Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

• Abdelrahemanhamed (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Salem Pack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why articel get refused pls give me reasons and how i can solve it Abdelrahemanhamed (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? If you are employed by this company, that is considered paid editing that the Terms of Use requires you to disclose, see WP:PAID.

You have just told of the routine business activities of the company, not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage " is critical analysis and commentary as to what is important/significant/influential about the topic as viewed by others. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Loivic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:If Nevermore (Album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I find a reliable source of the release date of an album that can be used as an reference? Does music streaming platforms like Spotify count? Loivic (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Loivic: the release date isn't the problem here, it's that this draft provides no evidence that the subject is notable per WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Shotokan.ryu.il (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oded Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, already multiple times I'm trying to publish the article. It was rejected time after time. This article is about the person, that I really think, earned his place between the Wikipedia articles for his endless contribution in modern Karate (he is a member of the technical committee - https://iskf.com/technical-committee/) and education of the students. Obviously, he is my sensei as well. Please help to make the article acceptable by Wikipedia. Thanks! Shotokan.ryu.il (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely nothing describing his contributions to karate in the draft. You only have a single source. If you have sources describing what others view as his contributions to karate, they aren't present.

You haven't from what I can see declared a conflict of interest. I might submit that you are too close to him to be able to write about him as Wikipedia requires. Unless you can fundamentally change the draft to address this issue, it's the end of the road for the draft, at least for now. It is not recommended that article creation be the first task a new user dives right into- this often leads to a disappointing and frustrating experience as things happen to your work that you don't understand. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles and using the new user tutorial before attempting the very difficult task of article creation.

Did you a LLM or AI to write it? 331dot (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Sathija Hasintha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:SlashCat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

He is the best Minecraft Youtuber in Sri Lanka Sathija Hasintha (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prior reviews must remain on the draft until its acceptance.

You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person. An article summarizes what has already been said about a person, like critical analysis and commentary by professional critics. If he's considered the best in Sri Lanka, we need to know according to who, and what they say. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected. That means it will not be given further consideration. There is a huge backlog of drafts, therefore, do not waste valuable reviewer time on this any more, and move on to another topic. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-10018-13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cy Sussman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Wiki team! When I'd created this page, I had used the Visual Editor provided for all citations/references. But the page has been declined. If I edit the cites/refs using the Source Editor instead, will that make the submission open to acceptance? Or is there something else that needs to be corrected? (I had used Wiki's own Visual Editor that was provided as an option, so I'm surprised this didn't pass muster!) Thank you! ~2026-10018-13 (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-10018-13.

It's nothing to do with which editor you used. The decline notice says that there are not enough inline citations - please have a look at WP:BLP to see what is needed.

You have quite a few inline citations, but they are spotty - some parts are if anything overcited, while other parts are lacking.

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.

A lot of your sources look to me like primary sources (though I haven't looked at many of them in detail). You can use a small number of primary sources, but the bulk of them should be secondary sources, and only the latter count towards establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should almost never be cited. Instead, use wikilinks to link to other articles; but if you want to supply a source for verifying something from another Wikipedia article, you need to cite the sources cited in that article.

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) 17:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonatha71526 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:4chan body coordinates incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was declined. Accept now. Jonatha71526 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have exactly zero independent reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles, per WP:CIRCULAR. YouTube is only valid if the video is from a reputable news outlet on its verified channel. As this draft was rejected, it's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• CanaanDavidLouallenNironi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Numbers Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Im having trouble releasing this page to search CanaanDavidLouallenNironi (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected it has zero sources and zero indication of being a notable topic. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced with no indication that the topic is notable. Please review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before attempting the very difficult task of creating a new article. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Eggboss2.0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Something isn’t right with who reject the submissions. First rejection was just for having primary sources and not having secondary sources, but the second rejection after that is having secondary sources and not having primary sources. I’m confused. The second rejector said that the primary sources (which are all from and wasn’t changed in the redirect section in Interstate 20 in South Carolina#Interstate 20 Business) are not valid and not about about I-20 bus., even though all those sources are about I-20 Bus. Since I-20 Bus. was stuck being a redirect and wasn’t a article (that I’m trying make there), it doesn’t have its own special Wikimedia Commons/KML links and categories like which I-85 Bus. (SC/NC), short I-180 (WY), short I-345 (TX) has because they are existing articles and are not redirects. Also what I described about the route is based on the view in google map street view of the route. Most sources of the route about the route like the David McLeod name designation (there signs at its west and east beginnings saying it’s David Blvd in google maps street view) or ramp removed in 2018 (I know put it there because of google map street view shows the comparisons of 2017 has ramp and 2018 has no ramp) are very old that are not findable (including it’s URL) by searching the history in google or any web browsers/searches. The ones in the references and external links sections (no external links about I-20 Bus. in redirect section in I-20’s SC page though) is all the alive URL evidence I was able to find about the existence of I-20 Bus. I wish I can get help that I can to fix the situation and get the article in main space. Eggboss2.0 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both declines have been clear in their reasoning; you have not shown the kind of coverage necessary to determine that this road is notable and should have its own article. Athanelar (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That all refer as “David McLeod Blvd” (Unless if Interstate 20 (South Carolina) —> David McLeod Blvd.). But looks like you just scanned and didn’t read what I put especially the beginning sentences. Eggboss2.0 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the second rejection after that is having secondary sources and not having primary sources Where does the declining reviewer say that? --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the comments in the bottom. Eggboss2.0 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They said there are no secondary sources, which are needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely not sure what this means. Athanelar (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephenfoery (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David Sprigle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The editor who cancelled this article Hoary wrote: Comment: We read here of "proto-pseudo gay, iconographic photography". What does "proto-pseudo gay" mean? How does iconographic photography differ from non-iconographic photography?

I think this editor Hoary is angry and short. As this is my first attempt at an article here, I feel that I incorporated the references with original language. Proto-pseudo reveals itself as the definition of iconographic. I tried to keep the gay out of this article. Why would this editor not recognize this and cancel it so quickly? How can I reach him?

I'm trying to be honest to the references and true to writing in original words. How can I get better at this? Why did this guy slam me? Stephenfoery (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephenfoery: I don't know how short or tall Hoary is, or why that's relevant. But I do think this draft is not written in a neutral, formal language suitable for an encyclopaedia; please bear in mind you're writing (also) for a general audience, not just the culture vulture crowd. I also don't know what "proto-pseudo gay, iconographic photography" means, so I think Hoary's comment was entirely apt. On a more general point, please do not introduce your own commentary or opinion into the draft, your job is merely to summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about the subject. If such a source has described Sprigle's work as "proto-pseudo gay, iconographic photography", then say so, and cite the source against that statement. Whereas if those are your words, they've no place here.

And just to clarify, "this guy" didn't "slam" you, or "cancel" anything. The way the system works is you write the draft, and reviewers assess its suitability for publication. If it is found wanting, it is declined with reason, and your next step is to edit it to address that reason. And so it goes, until the draft is either accepted and published in the encyclopaedia, or rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to his supposed stature, simply the brevity of his editorial comment. I really do thank you for setting me straight. I will try again. ~2026-99022-5 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Oh, and the reason why your draft was declined is that it does not show this person to be sufficiently notable to justify an article. Your sources do not satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, and there is nothing in the draft that would meet the special WP:CREATIVE guideline, either. Your primary task, therefore, is to demonstrate notability via either route. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Stephenfoery.

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.

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) 18:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every reference I used I showed was verified. There is never a neutral point of view always some sort of editorial intelligence and the rule is not to cut and paste reference material. Rewrite it in a new way.... right? I would never publish material that could not be verified but I definitely need to be able to summarize it here. Stephenfoery (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Stephenfoery. "Verified" is not enough, and the sources are not required to be neutral.

What is required is that each of the sources, separately, is a) published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, b) nobody involved in creating that source is in any way connected with the specific subject of the article (whether writing, editing, publishing, commissioning, or providing the words for in the form of an interview or press release), c) the source is a secondary source about the subject, not a primary one, and d) the source contains significant coverage of the subject specifically. These are all summarised in WP:42.

If there are several sources, each of which meets all those requirements, then you can create an article, by setting aside everything you know about the subject, and summarising what those independent secondary sources say - including any that you disagree with. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenfoery, when you wrote Proto-pseudo reveals itself as the definition of iconographic, are you claiming that major dictionaries use the phrase "proto-pseudo" when defining "iconographic"? If so, which dictionaries? And what do you mean by "reveals itself" in this context? When writing encyclopedia articles, we use clear language and the ordinary meanings of words. We do not obfuscate or write in an intentionally baffling fashion. What is the nature of your conflict of interest relationship with David Sprigle? Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Mirror.mirror.mirror (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gardy St. Fleur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm getting the error Cite error: The named reference $1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). and I cant figure out why. Mirror.mirror.mirror (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you had an empty reference on the page in the Notable clients section. I have removed it and you shouldn't see this error any more. Thanks, echidnalives - talk - edits 03:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Irembo B&C (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Irembo Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance to let me add the references as we go, before the article is rejected Irembo B&C (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• TessiDon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Toyin Akinniyi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good day, live editors, please I will like to rework on all declined articles, including this one, as a way of taking corrections, but if I don't get it right this time, I promise to let's go and continue improving alone and not create. TessiDon (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to continue working on a declined draft. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonatha71526 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:4chan body coordinates incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm sorry for my earlier mean and unnecessary statement, but hello editors, please I would like to rework on all declined articles, including this page, as a way of taking corrections, but if I don't get it right this time, I promise to go and continue improving alone and not to create. Jonatha71526 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant rejected not declined Jonatha71526 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to contact the reviewer who rejected it, and ask if you can improve it to the point where it's acceptable. Don't waste the reviewer's time if you don't have multiple sources that are compliant with WP:Golden Rule, however. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And don't waste your own and everyone else's time by copypasting other people's (not-quite-coherent) posts. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Rcs745 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tetsuya Nakayashiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How is this page looking so far Rcs745 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruhshod09 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bellissimo Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft submission issue

Hello, my article Draft:Bellissimo Pizza was declined citing it is more like advertisement, but it is really not. Could you please help me to review my draft page and provide suggestions to improve?

Best Regards Ruhshod09 (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhshod09 I fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended and not to a nonexistent page entitled "Draft submission issue". I also fixed the link you provided, the whole url is not needed.

It is an advertisement because it just tells of ths routine business activities of the company. It does not summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage- critical analysis and commentary about the company that explains how the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company is met. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Can you please check again, I’ve added the required paid/COI disclosure on my user page and rewrote the draft to be more neutral. If you have a moment, could you let me know whether this is closer to meeting NCORP, or if there are specific types of sources you’d recommend adding? Ruhshod09 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for a review, so the reviewer will leave you feedback, but you are still just summarizing routine business coverage. Trade publications don't usually contribute much to notability. You should be summarizing independent reliable sources with critical analysis and commentary as to what makes the company important/significant/influential as viewed by others.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors/those who hired you. This is an exceedingly difficult task at which you are not likely to succeed.

If you are Uzbek, you may want to consider editing the Uzbek Wikipedia, which almost certainly has looser requirements. The English Wikipedia tends to be the strictest, and is much more skeptical of companies editing about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WomanofThebez (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joseph Boot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I have help in improving the citations on a draft bio page and finding the peacock terms?

WomanofThebez (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Twinkle mary (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sailo Graphics CSC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is declined for publishing. I used the original sources and information. This is fair. Twinkle mary (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising sourced to a blog. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle mary, you have multiple problems. The biggest one is that you have no suitable sources: see WP:42 and WP:NCORP for more. The next, which is also a major problem, is that you have simply copied what an AI/LLM told you to - articles generated by an AI/LLM will not be approved, see WP:NEWLLM. If you can overcome these two problems, please demonstrate this by rewriting the draft from scratch, summarising only what information can be found in reliable sources. Meadowlark (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• RobertoReggi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Roberto Reggi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Buongiorno, chiedo indicazioni e suggerimenti per la bozza di articolo in questione RobertoReggi (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Purtroppo in questa pagina utilizziamo solo la lingua inglese. Risposta breve: abbiamo bisogno di buone fonti.

[Unfortunately this page only operates in the English language, but the short version is that we need good sources.]

Here is the most simple way that I can put this: WP:GOLDENRULE - we need 3 really good sources, and they need to be independent of you. Writing articles is hard. Writing articles about yourself is harder. Writing articles about yourself in a crazy language like English is nearly impossible. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jozin74 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Filip Dvořák (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Filip Dvořák (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I would like to know more about the specific reasons for rejecting my submitted draft; i.e., which specific references are irrelevant and what would be a relevant reference in this case. It was a bit curious, as similar articles can be found on Wikipedia (even if only as a stub). I would appreciate your help and recommendation on how to improve my article draft. Thx, Jozin74. Jozin74 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jozin74, have a look at WP:42 - you need at least three sources which meet all three criteria, keeping in mind that interviews with your subject and his friends/family/colleagues etc are not independent. That should hopefully help you pinpoint the problem sources.

There are unfortunately a huge number of subpar articles on Wikipedia; if you've run across any, please let us know so we can attend to the problem by improving or removing them. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My draft (Draft:Paul Makarenko) has been pending review for over two months.

I have addressed previous feedback, added independent reliable sources, and improved neutrality.

Could someone please advise if anything further is required from my side?

Thank you. AngelinaGertz (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this wasn't properly formatted and thus not submitted in for review. I have now just done that, but kindly use WP:YFA for new articles, that way the process is streamlined to avoid multiple mistakes. Unfortunately waiting for articles to be reviewed is inevitable due to a backlog of reviews, and there is no way to speed that up. One of my drafts has also been in the queue for a similar time. But the draft is now in the queue at least. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help and for submitting it properly to the queue!

I will make sure to use WP:YFA for future submissions to avoid formatting issues. AngelinaGertz (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelinaGertz Do you have a connection to Makarenko or his companies (e.g. as an employee)? If so, you should disclose this connection under WP:COI and WP:PAID. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Printice111 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:JSS Science and Technology University, Mysuru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do I need to add to this draft for it to qualify as an article? Printice111 (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Printice111.

I'm afraid it is not so much a matter of adding anything, as starting all over again but from the right place.

All but one of your sources are from the university itself, and the other one is a mere listing.

But Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the university says or wants to say about itself. (That is a slight overstatement, but not by much). 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.

The steps you need to take are:

1. Find sources where people wholly unconnected with the university have chosen to write about the university in some depth, without input directly from the university, and been published by reliable publishers. Each source should meet all the criteria in WP:42. This is the difficult part, and it is possible the sources will not exist, and so no article is possible. (In Wikipedia jargon, the University is or isn't notable).
2. If you cannot find several such sources, stop trying this project and do something else.
3. If you can find several such sources, then set aside everything that you personally know about the University and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.

ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Printice111 Are you associated with the university? You took a picture of the campus. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Belu2132 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Colegio El Rey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't find enough references for it to be accepted Belu2132 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ah mb, I accidentally selected the wrong draft, but its the same topic, I'm pretty sure you can search it with the same name Belu2132 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Belu2132 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Colegio Del Rey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how could I make better drafts? Belu2132 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By doing two things:

1. Pay attention to reviewer feedback, which in this case said you don't have reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic, and are at the same time independent of the topic. See WP:Golden Rule. Read it now. It's short and easy to understand. Follow that and you'll write better drafts.
2. Write your draft forward, not WP:BACKWARD like you did. That is, find your golden-rule sources first before you write a single word. After you find sources, then summarize only what they say, and not what the organization wants to say.

Your draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. You can write a good draft if you follow those two guidelines. Failing to follow them resulted in your draft being rejected. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Belu2132 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Belu2132. You said above "I can't find enough references for it to be accepted". If this is the case then it is almost certainly not notable, and you should stop trying to do an impossible task. ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Crownedmurderix (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kelli Ferrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've updated the references on this page. Ferrell's first season as a cast member on The Real Housewives of Atlanta has concluded, with a second season in post-production. The show is widely received and known for it's significance in pop culture, with Ferrell being a part of that. Crownedmurderix (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Crownedmurderix - "widely received and known for its significance" - OK, how is that established? Is it proven by reliable sources? Is this the doing of the cast member here? That's the building block, without that you don't have an article. With three WP:GOLDENRULE articles then you are in business, based on summarising these reliable sources. They do need to be independent, the coverage can't be in passing, and things like interviews aren't OK for notability (they may have a value for verifying specific points, but that's not notability). Assume nothing beyond the "sky is blue". ChrysGalley (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The show is widely received and known for it's significance in pop culture, with Ferrell being a part of that. Popularity does not guarantee notability. Athanelar (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• MissThomass (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tim Chizmar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there Im not sure what changes to make here seeing as I have pulled from other sources for his movies and books and not used chat gpt I constualted the platform for format only eveything was taken from other sources and summerized, I guess I should be flattered it appeared as AI but Im at a loss on how to fix it. thanks for the advice moving forward MissThomass (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review this draft @MissThomass - but when you/LLM writes He has been featured in interviews and articles in genre publications such as First Comics News then my red flag gets undusted for unfurling. Not that it gets much dust. The reason being is that articles are supposed to represent a neutral but accurate summary of reliable sources. LLM is still pretty bad at doing that, so it cheats by saying "Subject X has made frequent appearances in media and social media platforms" - that is not a summary, it's a name check, and LLM struggles with paywalls like the rest of us. You also can't use IMDb or Muckrack as sources, and LLM doesn't bother to read our guidance and policies. My advice: read WP:42 then WP:BACKWARDS, then find 3 great sources, summarise them in bullet points yourself, then fill up the article in your own words but a neutral summary of those 3 great sources. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Serphelius The Ang3lic (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Creatures of Sonaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added a small sentence talking about the discontentment of the game's community due to the devs not listening to them and other reasons. I did not put my own opinion of that "beef" in my page but i do not know if it agrees with Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Here is the sentence i wrote: "There is some disagreement in the community due to unevenness between players and between creatures, and the unresponsiveness of developers to player's requests to make the game more balanced and more enjoyable." Thank you in advance for advance <3 Serphelius The Ang3lic (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Serphelius The Ang3licYou have not submitted the draft for review yet, but perhaps that is just as well - all of your sources are things like fandom and Insta. These can't be used for sources under WP:RSP, instead you need really good quality sources, see the WP:GOLDENRULE. Moreover you create the article out of a summary of reliable sources, so that's the start point, not the end point. And you may well find that quite difficult. That also answers your question about discontentment: if that perspective is well sourced in reliable sources, and it's not a fringe, unrepresentative opinion, then that point of view can be summarised in a neutral and balanced way. Consider using WP:YFA for new articles, and don't skip pass all the helpful material on each screen. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! I'll be sure to change my sources to more reliable sites. As for the mention of the dispute, does that mean the sentence i put in is ok? I did not show my opinion in it so i'm guessing i should leave it in?

Thanks for the quick answer! Serphelius The Ang3lic (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i just read the goldenrule. There are no books on Creatures of sonaria so i do not really know where i can get my sources from. I'm sorry for the cluelessness, this is my first ever wiki page.

Thanks again Serphelius The Ang3lic (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be books. Newspapers and magazines can be used if reliable. Even radio and TV programmes, though that's often tricky to pin down in terms of sourcing. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or blog site, so if the subject has not (yet) had good sources to summarise then it should not be in an encyclopedia. Writing articles is hard, take your time and perhaps look at existing articles to improve, there's plenty of that to do. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I think i might wait a bit until Creatures of Sonaria gets a bit more popular and there are more articles about it. Thanks for all your tips! Ill keep them in mind.

Thank you for your help. ;) Serphelius The Ang3lic (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @S. I think that's wise. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Serphelius The Ang3lic (failed to ping correctly) ColinFine (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-10929-49 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohamed Benmagri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help creating the page ~2026-10929-49 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@2026-10929-49: No, a recent community discussion decided that Benmagri is not notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. The draft was rejected in January, and an article was created anyway, leading to the discussion. There cannot be an article about Benmagri at this point. See also the comments at User talk:Editordanie. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Sinead RAU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Reddy Architecture + Urbanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am working on a revised version on this draft focusing on the founder, Tony Reddy instead. I have gathered a variety of sources. Some of these sources are articles that appeared in architectural publications which I found through the 'Irish Architectural Archive'. https://irisharchitecturalarchive.ie/collections/catalogue/ Many of these are not published digitally. If only in print form, can they be verifed by Wikipedia? Would I need to add archive url with each citation? Any advice would be appreciated, thank you. Sinead RAU (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not need to be online, but you need to provide sufficient information for someone to locate it. (Publisher, title, author, page numbers, etc.) Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, @Sinead RAU, please have a read of WP:BOSS, as I have no doubt that the reason you are stuck with this Sisyphean task is because you are a content writer with that company and they are breathing down your neck to get an article made. Athanelar (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Mañuco26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Out-of-court dispute settlement under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I'm wondering why my article on Out-of-court dispute settlement under Art. 21 of the DSA was rejected twice now. Both times the criticism was that the article was not drafted by a human-being but by an AI. I can assure you that I have drafted the article myself with the support of a colleague. I'm looking for more scientific sources for the article now and will try to revise it but I'm really not sure what to change or add since in my opinion it fulfills the necessary preconditions for a Wikipedia article. I'd be really grateful for your advice. Mañuco26 P.S. I have already published a German Wikipedia article on the same topic which was accepted and almost has the same content as the English version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Außergerichtliche_Streitbeilegung_nach_Art._21_DSA Mañuco26 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The German Wikipedia has several important differences from us.

You wrote your personal interpretation and analysis of an EU law- not summarized already existing interpretations of the law. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mañuco26.

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.

And no article in (English) Wikipedia should ever advance arguments or draw conclusions, except where it is summarising an argument or conclusion presented in a single reliable independent source. ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• KneeHallHawk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bryce Crawford (preacher) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would it be permissible for me to erase the draft and begin from scratch/ another topic? Thanks for your time. KneeHallHawk (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create a fresh draft about a different topic, you are free to do so. If you want to start fresh about this same topic, you may remove the text and start over(though the prior reviews need to remain). 331dot (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads=up! KneeHallHawk (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Argylesmith (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DRAFT Todd Rodgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Where do I submit my COI statement for this Argylesmith (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page, User:Argylesmith. I'll provide instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• CoffeeDQ (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rlcs2026 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So the main reason my draft was rejected was because of a lack of independant sources. The problem here is that no source other than the official tournament rulebook give in depth information on formats. I did add third-party sources for tournament results, but no third-party gives a complete look on the format details, prize money details, points distribution, etc... I also fixed the link to the rulebook to go straight to the PDF instead of the home page. So I'm wondering what I can do at this point CoffeeDQ (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeDQ: The problem is more this is upcoming/in progress; it'll be a lot easier to make an article on a tournament/competitive eSports league that has had much of its matches already completed (which will prompt eSports-focused sources to report on the matches). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that's pretty unfortunate though considering it's almost halfway through the season. I have included third party sources where possible but yeah for the format of the tournament no sources seem to report. Especially prize money, seems to only be mentioned in the rule book. CoffeeDQ (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @CoffeeDQ.

Many, many, many, subjects which new editors think deserve a Wikipedia article fail because the core criterion of notability in most cases does not depend on most of the things we think of when we use the word normally. It does not depend on what the subject is or does, or has done, or whether it/they are popular, or important, or famous, or innovative, or ...

Notability in Wikipedia mostly depends on whether the subject has been written about in reliable, independent sources: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that makes sense that thee should be a good amount of independent sources, but when I just compare my page to the one made for the 2025 season I don't really get what is wrong. The previous years' page also used mostly official sources for formats and such, then third parties for results, which is also what I tried to replicate. But I guess I'll probably just have to wait for the season to end for more third party sources to pop up CoffeeDQ (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeDQ, the English Wikipedia has well over seven million articles, and to be honest, a couple million of those have significant problems. That does not mean we should create more articles with more significant problems. Do not model new articles on existing start class articles. Instead, select Good articles or Featured articles as your models. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi my name is Pam Sheyne, I have had a Wiki Page for over a decade and for some reason when I reached out recently to ask what the issues are with my page, it was taken down. I do not have the skills to fix these issues and am wondering who would be able to help me get it back up and running. I am happy to help with any citations, awards etc. Thank you Pam Sheyne (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum to ask for others to edit for you; you could try asking at the music WikiProject. I'd suggest you read about the very good reasons an article about yourself is not something to desire. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the scam warning as now that you have publicly indicated you want someone to edit for you, you may be contacted by scammers. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article (now in draft space) has a long history, and early versions of it included references. The references were removed in 2018 in this rewrite by a now-inactive WP:SPA editor, likely a PR person, and it's been unsourced ever since. Reverting back to before that 2018 rewrite would likely have kept it from being draftified. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The removed references don't seem to particularly strongly substantiate notability either, though. Athanelar (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but at least it wouldn't be an unsourced BLP. In any case, we have stricter standards for inclusion nowadays, so draft space is the best place to incubate this. If it can't be improved to the point of acceptability, it can die a quiet WP:G13 death on its own, and can be resurrected at a later time when notability is evident. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• FRESKO26 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Francisco Escobar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Francisco Escobar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I discovered a biography of a different person with the same name. How do I change the Title of the draft to differentiate between these two persons? FRESKO26 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FRESKO26 Before you worry about the title, you should worry about the draft, which has virtually no sources. See Referencing for beginners.

When the draft is accepted, it will be placed at the proper title(likely with a disambigution). The exact title of a draft is not particularly relevant. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Natyasastra.gurukulam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dr. Padmaja Suresh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kindly help address loopholes Natyasastra.gurukulam (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been reviewed @Natyasastra.gurukulam. Have you used AI / LLM in this process? It has some unusual templates on it for a single edit draft. But regardless, press the big blue submit button to get the draft into the review queue. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so. Thank you for you kind guidance. Natyasastra.gurukulam (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the draft for G15, because that's a smoking gun for unreviewed AI drafts. Athanelar (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Pippiberyl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kairos Futura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted an article for reviewing and i had thougt of creating a page about the Name Kairos Futura, I was wondwering should I wait for the article to be reviewed or i can just start drafting it? Pippiberyl (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that you want to create a second draft, one about the use of the words "Kairos Futura", distinct from the draft about the organization, you can technically do so as you don't have to submit only one draft at a time. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

owkay, also if you dont mind, i would love to hear your thoughts about the draft article ive been working on Pippiberyl (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my thoughts in my decline message. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ondongo Aucibi Adrard Guez Dellove (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dellove Ondongo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I submit, 'cause I have all the proof , that is the reason

kindly assist for submitting my article Ondongo Aucibi Adrard Guez Dellove (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. You should use social media to post your resume or tell about yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are so rude, is stead of explaining properly and advising m they way you are talking is really rude Ondongo Aucibi Adrard Guez Dellove (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ondongo Aucibi Adrard Guez Dellove: I cannot see anything rude in 331dot's explanation. You might be misunderstanding Wikipedia's purpose, but when you read the autobiography policy linked by 331dot, it will be clearer. Please also take some time to read the decline notices posted to your user talk page, and follow the links in those notices. It would be a waste of your own time, as well as the time of the volunteer editors who review drafts, to resubmit the draft, so the only honest advice is for you to look elsewhere than at Wikipedia for a platform to publish your autobiography. --bonadea contributions talk 16:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ondongo Aucibi Adrard Guez Dellove I apologize for giving you offense, my intention was simply to be direct and clear to avoid misunderstanding. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ondongo Aucibi Adrard Guez Dellove - I was the reviewer that put the Reject on your article. The reason was that it had been through 3 reviewers in 24 hours asking you to put proper sources demonstrating your notability, using Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and definitions. At the time, and now, there are zero sources. No sources means no article. So I had every expectation that if I declined the article for a 4th time it would just tie up more resources going around the loop again. There are over 2,600 other drafts in the pipeline, many of which from people who have read up the guidelines and policies, so at some stage we have to be fair to those editors. Looking at what you were trying to say, there are indeed better platforms for your profile. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Kim Canoy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cindy Chia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thank you for reviewing this draft. Could you clarify whether the issue is the lack of independent secondary sources, or if the existing media appearances are considered insufficient for notability? I’d appreciate guidance on what type of sources would meet the threshold. Thank you so much :) Kim Canoy (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kim Canoy. There is sourcing to verify what the subject does, and there is sourcing for notability. One of the easiest ways to get over the notability issues is the WP:GOLDENRULE - truly independent, truly reliable, truly in depth coverage about the subject. Plus bear in mind what the subject says or does isn't that interesting for notability, what is really interesting is what other people say of the subject. So the combination of Youtube (see WP:YOUTUBE - it's not banned, but a lot of caution has to be used) and where the subject is talking / being interviewed, then that isn't independent coverage. It's the subject speaking, as if they were posting on Instagram. Just getting on to TV isn't enough. Some can appear on TV daily and not be notable by our definition. Someone on TV saying things about the subject, on the other hand, is very interesting. So it may be your sources are OK for verification, but you still need to meet notability. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for taking the time to review the draft and for your thoughtful explanation. I really appreciate the clarification regarding the distinction between verification and notability — that was very helpful. I understand now that while the existing sources confirm the subject’s activities, they do not yet provide the kind of substantial, independent, in-depth coverage needed to meet Wikipedia’s notability standard. I will carefully review whether stronger independent secondary sources are available before considering resubmission. Thank you again for your guidance and for helping me better understand the process. Kim Canoy (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Was there ever an abandoned draft about the founder of Perplexity Aravind Srinivas? I see there is a redirect for it. I'd like to make an article, and have some notes in my sandbox. I'd like to know if there was other information from the draft that I could use.

User:Mainecoon1111/sandbox Mainecoon1111 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mainecoon1111 there's been many attempts, some by sock puppets, WP:UPE or otherwise disruptive to the point the redirect was protected. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Aravind Srinivas which closed as clear Delete/Merge in August last year. An article about him is unlikely to be successful unless there has been a significant change in the sourcing since in the past few months. Any sources prior to August 2025 are not useful for notabilty. S0091 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the version prior to deletion which is part of the redirect history. S0091 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 thanks! I agree that those were not the best sources for the article. I’m surprised nobody added better sources, especially if there were so many disruptive edits and Perplexity is huge. I have seen better sources. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the fact that you wanted add disparaging content about a BLP to Undetectable.ai as you proposed on my talk page here and that you are trying write about the founder of a competitor, on top of the fact that both subjects have experienced significant disruption with socks, UPE, COI, etc,.is not promising. Time will tell. S0091 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 haha. I think you do not know much about such companies. Perplexity is not a competitor to some spam ai detectors. Perplexity is a large model provider, it provides API, and hundreds of companies build upon it. This one including. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• PubliusAu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Snorkel AI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted a draft for a company Draft:Snorkel AI, which was rejected for notability and LLM concerns. I love Wikipedia and appreciate the editors and AfC process so not requesting this lightly, but I humbly want to request a fresh review on this latest submission as it seems to meet Wikipedia guidelines/standards.

Context: I wrote this without AI, and it features required (secondary, independent, in-depth) sourcing including from from Bloomberg, Forbes, Fortune, CNBC, VentureBeat, Bloomberg , Business Journals, and academic literature (including two papers published in the Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment). These aren’t only reporting on run-of-the-mill funding, but include reporting on potentially embarrassing topics to the company like layoffs and pivots; also includes a published academic research basis for company and coverage on product direction/launches.

On notability in particular, reporting establishes this company is valued at >$1BN (unicorn) and was spun out of Stanford AI Lab based on a seminal paper in machine learning (>1k citations) that shares its namesake (Snorkel); its competitors of similar size also have pages (i.e. Mercor and Surge AI). Seems a miss not to include. PubliusAu (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PubliusAu You are a WP:PAID editor whose work, despite denial, has been assessed by several reviewers as AI generated, and others as lacking notability, not passing WP:NCORP. Why on earth should volunteers help you to get your invoice paid. Your pay includes being able to write acceptable material. It compensates you for learning how to do so. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is perhaps nothing more frustrating to me than when editors pay lip service to the idea that they've paid attention to the feedback they're given while actively demonstrating that they have not.

These aren’t only reporting on run-of-the-mill funding you say, only to later say reporting establishes this company is valued at >$1BN (unicorn) as if funding suddenly becomes an indicator of notability past a certain dollar value. You also say but include reporting on potentially embarrassing topics to the company like layoffs and pivots 'Embarrassment' is not part of our criteria for notability, and 'layoffs and pivots' are not any less trivial just because they are 'embarrassing'.

Read, and I mean really, seriously, thoroughly read WP:NCORP. Pay really, seriously, particularly thorough attention to the section on WP:CORPTRIV. Find three sources that meet WP:42, summarise those sources in your article and resubmit it. Frankly, you're very fortunate that the latest reviewer only declined rather than rejecting the submission; I certainly would not have been so lenient after three declines and this evidently-missing-the-point comment.

As for your denial of AI use; really, be serious now. You submitted an edit summary saying reflects edits including in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent sources and added infobox What on earth does 'reflects edits' mean? Why would you, a human, choose to use such peculiar and semantically meaningless wording? Especially when what you were describing was... adding an AfC submission template?

Seems a miss not to include is such a cherry on top. I promise, Wikipedia will be just fine without an article on Silicon Valley's latest slop merchant du jour. Athanelar (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my draft Draft:Horst Sievert has been awaiting review since September 2025. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look. Thank you. MedEditorGermany (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MedEditorGermany No, it has not. It has never been submitted, as you will see in the review history. I am about to submit it for you. Thank you for letting us know 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MedEditorGermany Because you have wbeen waiting so long, albeit in error, I have given you a speedy review and Declined your autobiography, pushing it back to you for extra work. I cannot understand why anyone would wish their name and career record to appear here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask: Exactly why do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? Is it for publicity? Something to do with search engine optimization? Some perceived career enhancement? None of those are valid reasons for having an article. If you are notable, someone will come along and write about you. Whether that happens a month from now, 10 years from now, or long after you're dead, it shouldn't matter to you in the slightest. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Anandrahul2017 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:IBUS Networks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have edited and improved the Draft:IBUS_Networks page with reliable sources and neutral language. Please review the draft and let me know if it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Thank you for your assistance. Anandrahul2017 (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anandrahul2017: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. And no, any new sources you may have added since the rejection still do not demonstrate notability.

Could you please, at long last, respond to the paid-editing-queries on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already included all the sources I have, and I don’t have any more to add. Please let me know what else I can do to make the page acceptable. Anandrahul2017 (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anandrahul2017. If you have indeed included all the sources and you don't have any more to add, then IBUS Networks is not currently notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word, and there is nothing you can do to make an article on it possible. See WP:AMOUNT.

You have still not answered the question of whether or not you have a connection with IBUS, but your obstinate refusal to accept the answer No strongly suggests that you do.

If you carry on wasting editors' time, you are likely to find your account blocked sooner or later. ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-11336-83 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Accounting people ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance because my previous Articles for Creation submission was declined. I am affiliated with Accounting People Ltd (conflict of interest disclosed), and I want to ensure any draft meets Wikipedia’s requirements on notability, reliable independent sources, and neutral tone.

My earlier draft relied mainly on Companies House records, which are primary sources and may not demonstrate notability. I would appreciate guidance on:

• what types of independent reliable secondary sources would be acceptable for establishing notability, and

whether the topic should be expanded within an existing relevant article instead of as a standalone page.

I am happy to remove or rewrite any content that is not properly sourced or is considered promotional. ~2026-11336-83 (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You not only have a conflict of interest, you are a paid editor as I taken "affiliation" to mean "employed by". Sources should meet the criteria described at WP:42. I know of no other article where it would be appropriate to document the existence of this company. Mere existence does not merit inclusion here, a company must meet the criteria described at WP:ORG to merit an article.

Please read WP:BOSS. Most companies on Earth do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article, and most people affiliated with a company fail in their efforts to write about it. Companies should allow an article to organically develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of a topic in independent sources and chooses on their own to write about it, summarizing what those sources say. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't just decline your draft, I rejected it, meaning it cannot be resubmitted. I couldn't find a single source that would come even close to the standard required to establish notability per our WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• SR75385 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Heidi (Holiday operator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, before I edit and re-submit this draft, I wanted to check if someone could please tell me if this coverage would be accepted as a notable reference?

The author of the article is a senior national finance journalist - Simon Lambert - who is the publisher of national finance media website ThisIsMoney.co.uk, which has 1.65 million unique monthly visits. Simon requested a podcast interview with the founders of the company, and wrote this framing article:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holidays/article-15574457/The-brothers-turned-start-Heidi-one-Britains-biggest-ski-holiday-firms-Money-podcast.html SR75385 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SR75385: that is an interview, which is a primary source, and also not independent; it is the two founders talking about their business. You may be able to use it to support some non-contentious information such as how they came up with the name of their business, etc., but that's pretty much it. It does not count towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks so much for the quick feedback. Yes, the podcast is an interview, but I'm a little confused because a national journalist has clearly decided the company was notable enough to interview the founders and write about the company on a national UK media site with a dedicated article. Why does not show any notability? Can you advise on what form it would be accepted - e.g. would it be deemed notable if the journalist had written it without interviewing them at all? SR75385 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SR75385: I thought I explained already, but I'll try again. Interviews like this are the subject (or in this case, the founders of the subject) talking about themselves, which is neither independent nor necessarily even reliable (live interviews are seldom fact-checked on the spot), and in any case primary. For notability per WP:NCORP, we need to see multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject.

For a journalist to decide that someone is worth interviewing does not mean that someone, or the business they represent, meets our definition of notable. It doesn't matter even if that journalist were Sir David Frost (okay, poor example, given that he's dead, but you get my point I'm sure). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what about this - Heidi was ranked in the Sunday Times 100 Fast-Growing Companies, which uses publicly available financial figures to determine the UK's fastest-growing profitable businesses: https://www.thetimes.com/sunday-times-100-fast-growth/company-profile/article/heidi-fastest-growing-sunday-times-100-fmt0kmm78?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqexsbbyfzTKBYecp9ml8SAp5kJXUyBIw8U_hQp0YViEzs4bBtf5K7TN6lMTQYg%3D&gaa_ts=6998520e&gaa_sig=SrNiviSyH1DU42fxXay1dErNa6riMN4ukOMHWsZM6fWTcz_6u2m7Y8cyCIwCtMiRERy8OTLseVgwEVP6a4MsQA%3D%3D

This was totally independent, and secondary. Previously called The Sunday Times Fast Track 100, it's notable enough to have its only Wiki page here: Sunday Times Fast Track 100

Please let me know if this qualifies. One Wiki editor previously labelled it as a 'spammy listicle' - which is definitely is not! SR75385 (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'notability' is a bit peculiar on Wikipedia. It means that something has been written about in depth in reliable, independent sources. Appearing on a list of the top 100 so-and-so does make something 'notable' in the colloquial sense, but it is not in-depth coverage and so does not contribute to notability in the Wiki sense.

See WP:42 for details on what kind of coverage is needed to confer notability. Athanelar (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that clarification. SR75385 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're just describing the routine business activities and offerings of your company, not critical analysis and commentary that shows what is viewed as particularly important/significant/influential about it, showing how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I will have another read of WP:ORG. When you say 'you're just describing' - do you mean what the journalist has written/described, or what the founders say in the podcast interview? SR75385 (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the draft itself. Specifically see WP:ORGDEPTH(a subset of WP:ORG). You don't have any sources with significant critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important about your company. I get that you think what it does is important, but every company thinks what it does is important(or they wouldn't do it). Wikipedia wants to know that others wholly unaffiliated with the company think what it does is important/significant/influential.

I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS and show it around your company. To be very frank, you are unlikely to succeed at this. It's not impossible, but the odds are against it. Most companies on Earth do not meet WP:ORG- just as most people do not meet WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, noted - and thank you for taking the time to share that feedback. You say that most companies on Earth do not meet WP:ORG, but what's confusing is that company pages like this one have been accepted: Heidi Health

A previous Wiki editor said it shouldn't have been accepted because the majority of the references are press release-generated news about funding rounds, and the BBC article is not in-depth about the company itself. It would be super helpful if you could explain which of the references on that page - and how many - make it notable enough to be accepted? Thank you. SR75385 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]