Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

• Evan Molloy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David Long (American author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Which sources are unreliable? Can I cite a personal interview? Does everything have to be published? In the notes to books on Wikipedia I often see references to letters or phone interviews.

Thanks for your help, Evan Evan Molloy (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS for general guidance on reliable sources. Athanelar (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:Golden Rule for the kinds of sources reviewers look for. Interviews don't count. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-18013-05 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hyper-Personalized B2B Outreach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The content is not generated it written by human being. ~2026-18013-05 (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-18013-05 - I did not review this, but consider this sentence: "Hyper-personalized outreach is frequently discussed in industries with complex purchasing processes, including enterprise technology, software services, and consulting." and then WP:AIATTR, particularly when it is not reliably sourced (Forbes being paid PR here). If it is frequently discussed then we would have sources. If there such sources then the "discussion" is not a neutral summary of those sources, which is our role as an encyclopedia. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles 091 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alphabet Lore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is Draft:Alphabet Lore always declined Charles 091 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information in the decline notices at the top of the page which need to be clarified? Athanelar (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently had this article rejected for sounding too much like an advertisement, and I am interested what specifically makes it sound like too much of an advertisement. It is an article for a company, so I need to mention some of its products and achievements, but I tried to eliminate any puffery or editorializing and keep it directly to the facts themselves. Can you please help me understand what fails to meet Wikipedia standards (e.g., is it minor things like certain words or phrases) before I edit and re-submit, or if on the whole it is unacceptable? BretDvr (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is exactly what is considered promotional here, see WP:YESPROMO. You are telling what you want the world to know about your company, like its activities and offerings. Instead, you should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what others wholly unconnected with the company view as important/significant/influential about the company.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. You're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without experience. Most company representatives fail at this; are you one of the rare ones who can succeed? Possibly, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. I will let them know this is more-than-likely a futile effort. BretDvr (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• JamesKirishima34 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:JamesKirishima34/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

はい、私のYouTubeアカウントはJames Akira Kirishimaです JamesKirishima34 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste reviewer time with blank submissions. This has been rejected and will not be considered further. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• QuietNotes (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Gwendolyn Galsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Gwendolyn Galsworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Author request: please delete this draft as it duplicates the existing live article Gwendolyn Galsworth. QuietNotes (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your changes in the mainspace article. Those changes were AI-generated. Don't use an LLM chatbot on Wikipedia. You basically added AI slop with vapid statements emphasizing the sources that have cited her, without describing the actual coverage. This is typical LLM chatbot output. Furthermore, the AI slop included assertions about Galsworth in Wikipedia's narrative voice, citing Galsworth herself. This constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS, and it isn't permitted on Wikipedia, but AI chatbots don't seem to know this.

As an editor with a conflict of interest, you may make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, names, dates, etc. You may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You may revert obvious vandalism. Anything more substantive, however, you should propose on the article's talk page. You can use WP:Edit Request Wizard to guide you through the process.

If you wish to delete a page you created and you are the only person who made significant contributions to it, you may put the tag {{db-author}} at the top, and an administrator will come along and delete it. I can delete it, but I'll leave it there for now in case you have material from the draft that you would like to propose for the mainspace version. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your note.

I understand the concern about conflict of interest and will not make further direct edits to the article.

My intention was only to correct a few inaccuracies and formatting issues, not to add or reshape content. I see now that even small changes are better handled through the talk page.

Could you please advise on the best way to propose specific corrections for review?

Thank you for your guidance. QuietNotes (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use the WP:Edit Request Wizard, as I said before. The format of your request should be "change X to Y", with "Y" being the edit as if you would make it in the article, with sources cited. You should also provide a reason for the proposed change. Make individual edit requests paragraph by paragraph, or section by section. And, don't use an AI as an author of your proposed text. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, QuietNotes, the concern about chatbot usage also is relevant to your talk page comments. We want to be talking to editors, not what LLMs think we want to see based on prompts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anarchist and CoffeeCrumbs,

Thank you for your responses. I think I may have misunderstood parts of your first message. I hope you will be patient with me while I try to sort things out.

The thing is, I thought the article I posted last October was in good shape. My effort there was to bring the wording closer to the encyclopedic tone that the notices on the page pointed to—and to get the citations in order. I wrote the text myself and did not generate any content artificially. I was trying to depersonalize the tone so the article would meet Wikipedia’s tone-neutral standards.

I came back to that page this week only because of the Wiki notice I received about an old draft. While I was there, I decided to make a few small fixes, mostly related to the red in the first paragraph.

I had learned how I could fix that. The “Shingo Institute” does not have its own page on Wikipedia—so that reference did not work (was red). The right page is titled “The Shingo Prize.” So I fixed those words and the red went away. That Shingo Prize page had also changed the “Research and Publication Award” to the “Research Award,” so I changed that too in the section just above Books. To me, I was just eliminating the red.

I didn’t change any content except when I added “visual leadership and obeya effectiveness” under Training Systems—two new things that Galsworth launched about five years ago. I see that that was also a mistake and I apologize.

Now I understand that even small changes need to go through the Talk Page because of the conflict of interest. I will do that and use the Edit Request Wizard you mentioned. Thanks.

But there is one thing I am still trying to understand and hope you can help on that. The version of the article I worked on last year—and posted last October with revised wording and citations—is no longer visible to me. Could you please tell me where that version is and how I can access it? I’d really like to work from that material rather than lose it. Thank you.

I really regret having touched the page at all this week. I am very sorry. I thought I was helping. I was wrong.

Elizabeth QuietNotes (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit you have ever made is available at Special:Contributions/QuietNotes. Scroll down until you see October dates. Clicking on "diff" shows you the changes you made in that edit, and clicking on the date shows you the article as it existed after you made that edit.

Your claim that you haven't used AI, honestly, doesn't survive scrutiny, given that what you added to the article included identical vapid and vague phrasing that is typical of AI slop, emphasizing the existence of coverage instead of describing the actual coverage, and synthesizing assertions in Wikipedia's voice that don't exist in the cited sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry my edits caused concern. That wasn’t my intention. I’ll focus on following the correct process from here. Elizabeth QuietNotes (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you understand you can not be using LLMs to write content and will not do so going forward? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, CoffeeCrumbs. I want to be transparent. The content in the article is entirely my own, developed over many weeks of drafting and revision (mid-August to October). I wanted to do a good job responding to the issues raised in the earlier version. I made many edits to improve accuracy, tone, and neutrality. I worried a lot about doing it right.

I did not use AI or LLMs to generate or write the article. I may have used ChatGPT occasionally for minor language support (synonyms). But the writing itself is mine. I swear on the head of my Mother.

I also see that the wording needs to reflect the sources more exactly—no summaries. I will do that, for sure. Thank you.

I did use ChatGPT towards the end to help me with the coding. I have no skill in that—but never for content.

If your guidelines restrict coding help, please let me know. I want to make sure I am fully aligned going forward. I really do want that. Thank you, Elizabeth QuietNotes (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietNotes Coding? A Wikipedia article does not have any coding. There are references, but that's not really coding. Can you clarify what you mean? David10244 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question, David, and your clarification.

By “coding” I meant inserting all those brackets, colons, carrots, front slashes. I found that part out of my reach. So I sent my content to ChatGPT to help me format it to Wikipedia specifications.

Same thing with the citations. I knew they had to be entered exactly right or they wouldn’t display correctly, such as <ref>{{cite web |title=... |url=...}}</ref>.

The actual content remained 100% my own.

Going forward, I will certainly use your Visual Editor if that is the rule or your preference.

Thank you for your guidance. I look forward to your response.

Elizabeth QuietNotes (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to use the visual editor. I never use it, I always use the source editor. It's up to you, but if the visual editor makes things easier, by all means use it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anachronist. I appreciate the guidance. And thank you for your patience with me. Kind regards, Elizabeth QuietNotes (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Butterbus (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John Anthony Truchard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I recently submitted a draft for Draft:John Anthony Truchard, which was declined under WP:YOURSELF.

To clarify, I am not the subject of the article, but I do have a connection to the subject and have disclosed this on my user page in accordance with Wikipedia’s terms of use.

I would appreciate guidance on how to revise the draft to better comply. Are there specific sections that should be reduced or restructured to avoid being interpreted as promotional or autobiographical?

Thank you for your time and feedback. Butterbus (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to Mr. Truchard.

Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award.

Very little of the draft is about him personally, most of it is about the routine business activities of his business. You have far too many sources. What are your top three best sources that are not interviews with him? 331dot (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Leo020925 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:VitaHealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to ask for some suggestions on how to approach this article. The main focus has to be the company VitaHealth. It will be helpful if your side can have some input on how to make certain adjustments so that this article can go live on Wikipedia. Thank you. Leo020925 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rejected, which means it will no longer be considered for inclusion on Wikipedia. I presume, although you have failed to disclose as much, that you are an employee or contractor of VitaHealth. You should read WP:BOSS and show it to your superiors/colleagues. Wikipedia is not a PR platform or a place to publicise your business. Athanelar (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-19107-89 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2025 in amusement parks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added more attractions to closings but it is 2026 now. Any advice on what this can be done to become 2025 in amusement parks? ~2026-19107-89 (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left clear information as to what is needed. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• APrettyCoolGuyWithATablet (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ryley Gauthier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do I need for this APrettyCoolGuyWithATablet (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero sources in the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry can I send them here - Im still a little bit new

https://coach.lending.online/ryley-gauthier

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-one-mentorship-program-ryley-133100314.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-one-mentorship-program-ryley-133100314.html#:~:text=The%20Ryley%20Gauthier%20Mentorship%20program%20aims%20to%20revolutionize%20business%20education,Cision APrettyCoolGuyWithATablet (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paid press releases are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is also highly promotional. While the promotional nature of the draft could be fixed, if you don't have reliable and independent secondary sources, it is unlikely your draft will ever get published. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the obvious notability and verifiability issues, see also WP:AUTOBIO in case that applies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the other issues noted, you also need to disclose any WP:COI you have with this subject. Given that you credit an extremely candid, posed photo of Gauthier as your own work, it raises a question about your relationship with Gauthier. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-19067-96 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yeva Mazur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I was wondering what I could do to get this draft approved? ~2026-19067-96 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Do you have a question about the advice you were given by the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ilovegooglee (I presume that's you)

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.

Not one of your sources is independent of Mazur.

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) 22:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-19135-24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:George Burling Jarrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

is there someone who can do this for me? ~2026-19135-24 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do co-editing here at this help desk. But now that you have publicly asked for help, you may be contacted by scammers, please read the scam warning.

We can answer your questions. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Imnew0ten2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:St. Boniface Catholic Church (Lafayette, IN) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know how to make an article. I already tried to make one and got rejected and then was told to go to the help desk. Imnew0ten2 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to first get your draft undeleted at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted a long time ago, but okay, I'll try to restore it. Imnew0ten2 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were already given some very good advice about notability back in August here. Please read that if you haven't already. Athanelar (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does have significant coverage now stop saying that. Wikipedia should be a website where you can learn anything, not a website where only famous "covered" "referenced" things get by. That is a very stupid reason to not make the draft. Imnew0ten2 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What significant coverage has now emerged?

Wikipedia should be, and is, an encyclopedia. Like any encyclopedia, we have criteria for inclusion, and the main criterion is what we call notability. You may not like that, but that is the way that it is. If you do not have sources to demonstrate a subject's notability, it will not have an article here. Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are other websites that have less restrictions on their content; if you just want to tell the world about this church(your church?), you might try one of them. Requiring references is necessary for verifiability. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just get someone to make the article Imnew0ten2 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who writes it if there are no sources to summarize in such an article. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. What significant coverage have you found? Read WP:Golden Rule, it's short and easy. You need multiple sources, each of which meet all three criterial described. If such sources don't exist, then it isn't possible for a Wikipedia article to exist. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Imnew0ten2 "Wikipedia should be a website where you can learn anything, not a website where only famous "covered" "referenced" things get by." Well, not to be harsh, but you can think that. Wikipedia is exactly a place where only the things that have been covered and referenced have articles. Sorry that what you want is not what is the case.... David10244 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did i do all the requirements and is it now fixed to be officially on the website or do i still need work to do?

Please point them out so i could fix if its good now then I’ll go ahead and submit. PLXYI (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have still not added a single citation supporting facts contained within the article, nor demonstrated any kind of notability for this subject. In fact, you've added additional content, also completely unsourced, that looks an awful lot like it was written by an LLM/chatbot. While I am not the reviewer, I'm fairly confident this draft would be declined, and without any direct improvements to sourcing or notability, quite possibly rejected, which means it will no longer be considered for Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Essentially the article I submitted was an adaptation of the Japanese wiki page. That is why I included the Agency, the articles sourced, etc. I believe there is a way to cite the Japanese page but this being my first submission, I am not familiar with the process. Is there a suggestion on how to edit this to the English standard the reviewers are holding this to? RicanGeekn (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Often the best way to 'translate' an article from another Wikipedia is just to throw out the original prose entirely and instead read the sources on the original article and rewrite a new article in English based on those sources; our standards and requirements for an article are often very different than those of other-language Wikipedias. Athanelar (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Troy Ribeiro (Goa) (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Troy Ribeiro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have reworked the entire page and hence requesting you to please relook at my page... and hope you approve it... Troy Ribeiro (Goa) (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as the notice at the top of the page says, your article has been rejected and will not be considered for inclusion no matter how much you rework it. If you want it to be considered again, you can contact the rejecting reviewer Thilsebatti at their talk page and see if they're willing to overturn their rejection now. Athanelar (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also AI slop, or at least shows that an AI was a primary author. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Live from the Hollywood Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Live from the Hollywood Bowl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was I declined ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY2 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What did you not understand about the detailed information given in the decline message? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY2.

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) 22:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-19316-23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Araji Kashimpur Ashrafia Islahul Muslemin Madrasah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please check my article and suggest me to add or remove things ~2026-19316-23 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as a promotional brochure for the school intended for prospective students, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukmusician12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Last Minute Musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft Draft:Last Minute Musicians has been declined twice for lacking significant coverage. Between the first and second submission, I substantially rewrote the article and strengthened the sourcing. The second reviewer commented "No sources added since previous decline," which is incorrect.

The primary source is a peer-reviewed paper: Azzellini, Greer & Umney (2022), "Why isn't there an Uber for live music?", published in New Technology, Work and Employment (Wiley, DOI: 10.1111/ntwe.12213). The full text is freely available at https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/177493/. The paper discusses Last Minute Musicians across multiple pages as one of the two largest "digitised agents" in the UK live music market, citing specific data (3,000 acts) and analysing its business model in detail as part of a 23-page study of 168 intermediaries. This is not a passing mention.

The draft is also supported by a 2024 EU-funded research report (Fair MusE, Horizon Europe), a Guardian article, and recognition from the Musicians' Union and Independent Society of Musicians.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page. I believe the academic source meets the significant coverage, reliable, and independent criteria. Could an experienced editor take a look and advise whether this meets the threshold? Thank you. Ukmusician12 (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want another review, you need to resubmit the draft. You have no sources with significant coverage of this company. You write that various entities recognize them, but provide no information as to what is significant about that, no critical analysis or commentary.

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both the draft and your comment here seem to have been wholly or partially AI generated, too, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am a co founder of Last Minute Musicians and have disclosed this on the draft's talk page.

Regarding AI: I used Claude to help me structure and refine the article text, which I then reviewed and verified against the sources myself. I understand Wikipedia's policy on AI generated content and apologise for not being upfront about this. I am happy to rewrite the article entirely in my own words.

Regarding significant coverage: I accept the feedback about the article reading as a list of endorsements without critical analysis. I believe the Azzellini paper does provide that substance, but I have not drawn it out well enough in the article. The paper analyses the company as part of a systematic study of 168 intermediaries and uses it as evidence for an academic argument about the limits of platformisation in live music. I will rewrite the article to better reflect that analysis rather than simply listing recognitions.

I would welcome any guidance on whether the sourcing could be sufficient if the article itself were improved. Ukmusician12 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the founder, you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose as a paid editor, as I presume you founded the company to earn a living.

So your company is one mention out of 168? 331dot (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This comment also still reads as AI generated. Please speak to us in your own words if you are not already. Athanelar (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The peer-reviewed paper has a single passing mention of this company in 39 pages. The paper isn't remotely significant coverage about the company, it's a paper about an activity that this company and many others are involved in. Just being the largest that does something doesn't make one notable. If this company had been the third most-active company looked at rather than the second-most, then the mention wouldn't be there, yet not one bit of information about this specific company would have been lost.

None of the other sources are any more useful. The problem is that you've taken up some form of "notability by osmosis" which isn't a thing. You've found a couple sources for something that could be notable (specific platforms for hiring live music), and then used that to confer notability on a company that does that. You have to show reliable, independent sources that are providing significant coverage of Last Minute Musicians. Just mentions that they exist or a passing mention as an example of a music hiring platform do not constitute significant coverage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• HeyItzNickJr (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Angelika Jardiel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well, I will be a real person. HeyItzNickJr (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @HeyItzNickJr. I don't know what your remark above means.

Did you mean to say that Jardiel is a real person. If that is what you mean, that is irrelevant. Most of Wikipedia's articles are about real people and things, but quite a few are about non-real people and things: fictional characters, legendary creatures and events, even some about hoaxes.

What matters is not whether the subject is real, but whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which mostly comes down to whether it has been independently written about or not.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Silencedoc (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Leak It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Leak It (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Elaborate Silêncio (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate what? GGOTCC 16:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't submitted the draft for review yet. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Flanker09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Battle of Dare Pahlawan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft I created has been rejected for citing one of the most famous history books in Afghanistan, Siraj Al Tawarikh, called unreliable. I need help Flanker09 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rejected (which means stop, it will not be considered further), it was declined, which means you can still improve it and resubmit it.

Unless the book has independent reliable sources discussing it in depth, then it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. "Famous" is not the same thing as "notable" here. See WP:Golden Rule for the kind of sources required. Read it now. It's a very short document. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wrote "famous" to mean widely cited and respected, hence my objection to it being unreliable. Flanker09 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should ask the reviewer RangersRus why that book is considered an unreliable source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per our own article on the matter, I would imagine that the allegation of unreliability comes from the fact that it was commissioned by the Amir of Afghanistan (specifically, the son and successor of the Amir involved in the battle which the draft focuses on,) which may imply some bias. Athanelar (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes I imagine that is the case. Although one could argue that (in this case) it's mention of a defeat for the Amir's Army even though the book is commissioned by him is something to consider, I don't think anyone would want to show their defeats a lot.

Still, thanks for the insight. Flanker09 (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Athanelar is spot on. The Amir of Afghanistan hired a writer to write book per the direction given by himself and would review it himself as well. This makes Siraj Al Tawarikh not a reliable source. You will need to look into book written by academic historians preferably modern historians. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea. Flanker09 (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Timothyjchambers (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rel=me Verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Question: In what way were reliable sources listed inadequate causing this rejection? Happy to improve but looking for more direction. Timothyjchambers (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Please make sure your sources all meet the criteria described at WP:42. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be aware of WP:NOTHOWTO. I'm not sure this article (which seems to be mostly technical documentation) is encyclopedically appropriate. Athanelar (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjchambers That draft is an extremely niche bit of one tiny part of the HTML specification. It does not rise to the level of an encyclopedia article. David10244 (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my take was it was in depth to be sure, but tied into many identity systems and social platforms so important to have in the wikipedia : but to take your point and the point of others that rejected this article, I will try to naturally place it inside of already existing articles. I am now considering it may fit well here: Digital identity Timothyjchambers (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• TheElevatorMan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zhenghua Yang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wanted to see if there were any other improvements for my draft page. Still learning about the process in general and reading over articles for improvement but now I'm just kinda waiting. My first draft got insta shot down within hours over accusations of AI (which I deny) but still took it as an opportunity to rewrite the section in an attempt to fit in the writing style of Wikipedia in general.

Now it's been 50 days and what started as a new year's resolution to try something new has turned into kinda a frustrating experience. So yeah just looking for help in general/suggestions. TheElevatorMan (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do to speed this volunteer driven process. Your wait is on the longer side, but there's no queue to put you at the front of even if we wanted to. Please continue to be patient, as frustrating as it may be.

Do you have a connection to this man beyond taking his picture? 331dot (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I met him once at the Game Developers Conference that's where I got the picture. Don't know him personally besides a small conversation regarding some of the company's titles. I looked more into his story/career and thought he would be an interesting topic for a page. TheElevatorMan (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The label in the first sentence would likely remind reviewers of WP:ENTREPRENEUR and cause them to move on to something else.

Note that it is also frequently the case where a company is notable but the founder or CEO is not. I cannot say whether that's the case here.

The laundry list of credits is more appropriate for a CV than a Wikipedia article, especially if it includes a list of non-notable titles and topics. My recommendation is to remove it entirely or trim it down to include only significant things. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason I decided to add the giant list is due to looking at different refences of current people in the gaming industry. Majority of devs, CEO, and those in-between all share a laundry list of credits on different projects. TheElevatorMan (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can confirm that the CEO was directly involved in developing a game rather than running a company, it shouldn't be listed.

Also: There are millions of articles here, and only a few thousand active editors. Therefore, there is a lot of crap on Wikipedia because we don't catch it all. That is a reason to remove the crap or clean it up, not a reason to compound the problem by adding more. If you want to use other articles for comparison, make sure they are classified as GA (good article), or at least C-class. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against using anything less than GA as an indication of quality; the content assessment scale is, after all, completely user-driven and anybody is free to rate any article whatever they want to rate it, so unless it's an article which is monitored by a particularly active and on-the-ball wikiproject I wouldn't put much stock in the content assessment rating. Athanelar (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your sources:

1. Based on an interview, can't be used to establish notability

2. Ditto

3. Random youtube video, can't be used to establish notability.

4. Based on an interview again.

5. Ditto.

6. Ditto.

7. Ditto.

8. Ditto.

9. Ditto.

10. Redirects to the homepage.

11. Nothing to do with Z.

Not a single piece of good coverage here. Please review WP:NCREATIVE to see what our criteria for inclusion are for creative professionals. Athanelar (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you took the time to check my resources but just from the "random youtube video" I don't think you actually checked the contents of it.

But thanks seems like 50 days of waiting just for what happened the first time. Along with it seems someone removed the main reference https://www.mobygames.com/person/785394/zhenghua-yang/ which I was using to catalog involvement in projects. TheElevatorMan (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos are borderline sources at the best of times; but just in the interest of completeness, I skimmed the video; and it's once again based on Yang's own words, and so does not substantiate notability. Nor does the link you gave there, seeing as it's pretty much just a list of things he's worked on. Like I said, take a look at WP:42 and WP:NCREATIVE, that's what you need to provide to demonstrate notability. Athanelar (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Skimmed the video thanks A+. I give up who needs new hobbies anyways. TheElevatorMan (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is my assessment of the video's content incorrect? Athanelar (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No there are sections that do and sections that don't. I just found it funny who has the power to deny 3 months work process put the word "for completeness" and "skimmed" in the same sentence. I thought he was notable due to his work, the Forbes award, and the company he founded already being on the website. TheElevatorMan (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In order for him to be notable due to his work, NCREATIVE tells us he must have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work; so the question is to what extent he was involved in creating the work you allege makes him notable. A lot of his involvement with these games seems to be more on the corporate side than the creative side; lots of credits as "Executive director" and "Executive producer"; his credits for writing and design seem to be on comparatively less notable works, which means they can't substantiate his notability.

As for Forbes; I'm not really sure 30 under 30 counts as an "award"; even if it does, the link you've supplied redirects to the Forbes homepage, so it fails to substantiate that he was even on the list.

The company he founded being on Wikipedia means nothing for his notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Athanelar (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a independent 3rd party platform. You seem repeating the same trend of "skimming". If you scroll down you can find his entry there, I just can't link directly to it. That statement regarding his credits doesn't make much sense? Does Wikipedia not recognize the works of Executive director and producers on projects? TheElevatorMan (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down you can find his entry there If I scroll down where? The Forbes link on your article redirects to the Forbes homepage at forbes.com, not to anything relating to the article subject.

Does Wikipedia not recognize the works of Executive director and producers on projects? Like I said, NCREATIVE says that somebody has to have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work for that work to count towards their notability. If his involvement with those works was more corporate than creative, it does not support the requirement. Athanelar (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2020/games/ this? #10? I'm not sure this a you side issue but it works perfectly fine for me. Last time I checked Publishers do play a major role in works..? TheElevatorMan (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need an actual reviewer who won't waste my time and "skim" over my work. TheElevatorMan (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Athanelar's explanation is exactly on point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cool what about my counter points? I may be learning/new but so far my experience is learn the format system spend 3 months working on a page to get it declined by someone who skims through, ignores explanations, and tells me incorrect information about my references. TheElevatorMan (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given advice, including links to policies and guidelines to read, which you have apparently ignored, instead you are dismissing an analysis that you don't like. I see nothing wrong with Athanelar's analysis, and the presence or absence of the Youtube video would make zero difference to the notability assessment.

I suggest moving on to other topics for now, particularly improving other articles, to help you get accustomed to the standards here. You can always come back to it later.

Creating a whole article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, not something that a new editor should attempt right off the bat; I've been here almost 20 years and I see almost all such attempts fail at first. After six months of inactivity, your draft will be automatically deleted, and it can be restored at any time simply by posting a request at WP:REFUND should you decide to work on it again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring I'm asking genuine questions to understand. Why isn't the forbes award considered notable? Why am I being told the reviewer is "skimming" over information? Why isn't the listed experience notable enough? Why is the reference link not working for the person deciding my page but it does for me? Seems like my questions are getting ignore and biased against me.

Great glad to know everyone fails. I'm sure it'll encourage more people to attempt this process. TheElevatorMan (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote Great glad to know everyone fails. I'm sure it'll encourage more people to attempt this process. You missed the point. Inexperienced editors fail at at creating new articles. Once you get more experience improving Wikipedia's existing articles, you are far more likely to succeed at writing your first article. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll answer those.

The Forbes 30 under 30 isn't an award, it's just a list. They recognize 600 people every year in America with 30 in each of 20 industry sectors, and another 300 people each in Asia and Europe. That's 1200 people a year who get that recognition; that doesn't mean all 1200 people are automatically notable. In fact, that Forbes list has been considered a reliable prophecy of a fall from grace, with several honorees having gone on to become embroiled in scandal or criminal activity, and that might make them notable.

As for skimming, often skimming is sufficient (particularly with videos) to determine whether the source is independent of the subject or not. If it relies primarily on interviews, then it isn't independent, and does nothing for notabilty.

Listed experience is irrelevant because notability, as Wikipedia defines it, is based on having enough sources that satisfy all of the WP:Golden Rule criteria in the same source, for multiple sources. There are exceptions for certain professions like academics, but for someone like a corporate executive, WP:GNG applies.

As for the link, it doesn't work for me either, I speculate because Forbes requires you to subscribe or be logged in to access that far back. You can use an archived link like this one, which works for me. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheElevatorMan Which would you prefer, an honest assessment, or being told what you want to hear? I understand it's frustrating to have something that you spent many hours on critically analyzed and told isn't appropriate. But no one has said that this is a close call. Do you want to hear what more experienced people are telling you, or do you not? 331dot (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Randallevans09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Jacob Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Jacob Ward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subject now notable Randallevans09 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of that in the draft; and in any case, the draft was rejected and will not be considered for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nourrcier (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:McNeal Swasey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - Paper has many references that are reliable and independent, eg. City of Pasadena Historical Reference, PCAD Pacific Coast Arch. Database, Architectural Digest, etc ...

So, the comment received must be about "significant coverage". Can you confirm? Also, seems that significant coverage could be obtained by a collection of reference. Can you review this and give me some guidance on if there should be a reclama using existing sources or is it truely in need of new sources. Thanks, Chuck 562 673 8270 Nourrcier (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion of the title. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" isn't numerous referencing that merely mention the person. It isn't referencing of database records. It's in-depth detailed coverage of that specific person. And it must be published by an entity that is independent of the person, and the publisher should have a much broader audience than local to Pasadena. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• JohnLaurens333 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Christine J. Gold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a new AfC reviewer and this is the first draft I've declined using the helper script; what did I do wrong exactly? Not sure how to fix all the visible wikitext on the draft page. Thanks. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 00:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow a nonexistent username got put into the template. Nothing got put on the creator's talk page either. I suggest deleting the decline template and trying again. I don't recall having to configure anything in that script. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has something to do with the |ts= parameter in the template. Strange, because I just declined a draft a minute ago and it was fine. I've removed the |ts= parameter and it's fine. Something about how that date&time is being parsed is resulting in a bunch of screwy output. Athanelar (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it! Is there anything I need to do next time to make sure it doesn't do that again? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 01:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct this question to WP:VPT if I were you, let the technowizards figure it out. Athanelar (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks again. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 01:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was both created and had the submitted template added in one edit, which suggests that it was created by an AI. That AI also added |ts=~~~~, which is obviously not a timestamp either. nil ^nz 01:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. That's probably what screwed up the decline template, too. Athanelar (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Relieved to know it's not something I did. :) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 01:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't "suggest" it's LLM-generated, that confirms it. Interestingly, it looks like the AI has learned not to put a pre-declined template in there, now it's the correct template. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist : Second example, similar timeframe: Draft:Wrede Creek - one line submission with "correct" AFC template and an incorrect one. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Paxapunch (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kenneth Lind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BLP1E Decline Appears Unwarranted

I am requesting an experienced reviewer look at Draft:Kenneth Lind, which was declined on 23 January 2026 by Monkeysmashingkeyboards citing WP:BLP1E. A second opinion request was posted to the draft Talk page on 25 January 2026 but has received no response in two months.

I believe the BLP1E decline is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. Mainstream independent media coverage exists. Andrew Feldman's bylined feature article on ESPN.com (June 17, 2013) covers Lind's background, military career, and tournament performance in depth. ESPN is precisely the kind of mainstream independent reliable source that satisfies WP:GNG.

2. Multiple independent sources provide significant coverage. Beyond ESPN, substantial independent reporting comes from PokerNews (interview and detailed profile), PokerNewsDaily (full biographical analysis by named journalist Dan Katz), and Casino City Times. These are not routine results listings — each provides independent biographical depth.

3. The subject's victory was historically significant. This was not merely a tournament win. The 2013 WSOP Seniors Championship set two simultaneous records: the largest Seniors event in WSOP history with 4,407 entrants, and the largest non-reentry single starting day event in all of WSOP history at that time. Winning a historically record-setting event against that field is a demonstrably significant achievement by any measure.

4. The subject is documented across more than a decade of sustained activity. The Hendon Mob Poker Database records 76 tournament results for Lind spanning 2013–2025, including at least 12 first-place finishes, across multiple major venues including the Borgata, Wynn, Venetian, Golden Nugget, and South Point. USPokerSites independently profiles him as one of Utah's top five poker players by lifetime earnings exceeding $770,000. This is not a one-event biography by any reasonable standard.

5. The subject has a substantial documented career entirely outside poker. Lind served 22 years as a U.S. Army officer and subsequently worked for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, both documented across multiple independent sources. BLP1E applies to subjects known for a single event only — that description does not fit this subject. The draft is well-cited with 11 references including two separate WSOP.com articles, ESPN, two PokerNews articles, Casino City Times, PokerNewsDaily, RakeRace, Hendon Mob, Global Poker Index, and USPokerSites.

I respectfully request that an experienced reviewer re-evaluate this draft on its merits. The draft link is Draft:Kenneth Lind.

Thank you. Paxapunch (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use an AI to speak to the community. We don't care what the AI thinks, we want to know your own words. Should you continue using an AI chatbot to communicate and submit articles from scratch, you risk your account being blocked.

All your WP:Golden Rule sources (which your AI has no clue about) are about a single event. The rest of the sources are things like database records and sources that aren't independent of the subject.

It looks like the decline rationale was spot-on. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, if there is a case for this not being WP:BLP1E, this was a piss-poor attempt from the LLM, which as usual mangled policies and guidelines. This subject only has coverage related to their one event. That they have a career outside of their one event is quite immaterial since precisely every adult will had had a career and life outside their one event; what would matter would have been if independent sources had covered that career and life outside the context of this one event. I think that's a long enough reply to LLM slop. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it ought to be noted that the whole article has the hallmarks of slopfarming, most notably the favorite quirks of LLMs when describing events and the obnoxious tendency to write about coverage existing rather than what the coverage says. The whole thing is the equivalent of me being asked if I had a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch and responding "Media appearances have reported on CoffeeCrumbs having a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch, and that this grilled cheese sandwich played a significant role in his satiation.

If anything, I think the reviewer erred on the side of kindness. I think this is a good WP:TNT candidate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I sincerely appreciate all Wikipedia AFC for providing me a writing education. Being new to the requirements of this format they have provided great guidance. Your response refers to ~Anachronist and says the Anachronist's "rationale was spot-on". I have accessed and reviewed the reference mentioned and I am unable to find where it refers to either my help desk message or my draft.

Still, I am extremely pleased to learn from you that those manning the Wikipedia article selection process prefer direct individual responses. This is good information to know as I have often found it difficult to adequately confer with site chat bots.

In your response there is mention of the Wikipedia Golden Rule which I read. It specifically says "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic". I have provided an extensive list of independent reliable sources. There should be no question concerning this. But it should be also noted that the same Golden Rule says "generally", not absolutely.

I do appreciate your clear reference to an example of being asked about a grilled cheese sandwich. I certainly don't think that you believe earning a bracelet by defeating 4,406 opponents, including a number of previous bracelet winners, is anywhere near equivalent to having a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch.

As concerns the single event scrutiny, there are citations clearly showing many other first place poker accomplishments at a number of different locations. However, even if all other facets, events and accomplishments are set aside, there is cause to accept an article when it is determined that the person acted in a substantial, well documented undertaking. This is certainly such a case as it was, at the time, a record breaking event in many arenas, including number of opponents and amount of prize pool. A record that surpassed all previous single starting day tournaments since 1970. 43 years at the time. Even ESPN's Andrew Feldman wrote that I had "scratched off one item from [my] bucket list and turned the life experience into a life-altering $634,809." The WSOP's description called it "the largest non-re-entry single starting day event in World Series of Poker history". Wikipedia contains many examples of distinguished poker players that have accomplished only poker goals. For example take a look at Ryan Daut, and there are others.

There is only a before and an after. Now is always already gone. I tackled this goal because my spouse was urging me to do it "Before [ I ] start pushing grass up!" In the end, after it was over, it was my turn, "This is beyond a dream. Beyond it. I just wanted to compete."

I believe this article is deserving. However, should you consider anything further necessary, I would very much appreciate your guidance.

Regards,

Paxapunch (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have not taken seriously the comments of four far more experienced editors who are all in agreement. It's BLP1E even if you don't want to admit it. The "golden rule" coverage you provide is all about that one event. The other sources are irrelevant to assessing notability. Your last paragraph also implies that you have a conflict of interest, which you must disclose. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Paxapunch (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not compare the achievement to a grilled cheese sandwich, but as part of an analogy to the weird phrasing that chatbots use.

I don't think there's anything to add. You don't appear to get what the problem is here. You keep bringing up irrelevant things that have nothing to do with WP:BLP1E. If anything, your continual going back to how big the tournament victory as if that somehow addresses the concerns only highlights that you are notable in the context of one particular event. As far as I can see, all significant coverage of you is tied to that one event.

And pointing out other articles is not helpful; there are more than seven million articles, and many of them are inadequate to our standards and have not yet been addressed, but that isn't a reason to make another one. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Paxapunch (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ponijem1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Refugee Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft is being refused because of the lack of multiple published secondary sources that are independent and reliable, whilst NRC, Het Parool and De Volkskrant are all independent Dutch newspapers and the other sources are not linked to Refugee Company as well. I don't completely understand what I would need to do for my draft to be accepted. Could you help me with some more elaborate pointers? Ponijem1 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ponijem1 I fixed your header so it links to the draft as intended.

You have described the routine activities and offerings of the company, not independent critical analysis and commentary about the company. Please see WP:ORGDEPTH. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the header! Ponijem1 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your link, I am going to look into it! Ponijem1 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with the organization? 331dot (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not associated with the organization, except from that I think it is a great organization, that does good work in the Netherlands and deserve more coverage :) Ponijem1 (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ponijem1.

"Coverage" is not what Wikipedia is for. What you are talking about it what Wikipedia calls promotion, and is not allowed on Wikipedia.

I am not saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about Refugee Company, but that wanting one to improve its "coverage" (i.e., tell the world about it) is not an appropriate purpose, and may be inconsistent with Wikipedia's requirements.

For example, suppose at some time there were some financial irregularities about the company, that were picked up in the press (this is hypothetical, I'm not suggesting that it is the case)? Then a Wikipedia article about it should talk about these, in proportion to how much they had been reported, though it would hardly enhance "coverage" as far as the organisation and its supporters were concerned.

See WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColinFine, offcourse I totally understand that it is not only the ‘good’ that should be mentioned in articles, but always the truth and objective information known about subjects. That was not want I meant and I agree that coverage is the wrong word. I just want to contribute about subjects that have my interest. ~2026-19726-81 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-19330-83 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Cartoon World of Adrian Galarza and Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is it rejected ~2026-19330-83 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the rejection notice states, Wikipedia is not for something you and your friends made up one day. Athanelar (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jsegal75 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lappie Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

not sure why this was rejected. this is the historical record of an annual award given out on CBS television network. The site has links to the clips from CBS' airings. It has links to the winners proving they are real people, and it contains photos of the winners each year. What else can i include to get this site approved?

Thanks Jsegal75 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have just documented the existence of the award and its recipients, not summarized what independent reliable sources have said about this award. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It airs on National TV in the USA with the links in the submission. Not sure what else would need to be added. ~2026-19178-45 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting.

What do independent sources say is important or significant about these awards? That's what we're interested in. See ESPY Awards 331dot (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Emanresu0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • C.W. Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:C.W. Kim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The instructions from Afc say to ask for help here. I would greatly appreciate guidance before I make further extensive edits to this draft to be sure I work more efficiently and don't cause unnecessary work for wikipedians. Summarizing the 4 issues noted: (i) "too much detail", (ii) the Timeline of Works "reads like a resume", (iii) "too many references" for the same statement, and (iv) references without url for easy cite checking. As for (i), before beginning this draft, I looked at other wiki articles on architects and attempted to follow the style/information in them. I don't know whether the issue is the detail about the buildings themselves or about the architect personally (even though other wiki articles seem to have similar personal information about the architects. Please either give me an idea of which details are "too much" so I can remove them or remove them if you can. As for (ii), the wiki article on architect Louis Kahn for example has the same format, so I don't know how to correct this draft. As for (iii and iv), I am capable of eliminating many of the references (which were not intended to "bomb" anyone, but rather were included because I did not know the best approach for wiki since some references had very informative overview's or the architect's career but are not in digital form or in a url while others that may be available as a url only addressed one structure. Even the latter I had to cite manually because I either got them from a limited time paid subscription to the publisher's archive (ouch!) or the old fashion public library (whew!). I don't have access to wiki's archive library yet. How do I cite to a url that I do not have if this is necessary for approval even though wiki uses the basic citation format as an option for references? I will also copy and paste this inquiry on the talk page in case that helps me address these problems or anyone else is able to do so. Thank you. Emanresu0 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Emanresu0, let's see if I can help. The first thing I'll say is beware of using other articles as a guide for yours - they may have serious problems, and being a new user you would not be aware of those problems. Many articles were created before the AfC system existed, and some of those that were created in the 'wild west' of Wikipedia's first days are seriously deficient. The problem is that we have far fewer volunteer editors than articles, and a huge amount of time is spent preventing vandalism and misinformation being posted, so many articles have just not been subjected to scrutiny and improvement in years (if ever).

With regards to WP:REFBOMB, each claim must have a source. This is especially important because your draft is about a living person; see WP:BLP for more. However, one source is usually just right, maybe two sources if the claim is unusual. Three or more would only be appropriate if the claim was the subject of fierce argument and you need to present multiple views. Wherever possible, choose the source that meets all three criteria of WP:42. You will need three or more sources that meet all three of these criteria to demonstrate your subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

Turning to sources - if your sources happen to be online, that's wonderful and will make life easier for the reviewer! However, your sources don't need to be online and don't even need to be in English. It may take longer if your sources are not easily available, because the reviewer will have to try to track them down. Do not cite Wikipedia; if the information you need is available in another article, go to the source cited for that information (to verify it's accurate) and then use that source in your own draft. Don't cite images on Commons either - use them to show his work by all means, but don't use them as sources of information.

When condensing the draft, it's usually best to focus on the aspect of the subject you think makes them qualify for a Wikipedia article. For Kim I'm guessing that will be WP:NARCHITECT. So you are probably looking for pieces (newspaper articles, books, etc) that describe some of the buildings he's designed and why they're important. Summarise these briefly and concisely; a few sentences will do. I would remove the timeline of works altogether, along with any awards that do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I've cut down the education/licensing section as an example of what details you could remove while keeping the most vital information. I hope this is of some use to you! Meadowlark (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot thank you enough for your thoughtful response and effort. I was very baffled by the objection about the time line since it followed the style and format of a well written article of a well known person and the only comment on that page is that wiki would like more information, not less! It sounds like I need to remove the entire section, which is painful after piecing it all together, and adding photos in the Gallery of those projects. I will follow up after I have had a chance to implement your comments and ask for you to look at it again then, unless I have an unexpected question before. It may be a while under the circumstances. Appreciatively, E. Emanresu0 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Emanresu0, you're very welcome! I think you may well be correct, he looks likely to be notable, so I'm going to see if I have access to any newspaper clippings via Wikipedia Library that can confirm it. If I can see enough, I will be happy to accept the draft and do some tidying up (with apologies to your hard work). Perhaps we'll race to see who gets back to editing the draft first! :) Meadowlark (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• GrantBremer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Elizabeth R. Macaulay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am about to resubmit my draft for review because I have taken on feedback about the content of the article, and I want to get a sanity check on the changes. I created a large problem by using weak references, references published by the subject or the subject's employer. I have moved away from those sources, relying on biographies published in the subject's book and on published reviews in academic journals. As a result of this change, I removed much content that could not be supported or called into the original content category. Additionally, I trimmed down the selected works. Is this ready for review, are these changes in the right direction? GrantBremer (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer would have a difficult time with this.

You have a lot of assertions in Wikipedia's voice cited to primary sources, in some cases synthesizing claims that aren't explicitly stated in the sources. WP:Sythesis isn't permitted here.

In addition, you cite only two sources that are independent of Macaulay, neither of them verifiable because they are behind paywalls. The paywalls aren't a problem, but would you quote the passages from those sources that support the assertions you make? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that feedback. What can I do to help improve these sources or edit out content so that the article can review?

Two sources are book reviews available through Jstor; these are the paywall sources, correct? I will address the WP:Synthesis issues. Would I use these sources to support the assertions? In an academic paper or review, yes, I would. The authors are recognized academics, the journals are reliable sources and reviewed the content, and reviews are important academics publications to help guide academics towards (or away) from content in their field of study. Or are you asking if I could instead add quotes for clarity and ease of access to the statements? I certainly can.

I cited two of her books for biographical information, and that information is coming from the "about the author" page or section. That seemed mostly reasonable even though the books are authored or edited by the subject; the book editor would have had a hand in reviewing this and, as university press books, they have a stake in ensuring the authors and content are correct. I stayed away from her CV (solely authored by her) and her CUNY page (the university that employs her). There are other bio pages for her from organizations that she works with or for, but these feel less reliable. I feel stuck in an almost chicken-and-egg issue -- the only locations that provide information on her duties are locations that are not independent of her. Checking other academics, I do see those biographies use institution pages for their roles and positions. See Larry Summers, Anita Hill as quick examples. GrantBremer (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If no one writes about her outside of places she is associated with, she wouldn't merit an article at this time. Primary sources can be used for certain things, but they can't establish notability. Academics are admittedly a little wonky in terms of figuring out notability(see WP:NACADEMIC), 331dot (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria of WP:NACADEMIC do you feel Macaulay meets? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• OpenNote (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Turkish Young Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Can i get information about submission of Turkish Young Academy of Science? Thanks OpenNote (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What information are you seeking? As I said at the regular help desk, a review may take some time. Asking for one does not speed this volunteer driven process. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Help me and give recommendations for this page User:FullYellow/sandbox FullYellow (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Help me and give me recommendations for this page". The whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have just documented the existence of the studio and its work, not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the studio, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary, not the mere reporting of its routine activities. It is possible for the products of the company to merit an article but not the company itself. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you uh, make this more simple to read please because English is not my main language. FullYellow (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FullYellow. I declined this draft because of an issue known as "corporate depth". We need this because Wikipedia has a set of definitions on notability, and all articles must have notability. In the case of a company there are some specific requirements, which as mentioned in the review text include WP:SIRS. I know it is a bit complex, but try to read that linked page, and in particular the corporate depth section below. If you had three profiles of the company in The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times and Wired, and which were all several hundred words long, then you would probably have no problems here, you would have corporate depth. However in your case there are no sources as good as that, we have blog sites, a forum and two database look-up pages. As mentioned in the review, very few companies can make this standard. Products are sometimes easier, but see WP:NPRODUCT for that.

The most simple way I think I can say this is "we need better, good quality, sources please" but also "please do not waste your time if these sources do not exist". ChrysGalley (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FullYellow: There are Wikipedias in many languages. If English is not your main language, then it may be best to contribute to a Wikipedia in a language you are comfortable with. Those Wikipedias need help far more than the English Wikipedia does. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• DavidL678 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Airbrush (software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with my article. The rejection reason is as follows:

1. This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content. Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

2. This draft reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promotion or marketing. Drafts that are exclusively promotional may be deleted without notice. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

promotional language: see Words to watch; personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader; informal language. Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

If you have a conflict of interest (e.g. you are the subject, an employee, or a relative) or are being paid to edit, you must disclose this to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

If you can see my article ( airbrush software), please help me get it accepted or guide me on how to improve my writing. these are the only available sources for my article. DavidL678 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is unclear about the decline information you've been given? Athanelar (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thnak you for your response DavidL678 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all the sources you have, the topic does not merit an article at this time, and you should move on to something else. You've just described the software and its capabilities, not summarized significant coverage about it.

One review seems to be AI generated, so that's useless for notability. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please mention which review is AI-generated? From the references I have given. DavidL678 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Skywork.ai one, it says the author is "Skywork SEO". If not written by an AI, that's usually an indication of paid placement. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Walter Phelps (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DAVYDOV CONSULTING (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing the article. I would like to better understand the reason for the rejection so I can improve it accordingly.

Could you please clarify: Which notability criteria are not met? Whether the provided sources are insufficient, and if so, what kind of sources would be more appropriate? If there are any issues with the tone, structure, or formatting of the article?

I am willing to revise the article to meet the guidelines.

Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. Walter Phelps (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Phelps First, you need to, as soon as possible, respond to the inquiries on your user talk page(User talk:Walter Phelps). You are required by the Terms of Use to disclose paid editing- which in this context includes employment. See WP:PAID(or your talk page). I note that you are claiming to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo.

This draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not shown that the company is a notable company. Most companies on Earth don't meet that standard. Showing notability requires "significant coverage" in independent reliable sources; significant coverage being critical analysis and commentary as to what people wholly unconnected with the company view as important/significant/influential about it. You have just summarized the routine activities and offerings of this company. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Writersdesk2022 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tobias Kaspar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what to do so my work was not for nothing? id like to publish this article Writersdesk2022 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Rockawaypoint (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I started this article a while ago and would like to invite anyone who cares to join in with the editing. There is a lot to add to the article, and I'm behind on learning all the ins and outs on Wikipedia. Johannes Kr. Tornoe was highly regarded by other writers on the controversial topic of Vinland. His theory, - published in two books in 1965, was that "Leifsbudir", Leif Eiriksson's "Wineland" was built on Waquoit Bay, Cape Cod. Some people are opposed to this theory, but it is very probably the best of all in the "Wineland" debate. Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe Rockawaypoint (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rockawaypoint I've fixed your links, the whole url is not needed(and it also breaks the formatting of the header that provides a link). The best place to solicit co-editing is a relevant WikiProject, perhaps the biography project. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wallywallyy2k (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chas de Whalley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Amongst chas's many successes and contributions to journals, magazines and media outlets, he found, signed U2 and produced their first releases.

He is even sited in U2's own Wiki Pages for his contributions and is regularly interviewed by biographers.

According to your own guidelines he EASILY adheres to the following - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series"

Please publish his page Wallywallyy2k (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be "his page", but an article about him. You have described his work, but not describe what independent reliable sources say about his work- critical analysis and commentary about it. You have 37 sources which is probably far too many. He may be notable as you describe, but there needs to be some critical analysis of him/his involvement. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallywallyy2k - just to add to that, the core point is that in most cases, including this one, notability is about what other people say / write about the subject. So it is less important what they do, much more important how other people describe his work. And since he is your father it's incredibly difficult to take a detached view here, but that's what you have to do now. You know the sources, which 3 of all those sources best meet the WP:GOLDENRULE in full? Particularly the significant coverage in reliable sources rather than blog sites? The tricky bit here is that journalists hate writing about other journalists. Do any of the the U2 biographies have significant coverage of his role, for instance? Or have any of the other artists gone on record talking about your father? Best ti put any thoughts about this here: Draft talk:Chas de Whalley. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-20064-50 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Imagin (digital banking) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Por qué no se puede publicar esta página? Gracias! ~2026-20064-50 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please use English. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]