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



May 1

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

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

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)
Hi,
https://www.moi.gov.mm/npe/2024-mnmaaamiusmiiligpiungpaiattk-pngchngnesnny-rmyuuniukttkasng
is this link realibale source? ZyTun (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi,
I also added source sentence about Head coach leaving. Thanks for your caring. ZyTun (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)
Thank you for the guidance, 331dot — very helpful.
To answer your question: yes, I have a professional connection to the subject — I'm a web developer who has worked with him. I'm happy to propose any future changes on the talk page rather than editing directly.
On sourcing: understood that awards alone aren't sufficient without sources providing critical analysis and commentary. The most substantial sources we have are interview-based (Q&A), which I recognise don't meet that threshold. Good to know non-English sources are acceptable — the subject has Greek-language coverage, so we'll look at whether any of those contain genuine critical commentary rather than Q&A, and provide a summary on the talk page if so.
We won't appeal to Cosmic840 until we have something substantive to point to. Thanks again. Macthing (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
That's a fair general point — coverage in this field is certainly harder to come by than for performers. However, The Stage (the UK's main theatre industry publication) did publish a full feature profile of the subject by journalist Paul Vale, and the Olivier Awards have dedicated Best Set Design and Best Costume Design categories that recognise designers individually. There are also existing Wikipedia articles for set and costume designers (Es Devlin, Bob Crowley, Bunny Christie). I accept it's a higher bar to clear, but WP:CREATIVE does seem to anticipate this category. Macthing (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
While most of your questions have been addressed, I'm concerned about one thing. If you don't have the ability to access the Stage source in order confirm what type of source it is, how did you use it as a source? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Fair point, and I apologise — I was wrong to describe The Stage as paywalled. It requires a free account registration to read (5 free articles), but The Stage themselves explicitly state "this is not a paywall." The article is accessible to anyone. I should have checked more carefully before describing it that way in my post. Macthing (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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)
@Trees research A few other problems: "Epileptological Center [1] Archived 2013-03-23 ​​at the Wayback Machine" is not a good section header.
"Operates on the basis of the neurosurgical department" is not good English.
What does "Has the highest neurosurgical category" mean?
For "Awarded the medal for rationalization and invention..." what is "rationalization"? And there is more unclear writing in this draft. David10244 (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Energy 106

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)

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)

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

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)

You are in error; primary sources may never establish notability. WP:NPOL doesn't apply here, the head of the USPTO is not elected to the position, they are a civil servant/government official, not a politician. You can establish that they hold the position with a primary source, but that does not establish notability, because primary sources never do that. You need significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or content on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappopriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

22:17, 1 May 2026 review of submission by Sara Prueitt

I am at a loss about how to improve the submission on "Natural Resource Damage Assessment." Someone declined the submission because it refers to US regulations, so I made it clear that the term comes from US regulations, although the concept/practice is international. I cited a few international references, although Canadian and British NRDA aren't my specialty (but I'd love to see what others contribute to this page). Another issue someone had was that I cited primary sources, such as regulations, so I added many peer-reviewed articles. I think the original sources are important to mention though. Toward the end there someone declined the submission because it sounded like an essay - which, honestly, after all of the peer-reviewed pubs that I added, it did. I've tried to tighten the language, and there are no opinions in this submission, so I don't know how else to address that criticism. Any other suggestions? SCPL (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

23:54, 1 May 2026 review of submission by Rupert65

Hi there! I submitted a Wikipedia entry about David Evan Thomas before, but I made the mistake of making it a bit too concise. I've now expanded it and included a number of additional verifiable sources, in hopes that my entry will be accepted when I submit it again in the next couple of days. Before I submit, I wonder if you could answer a few specific questions for me:

1. I decided to include a section called "Compositional style," which includes diverse opinions from music reviewers and others, categorizing Thomas's style and comparing his music to that of other composers. Do you think the tone of the "Compositional style" section is sufficiently objective?

2. I've read scads of advice on the Wikipedia website, but some of the editors prefer a "Footnotes" section, some prefer "References," and some prefer both. What do you think of the way I did it? Does it work?

3. My entry cites the same doctoral dissertation three times, calling on different pages in each of the three citations. I've been reading about using something like <<Moss 2019, p. 10>> for the second and third citations, but I haven't managed to make that work. If I can figure out how to do it, would that be preferable to the way I cited Katie Moss's dissertation in my current References section?

4. I hyperlinked to some organizations' websites in "References." However, I found some of my newspaper articles on newspapers.com and some on websites of the particular newspapers and journals. I'd like to hyperlink to the newspaper articles, but most are behind a paywall, so that might be more frustrating than helpful. Your thoughts?

I appreciate your help so very much. Thank you for the valuable work you do with Wikipedia.

Amy Rupert65 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Rupert65. We don't do prereviews here, at least in theory. Your reference usage is fine for AFC purposes, there are multiple ways to handle references and no perfect way. At AFC we are not looking for perfection anyway.
2 - is a personal choice. I tend to do references only but I have some articles with both references and footnotes.
3 - because there were only 3 references, what you did was fine. If there were a lot more then you would be best to use SFN to handle pagination. See my article Atlas of Brutalist Architecture in source code to see how to handle this. I put all general references in one References section and the book itself in Further Reading, with SFN for paginations.
4 - it's ok to also include the Newspapers.com URL, and mention Newspapers,com in the Via parameter. If you use the Clipping functionality then to some extent that mitigates against the paywall issues. The key thing is to put specific offline information such as date and page number, which you did. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your advice about my Wikipedia entry about David Evan Thomas. I can't believe you got back to me so quickly! Your "Atlas of Brutalist Architecture" page was very helpful. (And very interesting.)
I hope I can impose on your with a follow-up question.
I understand your hesitance to comment on content and bias. If I submit this entry and the Wikipedia editor objects to something about the content, will I have an opportunity to fix it, or is this the end of the line?
I got a message from Wikipedia's Image Tagging Bot, asking about the license status of the photo I used. I captured it online, along with the photo credit. Do I need to purchase rights to the photo? Get the approval of the photographer?
Again, thank you so much.
Amy Rupert65 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
@Rupert65 Photos: never have a photo on a draft unless you are 101% sure that you can use it. It's probably best - if there is any doubt at all - to leave it until the main article has gone live. The reason being that attention to detail is important on that one, so in my view it's better to get the draft accepted, then as a special separate exercise get the photograph sorted. We don't expect perfection, except on copyright issues, there is no wriggle room on that at at all. So personally I would remove the photo for now and ASAP, then come back to this later. Thereafter, yes you need to get the copyright owner to explicitly grant permission to use the photo, either on the basis of the photo being in the public domain, or with a Creative Commons licence. The copyright owner will need to have an exchange of emails/webforms with WikiCommons, which is a different, if related, organisation to English Wikipedia. There is a volunteer response team (VRT) that handles this area. There is guidance on this, look at the Wikicommons Help Center and FAQ for that. An informal email from the copyright owner is unlikely to cut the mustard here, it has to go through due process.
For the rest of the draft, yes, it may well be that the review editor may find other issues, and that would result in a decline. You can then fix the issue and resubmit it for further reviews. Now you don't want to get into a doom loop of endless declines, but it's quite OK to have a few, and if you are a new editor, that's fine and not a problem. But obviously do your best to get the article as good as you can, since AFC resources are stretched, and other people also have articles. ChrysGalley (talk) ChrysGalley (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
I feel lucky that you are the person who responded to my questions. I'll do my best to eliminate all the problems I can before I submit, out of respect for the AFC team.
Thank you, sincerely. I hope you are having a good day, wherever in the world you might be!
Amy Rupert65 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2

10:38, 2 May 2026 review of submission by Fredz00z

Can somebody help me understand why is my article being rejected for lack of reliable sources when all i've added to the page is based on the game itself?

Everything that i wrote is either information on the box or in the manual of the game. How can information on the game itself not be good enough, moreover, there is nothing else about it on the internet. No sales listings, no magazines mentions, nothing at all. Isn't a bit of information better than none? Fredz00z (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this game, there can be no Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something; a Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what independent sources have chosen on their own to say about the subject. For a creative work like a book or game, critical analysis and commentary is needed. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
See Monopoly (game), Risk (game), Magic: The Gathering, for examples of articles about games. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not feature articles about subjects merely because they can be proven to exist. We have criteria for inclusion; namely notability. In other words, A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
An issue that arises here is that the board game is a licence of another notable game (Myst). That would make finding sources more difficult, since even a more targeted search (such as "myst board game") is still apt to pull up reviews and sources for the video game. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 16:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

22:57, 2 May 2026 review of submission by Ahsottdisbop2025

I need some help editing. Ahsottdisbop2025 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Then perhaps see WP:MENTOR. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It was really bad form for you to try creating a rejected draft in mainspace twice. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

May 3

04:33, 3 May 2026 review of submission by HenriPurwanto

Hello, I am requesting a second opinion on Draft:Kidung Lakbok which was rejected by User:Timtrent on 2 May 2026 with the rationale "The subject is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia".

I believe this rejection was made in error and contrary to WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF. The subject is a traditional Sundanese narrative poem from Lakbok, Ciamis Regency, Indonesia. It is not made up, promotional, or an essay. It clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK with the following reliable sources:

1. Academic thesis: Astriani, Nia (2018). Bentuk Lagu dan Makna Lirik Kidung Lakbok. Skripsi. ISBI Bandung. [offline source, held at ISBI Library] - Provides significant scholarly analysis. 2. Published book: Prawiraatmadja, M. Karsa (ed.) (1956). Kidung Lakbok. Ciamis. [physical book] - Demonstrates the work has existed in published form for nearly 70 years, satisfying WP:NBOOK. 3. Regional newspaper: "Mengenal Kidung Lakbok" (2015). Harapan Rakyat. Ciamis. [offline source, print archive] - Independent secondary coverage. 4. Government source: Dinas Pariwisata dan Kebudayaan Ciamis (2022). "Potensi Budaya Lakbok". [offline source] 5. Major newspaper: "Mengenal Kesenian Wayang Kila nan Unik Jerami Lakbok" (2024). Kabar Priangan/Pikiran Rakyat. https://kabarpriangan.pikiran-rakyat.com/pariwisata/pr-1488614726/mengenal-kesenian-wayang-kila-nan-unik-jerami-lakbok-wujud-ekspresi-lumbung-padi-ciamis?page=all - Connects the poem to its living performance tradition.

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources do not need to be available online. The ISBI thesis and 1956 book are verifiable through library catalogs and academic citations. The topic is comparable to other accepted articles on regional epics such as Hikayat Banjar, La Galigo, or Babad Tanah Jawi.

The rejection reason does not specify which Wikipedia policy the draft violates. Could an uninvolved AfC reviewer please re-evaluate the draft and restore the ability to submit? I am ready to provide scans or photos of offline sources if required for verification. Thank you. HenriPurwanto (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources do not need to be available online. I can provide scans/photos of offline sources to VRT if required for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriPurwanto (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You may appeal to the reviewer Timtrent who rejected the draft, asking for an explanation. It has already been resubmitted for review, although after two rejections I'm not inclined to consider it further. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Anachronist. With respect, there seems to be a misunderstanding:
1. The draft cannot be resubmitted – It was rejected, not declined. The "Submit for review" button was disabled by Timtrent, which is why I am requesting restoration of the ability to submit here at the Help Desk per WP:AFCHD.
2. Appealing directly to Timtrent would violate WP:INVOLVED – As the rejecting reviewer, he should not re-review his own decision. The Help Desk exists to provide uninvolved second opinions in exactly this situation.
3. The sources satisfy policy – The rejection reason "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" did not cite a specific policy. The draft meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK with 5 reliable sources: a 2018 ISBI Bandung academic thesis, a 1956 published book, 2015 regional newspaper coverage, a 2022 Ciamis government publication, and 2024 major newspaper coverage. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, offline sources are acceptable and do not need to be available online.
Could an uninvolved reviewer or administrator please re-evaluate whether this rejection complies with Wikipedia's content policies? I am happy to provide scans or photos of the offline sources to the Volunteer Response Team for verification if needed. Thank you. HenriPurwanto (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
@HenriPurwanto: I think you responded in the wrong section – this section is about Draft:Plastic_Free_July, and your question is in the section above. Asking the rejecting reviewer does not violate WP:INVOLVED; reviewing is not an administrator action. --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I've moved this reply up to the correct section. nil nz 09:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
@HenriPurwanto: You are wrong. That is, your AI is wrong, and continuing to use it to communicate or to generate article text will get you blocked. Wikipedia is for humans, and talk pages are for humans to communicate.
  1. The draft has already been resubmitted and is waiting for review. Just clicking on the link would have made that clear. Both you and your AI were too lazy to do that.
  2. WP:INVOLVED is irrelevant. It relates to administrators and administrative actions. Your clueless AI clearly doesn't know this, and in turn made you look clueless when you regurgitated its response here. We are talking about reviewers, not Wikipedia administrators. It is perfectly acceptable for a reviewer to explain the reasoning for rejection, and it is acceptable to appeal to a reviewer to do so. In fact, that's also true for administrators to explain administrative actions like article protections and blocks; WP:INVOLVED doesn't matter.
  3. The rejection wasn't about the sources, obviously.
You have been given advice on how to proceed. Instead of following it, you have responded by having an LLM chatbot to do your speaking for you. Don't let that happen again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
@HenriPurwanto, Timtrent stated the reason for rejection in a comment: This is wholly AI generated. An entirely new draft is required, written in 100% human words. Thus I have rejected this draft. It will not proceed further. Please do not use LLMs to edit or communicate on Wikipedia as you are doing here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

06:57, 3 May 2026 review of submission by GreenMarginalia

Hi How do I edit this draft article that I recently submitted for review? I would like to further edit it by adding some additional independent sources. Thank you in advance for your help. GreenMarginalia (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! You can edit it as normal. Is there stopping you from clicking the "edit" button or publishing the changes? GGOTCC 07:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

08:32, 3 May 2026 review of submission by Kateeba Cyrus

they're saying i used something like chatgpt yet my work is 100% human written Kateeba Cyrus (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

There should be no external links in the main body of text. See WP:ELBODY 331dot (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Did you use AI at all, even just to polish? 331dot (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

09:16, 3 May 2026 review of submission by ~2026-26703-24

Need help adding sources please. ~2026-26703-24 (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with a permanent account(as opposed to the assigned temporary account you are using), but even if you choose not to create an account, you must disclose.
Most companies on Earth are not notable as Wikipedia defines the term. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the activities and offerings of the company; an article should primarily summarize "significant coverage", which is usually critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by people wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about it.
Please see Referencing for beginners to help with referencing, but you're doing this backwards, you should first have sources in hand before you begin writing, not write and then look for sources to support what you wrote. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

11:09, 3 May 2026 review of submission by Cerrathegreat

I'm aware of the history surrounding CWC-related articles. The article at Draft:CWC was created following a significant influx of GNG-compliant sources at Wikipedia:Source assessment/CWC, alongside several pages about CWC being created on non-English Wikipedias in the past year. These sources contain sections that, in particular, affirm CWC's notability outside of harassment they have received; they also cover CWC in different contexts than the controversy in 2021, which was the main reason the page could not be created according to the source assessment page. As of today, the page has found 7-8 GNG-compliant sources about CWC that affirm their notability, written in four separate contexts.

The draft was written using the pseudonyms 'CWC' and 'C C' in place of their actual name until if and when it were to be published, per longstanding consensus from the source assessment page. Per the note from the editor, the name has been changed to accurately reflect the individual. I would like to be allowed to resubmit; I promise that this is a good-faith article that complies with Wikipedia standards. Cerrathegreat (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You're going to need to build a better case as to why the judgement of the rejecting reviewer and prior discussions should be overturned.
The first sentence of the Legal section needs the word "allegedly" unless a further source indicates she was convicted of a crime in that incident. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the issue with the Legal Issues section, it has been fixed!
From what I've gathered in my extensive reading on historical attempts to make a CWC page, the issues have come down to the following seven justifications:
  • Lack of sufficient sources to be compliant with WP:NBLP and WP:GNG
    • Recent sources which have been added or revisited at Wikipedia:Source assessment/CWC specifically refer to CWC as notable outside of her controversies, while meeting the guidelines for GNG. As of writing this, there are seven of these sources - much more than the "multiple" required for GNG compliance.
  • Violation of Wikipedia:BLP1E, as all GNG-compliant coverage of CWC discusses her 2021 arrest
    • At least one source (the article by Margaret Pless) on the source assessment page covers CWC outside of this context while affirming this notability. With the recently discovered sources, there are now four contexts which CWC is covered in, and she is implied to be notable in all of these contexts by their various sources: as a notable example of an autistic artist online, as a notable victim of online harassment, as someone who allegedly attacked a GameStop employee in 2014, and as someone who allegedly engaged in incest in 2021. Note that while some of these contexts may violate WP:CRIME on their own, practically all of these articles refer to CWC (and Sonichu in particular) as being notable even outside of the context of her harassment and her crimes. Because there is at least one source (the Kotaku article) which addresses CWC first and foremost as a notable artist, this is no longer an issue.
  • Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as all GNG-compliant sources are framed around CWC's crimes or harassment directed at her, even if they include information that is unrelated
    • The recent source from Kotaku on the source assessment page frames CWC in a non-sensationalized manner, and is GNG-compliant. The article from Margaret Pless also does not revolve around a single event.
  • Violation of WP:HNE, and/or violation of WP:UNDUE via discussions of CWC's harassment
    • The current article, as it stands, does not give undue weight to harassment CWC has received, does not give undue attention to those who have harassed CWC, and avoids any statements or framings which may constitute harassment of CWC in and of themselves.
  • Inciting harassment of CWC indirectly by drawing attention to her
    • This justification has never sat well with me. Beyond ignoring WP:RGW, I think the insinuation that just acknowledging CWC's notability would be incitement of harassment is, itself, a statement that CWC is someone who inherently begets harassment. I don't believe this is the case, and I believe it is borderline dehumanizing to treat someone in this way.
  • Fears that a page on CWC would be a lightning rod for vandalism, and would put strain on Wikipedia
    • In the past two years, ten separate articles for CWC have appeared on various non-English Wikipedias; as far as I can tell, none of these articles have attracted a particularly exceptional amount of vandalism. Ignoring this, protection could easily be placed on the page once preliminary content is finalized.
  • Consensus as explained at Talk:Kiwi_Farms/FAQ
    • From what I can tell, the consensus referred to in this FAQ is dependent on the above six justifications. Outside of these issues being violated, there has not been a consensus established via discussion, aside from some editors' heated and exaggeratory statements that CWC will never have an article.
I think the situation has changed a lot since 2021 or even last year, much of the harassment campaign that was active years ago has died down, and it is time to seriously consider whether a CWC article is necessary. Cerrathegreat (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Notability is a prerequisite for inclusion, but it does not guarantee it. It is my understanding that the refusal to host an article about Chandler here has never been because of a lack of notability of the subject, and merely proving that the subject has been covered in a "non-sensationalised" way is not dealing with the primary issue; which is mostly that Chandler has been the subject of an (at this point, over a decade long) campaign of bullying and harassment which thrives on increasing and perpetuating her online presence and discussion about her. You point to WP:RGW, but that is merely a subsection of an essay which explains common problematic editing behaviours, it is not a binding policy we must follow.
The argument you need to make is why there is an encyclopedic benefit to including an article about Chandler, and why that encyclopedic benefit specifically outweighs the moral and logistical implications of including the article. I do not see any way in which an article about Chandler benefits Wikipedia, but I can see a million ways in which it benefits those corners of the internet which would consider it a big win for Wikipedia to legitimise their fascination with Chandler by including her here.
As it stands, Chandler is persona non grata here. If you want to change that, I think you'd have to go the way of WP:BFDI and hold an actual RfC on the matter, and have the community decide once and for all whether having an article about Chandler is something we ever want to entertain as a possibility. Athanelar (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I will be creating a RfC in the near future. Cerrathegreat (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Is there a specific rule, essay, or guideline about Wikipedia's methods of determining encyclopedic benefit that I can reference during discussion? Cerrathegreat (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
WP:PURPOSE and WP:PILLARS have some general ground-level ideas about Wikipedia's aims.
There's really nothing hard-and-fast though. You just have to argue why the knowledge benefit to the encyclopedia is significant enough to outweigh A) the moral concerns about, essentially, 'feeding the trolls' and supporting the ongoing harassment campaign against Chandler by indirectly giving it a platform on the world's largest and most accessible knowledge resource, and B) the logistical nightmare that will be trying to police that article, including the endless discussions and RfCs that will no doubt emerge regarding exactly what information about Chandler is appropriate to include; and that's on top of arguing that the sources you have are somehow entirely unpolluted by said harassment campaign, which is itself a herculean task.
I, frankly, wouldn't bother wasting your time on trying to run an RfC about this. I can almost guarantee you it will end in failure, because I do not see most of the community caring enough about trying to maintain a 'neutral' informational resource about Chandler for it to be worth the upkeep headache. I question why it is that you care so much about getting an article about Chandler published here. Athanelar (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
These articles seem to imply that CWC would provide encyclopedic value, not the opposite; additionally, WP:USELESS also suggests that notability should be the main determining factor in whether an article has encyclopedic value. I understand your point of view, but I do think an RfC is justified given the circumstances. Cerrathegreat (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
As WP:N says; A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Notability provides a presumption that an article is appropriate to include, but it does not guarantee inclusion. A little bit further down, the page elaborates; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
If nothing else, WP:IAR tells us If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The fact is, there's no amount of wikilawyering or policy-pointing you can do that will tie the community's hands; if the community simply doesn't want an article about Chandler, then Wikipedia won't have the article.
Lastly, WP:NOT itself ends with some wise words in the form of WP:BADIDEA; In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something when there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.
A page about Christine Weston Chandler is a terrible, terrible idea. I can't stop you from holding an RfC about it, but please just do be mindful that editor time is a precious resource that should not be wasted on debating topics that do not need to be debated. Athanelar (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
As for your last question, I'll be honest and say that I just find it fun to debate topics like this where I'm fighting an uphill battle. To be clear, my intent isn't to cause trouble or burden editors; I do genuinely think CWC justifies an article, I don't believe it would do any harm to have one, and I'm making a good faith attempt to argue for one. But I am admittedly drawn to topics like this because they're so difficult to argue for. Cerrathegreat (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Considering that her notability is centred around being a massive fucking target for online harassment any Wikipedia article would be helping to further that harassment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 17:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I genuinely don't believe that CWC having a Wikipedia article would have any measurable impact on the amount of harassment directed toward them. I have yet to see any evidence that this would be the case, even after articles outside of English Wikipedia have been online for months. Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia is visited considerably more than almost every other website in the world. An article on her would have a more significant impact on the harassment than news articles from random internet "news" websites. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 17:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm referring to the ten articles currently published on non-English Wikipedias, as well as the information on Wikidata. Cerrathegreat (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
None of which are in English, which is (1) the most visited Wikipedia by a country mile and (2) the mother tongue of her and the people harassing her. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 18:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOHARM is not a valid line of argument.
I too would discourage you from pursuing this further. If you enjoy debating difficult questions, join a debating society. Such debates here have real world consequences and concerns. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

There is now an open RfC at Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/CWC#RfC CWC, started by the OP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 15:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

13:35, 3 May 2026 review of submission by Werdmerk

i do not understand the reason for rejection that my reviewer states, "not written in a neutral point of view". it would be very helpful if three phrases or sentences that demonstrate this deficit could be provided for my use as a revision starting point. perhaps the adverb "tragically", used in a parenthetical phrase that states the early death of a member from blood disease, is non-neutral? also i am wondering if the 41 footnotes and numerous wiki and other links throughout the article were possibly not transferred with the article when it was published. these are the multiple published secondary sources the reviewer says are not included or are insufficient, cited from the n.y. times and its various ancillary publications, three cleveland, oh newspapers, several college newspapers, published obits, and published book and interview citings. Werdmerk (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is your draft entirely in boldface, and why does it seem to have been copypasted from somewhere else? For example, you seem to have intended to include images, but what we have instead is just a few lines of text saying;
The Tiny Alice Jug Band, circa 1968 Standing, left to right: Roger Rudenstein, Jon Goldman, George Woideck, David Krauss, John Carlson Seated: Patty Stotter ( Photo Credit: Dennis Sobol ) Athanelar (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
@Werdmerk Also "Photo credit: Unknown", which means that you can't be sure who owns the copyright to the image, and without a valid reason, images like that can't be hosted here. And there are no section headings. David10244 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
thank you both for your comments, the article was written as a word doc, in ariel 16 font, complete with photos, footnotes, and links, but when i pasted into sandbox it converted to the boldface type you refer to and the footnotes and links were gone. also sandbox informed me that photos were not permitted at this stage so i deleted them but left the text descriptions. i am in the process of re-creating the article in sandbox in sans-serif font with all digital footnotes per helpful suggestions i received in the chat room. also at the appropriate time only credited photos will be added. Werdmerk (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

16:03, 3 May 2026 review of submission by Mercuredior

My Wikipedia I wanted to ask about my fairing in my account. I recently opened up a Wikipedia page but I can't seem to figure out how to make it turn on so that I can make it music page for my artist. The reason is because I wanted to know how I can get you to see that I worked with two world renounced audio engineers from sterling sound so they mastered me and those credentials helped me so let me know. Mercuredior (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You have already had a response earlier, where it was stated the page that you were writing had no possibility of being placed in main space as you do not meet our notability guidelines. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I understand that, so do I only need a notable artist in order to get on that site? Im making a wikipedia! Because i signed up. What guidelines? So what do I do to get a clear point do I start over, you asked me what mercuredior has to do with mercure tchabong what does that have to do with my wikiepdia page? Mercuredior (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
If the only reason that you are editing here is to write about yourself then I suggest you cease editing. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. If you are notable in the future, it is likely that someone else will write about you. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
ok, But I am a notable artist I'm verified on twitter. And YouTube, I have over 1 million streams on my song NiiCE on my wikipedia Mercuredior (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
None of those points have any relevance to WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Anyone can post music online, so that confers zero notability. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I please get my own make I wanted to know how could I get a another turned on page of wikipedia? Mercuredior (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't, it has been rejected. Do you intend to write about anything other than yourself? Your answer to this question is very important. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah,b= but wikipedia is a platfor m for one wikipedia system and bio of a person whos attributes to society give people information to what they want to know. Mercuredior (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I'll try again to submit for the reason is that my avatar is just sitting there and I'm just talking gibberish with you, Mercuredior (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Mercure Tchabong has been established as non-notable by many editors so any attempt to recreate it will be seen as disruptive editing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Since they're clearly only here to promote themselves, I have blocked them as an advertising only account. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. That's definitely the correct call. Please also note that they have User:Mercuretchabong but they may have abandoned that account. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I would have also gone with IDHT/CIR; they seemed completely unwilling/unable to understand what various helpers were telling them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 18:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

May 4

May 5

May 6

May 7

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI