March 2026 review of submission by Rpstephens56

Good morning. I have hopefully made the required corrections to my submission, but haven't heard back for several weeks. Could you please let me know if the draft needs further corrections? If I just need to wait longer, thank you so much for letting me know. My user name is "rpstephens56" Rpstephens56 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rpstephens56. You have not resubmitted Draft:Jerald Thompson, so it is not so far in the pile to be re-reviewed.
But since it does not have a single citation to a source, there is no point in submitting it at present. (It's possible that some of the external links are actually to reliable sources - I didn't look).
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.
Please see WP:REFB for how to cite sources properly: external links are not acceptable within the text unless they are formatted as citations to sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

22:03, 20 March 2026 review of submission by JaneFaeJohnson

I rewrote without my AI assistance for my disability JaneFaeJohnson (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@JaneFaeJohnson, a few of your sources seem to have the wrong links - the article by Nash, the article from the Guardian, and the Getty Images (although I do not think that last one is going to be useful to you since it's unlikely to be in-depth coverage of Quigley). The Queerty articles are also 404ing for me, but I believe those were written by Quigley so they're also not useful to you at the moment. You need to find sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42 - anything that's largely based on something written or said by Quigley (including interviews) is not considered independent. Of the sources I could assess, none of them looked like they meet those criteria. Keep looking - you're trying to find at least three sources that meet WP:42, and once you have those you can base the draft around them. Meadowlark (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

22:43, 20 March 2026 review of submission by Hoosta

Hi, I am a new editor (Hoosta). I have recently completed a draft for the Zambian artist "Baw Tech" (Draft:Baw Tech).

I have disclosed my conflict of interest as a representative of his management, Half G Adventures, on my user page and the draft talk page. I have worked hard to ensure the tone is neutral and that it includes independent sources, specifically an interview from Afro-TV (ZamTalk).

Since there is a large backlog, I was wondering if a reviewer with an interest in African music could take a look to see if it meets the notability requirements for a live article. Any feedback to help it meet standards would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Hoosta (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hoosta I fixed your header so it does not link to a nonexistent page entitled "Review request: Draft:Baw Tech (Zambian Artist)".
Asking for a review outside of the process will not speed the process. We also cannot guarantee a reviewer will have a particular interest or background; it shouldn't be necessary, as if the article meets the requirements it should be clear regardless of the reviewer. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Not very much it's only that I have been trying and for some time until I got some help today. I will wait. Thanks 331dot Hoosta (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

23:42, 20 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-17434-68

Please approve my article ~2026-17434-68 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17434-68, your article has been rejected. It will not be approved. Focus on your work and career; if you should become qualified for a Wikipedia article, it's very likely someone else will write one about you. Meadowlark (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

23:43, 20 March 2026 review of submission by Curatorspore

Please let me know what I need to do next to ensure my resubmission has a higher chance of approval

Curatorspore (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
@Curatorspore, did you read the advice given to you by the reviewer? If so, is there something you didn't understand and need more help with? Meadowlark (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

March 21

03:55, 21 March 2026 review of submission by Fabrimarcel

Escrivi um rascunho sobre Amanda Aparecida de Oliveira. Utilizei o Editor Visual sem nenhuma alteração do estado original conforme orientação contida no espaço de edição. Ao fim da submissão, o sistema informou que não havia nenhuma referência. Não havia mais opção para reeditar. Ainda assim, a inserção de cada referência foi realizada linha por linha do próprio editor. O que fiz de errado? Fabrimarcel (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fabrimarcel: Your draft did not have correctly formatted references, but more importantly, it was written in Portuguese. This is the English-language Wikipedia and we only have articles written in English. You can find the Portuguese-language Wikipedia at https://pt.wikipedia.org/O seu rascunho não tinha as referências formatadas corretamente, mas, mais importante, estava escrito em português. Esta é a Wikipédia em língua inglesa e só temos artigos escritos em inglês. Pode encontrar a Wikipédia em língua portuguesa em https://pt.wikipedia.org/ (Translated by Kagi Translate) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

06:03, 21 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-17740-58

Able to find notable sources but draft is getting rejected ~2026-17740-58 (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI