Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Aug 2026

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
• Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

September 3

04:22, 3 September 2026 review of submission by FahadContributor

• FahadContributor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ReD Architects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Final update on the Wikipedia page. The draft has now been reviewed and declined three times by two different Wikipedia reviewers, plus I got direct written guidance from Wikipedia's Articles-for-Creation help desk. Their consistent position: reD does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability standard for companies. Wikipedia does not accept award lists (AD100/EDIDA), directory profiles, interviews, or project features as qualifying sources — it requires in-depth, independent journalism written about the firm itself, which doesn't exist yet.

Wikipedia has now warned that further resubmissions may result in the draft being deleted, so I've stopped to protect the page and the account. This is not a reflection of reD's standing it's Wikipedia's rule for companies, which many respected firms also don't meet.

The page becomes achievable the moment a major publication runs a feature about the practice itself (not a project). If you'd like, I can outline exactly what coverage would qualify so we can revisit it then. FahadContributor (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @FahadContributor, are you a human editor? In solidarity, nil ^nz 04:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

You are a paid editor, you will get no help from volunteer editors here, and please STOP communicating with AI. Theroadislong (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be a direct copypaste of an update which you sent to your client regarding their article. I'm not sure what you want us to do with it. Athanelar (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

By the way, @FahadContributor, the statement The page becomes achievable the moment a major publication runs a feature about the practice itself is probably false. Notability normally requires several independent, secondary, substantial sources about the subject - usually interpreted as "at least three". A single source which meets WP:42 is not usually enough. ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

"Independent" is also an extremely important qualification. Hopefully Fahad will let their clients know that paid coverage for the purposes of a Wikipedia article will only be a further waste of money. Meadowlark (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

06:35, 3 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-47827-60

• ~2026-47827-60 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:F1ret0x (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what should i do ~2026-47827-60 (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Twice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

08:26, 3 September 2026 review of submission by Tjm1861

• Tjm1861 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tim Mott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my submission has been declined 3 times, 1. by sulfurboy for use of llm in writing narrative. i didn’t know that was prohibited. i rewrote entirely in my own words and i only used ai/apps to help with formatting. i declared that in by resubmission. 2. by thilsebatti for not meeting criteria for inclusion. i judged that this was a result of how i’d organized references and so i restructured. again, i declared that in my resubmission. 3. again by sulphur boy within minutes of me resubmitting and for the exact same reason as in (1). i standby by declaration under (1) that “ i rewrote entirely in my own words and i only used ai/apps to help with formatting”. please advise as to steps i should now take. thank-you.

Tjm1861 (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Using "ai/apps to help with formatting" is also not allowed. Please see WP:NOLLM. Athanelar (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

ah. got it. didn’t understand. even for an old hacker, at this point in my life the formatting language seems pretty formidable. i sure would appreciate any suggestions you have for me. thanks you. Tjm1861 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Tjm1861 To be honest with you, the best suggestion I can give you is to not write an article about yourself. Somewhere in the region of 99% of people who try to do so are unsuccessful. If you do want to be successful, then spending a few weeks and a few hundred edits getting experience in Wikipedia (to learn things like how to format an article) is a mandatory prerequisite to even being able to try - but even then your chances of success would still be astronomically low.

If I were you, I would read WP:YOURSELF and then forget about this whole thing. If you've been documented to the extent necessary to warrant a Wikipedia article, then the chances are somebody else will eventually hear about you and write an article here about you of their own volition. Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

ok, got it. one of the consequences of living and working under the radar, i guess. will not try and resubmit, but will regroup. thanks for your help. ps. i have no intention of “paying” someone to do this. Tjm1861 (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Good, and you shouldn't. If you receive any such offers, they're scams; see WP:SCAM. Athanelar (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

09:08, 3 September 2026 review of submission by AFKwastaken

• AFKwastaken (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Smile! :D World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like some help tidying up the setlist, and also getting more reliable sources and more in depth information AFKwastaken (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@AFKwastaken: regarding sources, you've got that back-to-front. You don't first write the article, and then look for sources that may or may not support what you've written; that's known as editing WP:BACKWARD. Instead, you (and I do mean you) should first research the sources, then summarise what they have said, that is how Wikipedia articles should be written (see WP:42).

As for the setlist, I don't know what sort of "tidying up" you had in mind, but that is likely just general editing advice, not related to the drafting/reviewing process as such, so you should probably ask at the Teahouse instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

sources: ah okay, I was coonfused about using your own words (I think it was Wikipedia, either here or Fandom, one of the two)

setlist: I tried doing something similar to the Eras Tour setlist, but when I did the first song of every section (excluding the first) it for some reason changed to a bullet point AFKwastaken (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "lasting significance'', does that mean just news articles? AFKwastaken (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't only mean news articles, @AFKwastaken. It could, for example, mean books, as long as they were published by a reputable publisher. It could even mean videos on YouTube - but only if they were issued by a reliable source on their own certified channel, and created without any involvement of anybody connected with the subject of the article. News articles are by far the most likely kind of source for current or recent events or activities. ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

So, how long does the time gap need to be? Considering that the SMILE! :D Tour was not that long ago, and by certified, do you mean verified channels? AFKwastaken (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, verified channels that belong to a reliable source. So for example Mr Beast is a verified channel, but not a reliable source; on the other hand the verified channel of ABC News (Australia) would be reliable, because the organisation providing the information is considered to be reliable. You can see some of the most frequently used reliable/unreliable sources at WP:RSPSS. Meadowlark (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

09:30, 3 September 2026 review of submission by Health Information Specialist

• Health Information Specialist (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Journal of Caring Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

My draft, Draft:Journal of Caring Sciences, was rejected because its references did not demonstrate notability.

I have revised the draft and added two independent scholarly sources:

1. Sedghi, Razmgir, and Moradzadeh (2020), which includes Journal of Caring Sciences among the leading source journals in a bibliometric analysis of Iranian medical publications. 2. Nayeri et al. (2023), which examines studies published in five Iranian journals, including Journal of Caring Sciences.

Could experienced editors please advise whether these sources provide sufficient independent coverage for notability, or whether the draft still needs stronger sources?

Thank you. Health Information Specialist (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping @Guninvalid} qcne (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Articles for Creation helpdesk. Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot or large language model. Using these tools to generate user-to-user communication runs contrary to Wikipedia's culture of collaborative communication. If you are using AI because you aren't confident in your English language skills or your knowledge of Wikipedia's processes, don't worry; we don't expect people to be perfect at either of those, just try your best to communicate with us in your own words. If you aren't sure why your draft was declined or rejected, please follow these steps;

1. Make sure you've read the decline notice(s) (highlighted in red at the top of your draft) along with any comments left below by the reviewer(s).
2. If any of the content in the decline notice is unclear, make sure to click all of the links in the decline notice and read the pages they take you to.
3. If any of the content in the additional comments is unclear, you should ask for clarification from the reviewer who left the comment directly on their talk page.

If after doing all of the above, you still have additional questions, then this help desk is the place for it; please feel free to ask us any more specific questions you have, just please do so without help from any AI or LLM. Athanelar (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar A request for "experienced editors" (or similar phrasing) again... David10244 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It's so common I put it on the list of AI signs a while ago and months later it still keeps coming up! Athanelar (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Someone should ask for a "slightly experienced editor" to review their draft... David10244 (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

12:55, 3 September 2026 review of submission by Matteoqwerty123

• Matteoqwerty123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Autonomic Response Testing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New editor struggling to get this article approved. If anyone has any suggestion or would like to expand it I would really appreciate it, thank you. Matteoqwerty123 (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Matteoqwerty123 Writing an article is one of the most complex editing tasks an editor can undertake; doubly so for new editors without experience in editing Wikipedia. The best advice anybody could give you is to spend at least a few weeks and a few hundred edits gaining experience before you come back and attempt this task. I don't imagine you'd try to write a novel if you'd never read one and had no idea how a novel should be; nor should you try to write a Wikipedia article without first getting some experience in how they're structured, the relevant policies and guidelines and so on. Athanelar (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

13:27, 3 September 2026 review of submission by AFKwastaken

• AFKwastaken (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Smile! :D World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what do you mean by "lasting significance, does that mean just news articles? AFKwastaken (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

While they can be similar, lasting significance can be demonstrated by coverage after the event concluded. Since this tour occurred between August 2024 and March 2025, lasting significance could look like an article from late 2025 summarizing the entire tour.

This is an important way of determining notable events. While car crashes happen every day, only the most notable/impactful are covered beyond initial coverage. Does this make sense? GGOTCC 13:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I think so! And if I find something in that time gap, where do I put the link? Do I put it as a citation? AFKwastaken (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that is great! That was just an example, but you can use it like any other source! If something is not cited, some people like to put relevant content under a "further reading" section, such as Operation Spring High#Further reading. GGOTCC 13:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

So idk if I can check with editors or not, but I found a fanmade concert movie released in June 2025, is that good enough? AFKwastaken (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

It would still need to be a reliable source, with the same requirements as any other source. I don't see a fanmade concert movie as even nearly sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@AFKwastaken The source must meet all of the requirements at WP:42, and then you need multiple such sources. Athanelar (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

14:26, 3 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-47629-81

• ~2026-47629-81 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Howard Egan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My page was declined because it was said I do not have adequate citations. That the articles listed as not reliable but everything listed was from reliable source. Please let me know what is not reliable. ~2026-47629-81 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems obvious that you have not looked at the reviewer comments left in the draft, and you have not read any of the guidelines they linked in their comments. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

16:14, 3 September 2026 review of submission by B4rr4c7d4

• B4rr4c7d4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Toowoomba Anglican School Rugby Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm completely external to the parties contained within the article and have no interest in them. Just documenting the team for factual purposes as a record. B4rr4c7d4 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

This would probably be something you'd put on the draft, @B4rr4c7d4, but you have a conflict of interest declaration there instead. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not here to be a record of school sports teams; we have pretty stringent requirements for what subjects qualify for a Wikipedia article and a long list of what Wikipedia is not.

Did you have a question we can help with relating to your draft? Meadowlark (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just wondering how you can allow a page for the GPS rugbt competition and not this one? B4rr4c7d4 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

See other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, as Theroadislong has linked, the existence of an article doesn't relate to the existence of any other article. It's possible that the GPS rugby article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and no one's gotten around to looking at it yet - everyone here is a volunteer, and there's millions of articles with hundreds more being created daily, so we're kind of outnumbered. If you spot an article you think probably doesn't measure up, we'd be very happy for you to link it to us. That way we can assess it and improve or remove it if necessary. The other possibility is that the GPS rugby competition qualifies for a Wikipedia article but unfortunately the Toowoomba team doesn't. Your draft didn't present reliable, independent sources telling the world why this particular team should be known worldwide - without those, we can't accept drafts. If you find those sources, you can always try again! Meadowlark (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Another issue is that the draft was written more like a personal reflection rather than a summary of published information on the topic. GGOTCC 17:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

23:12, 3 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-47640-51

• ~2026-47640-51 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Come Home Charlie and Face Them (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yes. ~2026-47640-51 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Now at MFD, since the TAs leave us no other choice. Meadowlark (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

September 4

09:15, 4 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-46216-35

• ~2026-46216-35 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Endless (app franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because I Want The Draft to turn into a page on Wikipedia ~2026-46216-35 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46216-35: rather unlikely, given that it has been rejected, and is pending speedy deletion as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It was deleted, DoubleGrazing. But then it was re-created. The current version is remarkably similar to the deleted version. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

11:38, 4 September 2026 review of submission by ChristianSandor

• ChristianSandor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Christian Sandor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I am Christian Sandor — the subject of the draft; my conflict of interest is disclosed on the draft's talk page ({{Connected contributor}}) and I am following WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY by seeking independent feedback instead of resubmitting blindly.

After three AfC declines (Nov 2025 – May 2026), the draft has been **completely rewritten** per the reviewers' guidance:

• all promotional phrasing, keynotes, award lists, and resume-style sections removed; every claim now cited; all prose is new (no text reused from earlier versions or my website);
• the notability case now rests on independent coverage: The Age (2010, "Lost? X-ray vision gets you mobile"), iTnews (2010), Wired (2011), and Japan's NHK (2011) on the Nokia-funded "AR x-ray" project I led at the University of South Australia, plus IT SOCIAL (2026, French trade press);
• academic standing: professor at Université Paris-Saclay (LISN/CNRS) per the institute's official page; CHI 2026 best-paper honourable mention (per SIGCHI's awards page); the "True Augmented Reality" concept (2015) discussed and attributed in a 2021 Frontiers in Virtual Reality review; TVCG "Associate Editor of the Year" 2021 (journal editorial); FIDE International Master (1996) per FIDE/ChessBase.

Before I use my one remaining resubmission at AfC, would a few of you be willing to take a quick look at Draft:Christian Sandor and tell me (a) whether the notability case and sourcing would now pass review, and (b) any remaining tone/structure issues? I will of course act on whatever you find. Thank you! --ChristianSandor (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

ChristianSandor I have fixed your header so it links to your draft as intended; the only text that should be in the header is the title of your draft(and not wikilinked).

Please review the autobiography policy if you haven't already. While not absolutely forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves, even via submitting a draft. Virtually no one succeeds at it; I in 14 years have never personally seen someone succeed at it, though it may have happened. The point is that it is very rare. Are you the rare person who can succeed where almost everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it.

We don't do pre-review reviews, as this duplicates what the reviewer will do. You do not have a specific number of chances to use up- but it is fair to say that if you do not show progress towards resolving the concerns of previous reviewers, the draft may be outright rejected(not just declined). If you feel that you have addressed the concerns, you need to resubmit it and let the chips fall where they may. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I will ask you one thing- you are claiming to have personally taken and personally own the copyright to the photo of yourself. It appears to be professionally taken; typically the copyright rests with the photographer, not the person depicted in an image. The copyright may not be yours to release, unless your contract with the photographer assigned you the copyright(which would be unusual). Either way, if you did not personally take the image, you will need to work with the editors at Commons to change the image information to properly describe its provenance and copyright.

Images are actually not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until and if the draft is accepted. They are a "nice to have", not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Lastly, now that you have publicly asked for help with the draft, you may be approached by scammers. Please read the scam warning and never give anyone money to edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you — that's clear and helpful. I have resubmitted the draft per your guidance.

On the photograph, full transparency: the image is not a photograph — it is an AI-generated image that I created. I now understand that a photorealistic AI depiction of a living person presented as a photograph is misleading and not permitted on Commons (COM:AI). I have removed the image from the draft and tagged the Commons file for deletion as its uploader. If the draft is ever accepted, I will either add a genuinely free photograph with proper provenance or none at all.

Understood on the scam warning — I will ignore any paid-editing offers. Thank you again for taking the time. --

ChristianSandor (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello again! To confirm: 1) I resubmitted the draft. 2) The photo was AI-generated by me and I removed it from the draft and flagged it for deletion. 3) The scam warning was useful. Thanks! ChristianSandor (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ChristianSandor.

On a quick scan of your draft, it looks to me as if at least half of your sources are published by societies or institutions that you are a member of. Such sources are almost certainly not independent of you, and therefore do not contribute to establishing notability.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

ColinFine, thank you for your fast feedback! I would like to clarify my usage of references in the draft.

Most references are there to certify facts, such as my positions, awards, and degrees. I trust that you agree with me that such references are appropriate to establish facts.

On the other hand, to support notability, independent sources have been selected as much as possible, such as the media coverage for my AR work, and the publication in a book regarding my chess history.

I could add one additional piece of independent coverage (2026, French trade press) if you think that it strengthens my submission. ChristianSandor (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ChristianSandor. I haven't looked closely, and I don't intend to. But if fully half your sources are not independent, I do wonder how much of the content comes from independent sources. If a piece of information is verifiable only from non-independent sources, why does it belong in the article? ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your feedback! Your point is well taken. It is particular to my career that I changed positions many times. To substantiate these facts about my career, non-independent references are needed. I have taken care to use such references only for uncontroversial routine facts. ChristianSandor (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@ChristianSandor "Before I use my one remaining resubmission at AfC, ..." As long as resubmissions show notable progress between each one, you can resubmit a few times. After too many resubmissions, though, a reviewer may decide to reject the draft... which is the end of the road for that draft. "Too many" is subjective. David10244 (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

13:26, 4 September 2026 review of submission by Neutralityislost

• Neutralityislost (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Larsson Vorhies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello, I was wondering about the reasons that my draft for my article about Larsson Vorhies was rejected. I tried to make it as best as I could and I would like some advice on how to improve it so it gets accepted, I am open to anything and will be happy to do whatever I need to in order to get it published. thank you. Neutralityislost (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. It is not recommended as the first task for a new user. Please use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Neutralityislost 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. If no such independent, significant coverage exists, then we cannot have an article about this person. A general indicator is that if the article begins with a line like "X is an aspiring Y," then they shouldn't have an article yet. Being an "aspiring" something-or-other usually means "I'm just getting started and haven't done anything significant enough for people to take notice of yet." Athanelar (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

15:15, 4 September 2026 review of submission by Redberto Tigeras

• Redberto Tigeras (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Absolute Green Arrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Absolute Green Arrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help editing this draft. I feel that the information on this page is enough - after all, the Absolute Catwoman page has less information than this one does - but for some reason, it keeps getting rejected by reviewers. Any and all help with this draft will be greatly appreciated. Redberto Tigeras (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Redberto Tigeras The problem is not the amount of information in your article. The problem is the number (and quality) of the sources you have. Please read and digest the information provided in the latest decline notice, including all of the links contained inside. Athanelar (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft has been 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(and you have).

Please see other stuff exists. We judge each article or draft individually on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia, that cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles or even featured articles. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Redberto Tigeras (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

15:46, 4 September 2026 review of submission by Cerebralink

• Cerebralink (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Harry Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Harry Lambert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

so you are saying that working on a case against TIKTOK is not notable Jools Sweeney’s? or the Daily mail Hacking? wow im shocked!!! basically wikipedia has definately lost credability if you think working against big tech is NOT notable?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jul/16/inquest-death-jools-sweeney-tiktok-blackout-challenge-social-media Cerebralink (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

(OP blocked) qcne (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

23:07, 4 September 2026 review of submission by Wikiwildwil

• Wikiwildwil (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cadi cut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I substantially rewrote Draft:Cadi cut following its decline. The draft is now about the diamond shape rather than the manufacturer or product marketing.

The principal coverage is Rapaport’s 2007 article devoted to Cadi by Trapz and JCK’s 2024 article devoted to the same five-sided side-stone shape under its epaulette/alternative trade name. The terminology connection is explicitly documented by Leon Megé, which states that epaulettes are sometimes called Cadi, and by Kwiat, whose product title calls the stones “Cadi shape” while its description calls the same stones “epaulette-shaped.” A detailed BriteCo guide and a GIA usage example provide additional coverage.

Could an experienced reviewer assess whether this source combination is sufficient for standalone notability before I resubmit? Wikiwildwil (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

To obtain a review, you need to resubmit the draft. We don't do pre-review reviews, because that just duplicates what the reviewer will do. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

September 5

07:24, 5 September 2026 review of submission by Thcspn28082026

• Thcspn28082026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Spam domain list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to resubmit! Thcspn28082026 (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Deleted, already blocked. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

10:14, 5 September 2026 review of submission by Bdctg2026

• Bdctg2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohammed Shaiful Azam Al-azhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what the reason for rejacted

Bdctg2026 (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It is devoid of content beyond a Facebook link, there was no meaningful content. So have a read of Help:Your first article and understand that normally for a subject there needs to be three examples of the WP:GOLDENRULE. If you have done that then it should be easier. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

10:57, 5 September 2026 review of submission by Ohok12

• Ohok12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aeroflot Flight 9981 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this event being WP:ROTM. If the runway overrun we talking about has no fatalities nor aircraft’s damage like United Airlines Flight 2477 back in 2024, then I’m fine. But no, this is a runway overrun involving fatalities, aircraft was destroyed right at the scene, a lawsuit was filed, and a short film was made - how is this common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest Ohok12 (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

For the most part it does not pass WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE. The only lasting effect was some standard legal issues and the impact was confined to the immediate area. If it were a car crash it would be seen as typical, and this is as close to that as it can get but with a more expensive plane. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

11:20, 5 September 2026 review of submission by James william 3

• James william 3 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Christian Parker (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have no financial or personal connection to Christian Parker. I'm not sure what in the draft suggested otherwise, could you point me to what raised the concern? James william 3 (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@James william 3 Your edit summaries state The subject provided research assistance. This implies you have been in contact with them. ~2026-48359-73 (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

14:53, 5 September 2026 review of submission by MurakamiLan

• MurakamiLan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:青海湟川中学北校区 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Annh07:I want to creat a Chinese language page,but I created an English page by mistake. Please help me to correct it. MurakamiLan (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@MurakamiLan If you prefer to write in Chinese, you may write it in the Chinese Wikipedia. Annh07 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

15:04, 5 September 2026 review of submission by DM PA12

• DM PA12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Diana Matar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

I would appreciate assistance in understanding which specific ways I need to update the Diana_Matar page in order to get it approved to be published. Specific guidance on what was missing from my original draft would be so helpful and appreciated! Unsure if it was my sources or the content itself that was in need of extra work.

Thank you DM PA12 (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft is still mostly sourced to the subject's personal website and portfolio we have zero interest in what that says. Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DM PA12.

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.

It follows that writing an article begins with finding several reliable sources produces with no involvement of the subject or their associate at any point - see WP:42 - and then forgetting every single thing you know about the subject and writing a summary of what those independent sources say about the subject.

Have you read WP:PAIDADVICE? ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

17:23, 5 September 2026 review of submission by Smdharam

• Smdharam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:International Institute of Business Studies (IIBS) Bangalore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

   Please help me to find the mistake on the article is the barriers to get the approval. Thanks Smdharam (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Smdharam. The mistake is that A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Your draft does not cite a single source in which somebody with no connection whatever to the institute, and not fed information on behalf of the institute, has chosen to write in some depth about the institute - see WP:42.

Without such sources, there is literally nothing which you can put in an article.

Without such sources, you cannot demonstrate that the Institute is notable|, and no article is possible.

Most organisations in the world (including most schools) are not notable in Wikipedia's sense, because they have never been or done anything unusual enough that somebody has thought they would be an interesting subject to write about. (If somebody has, it is often because of some scandal). If they are not notable, then every moment that you spend on trying to create an article on them is time wasted.

Do you have a connection with the Institute? You created your account fifteen years ago, but the only editing you have ever done (all today) was on this draft.

Are you the same person as @Dharam iibs? If so, this was all explained to you last week. ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, looking at the interaction with Dharam iibs three days ago (above), I see Based on your username it seems that you are an employee of the institute, you must formally disclose this on your user page, see WP:PAID. Then three days later (today) you start again under this account, which you have not used since you created it fifteen years ago.

We are supposed to assume good faith, but this looks very like an attempt to hide a problem by suddenly switching to another account. Using multiple accounts is permitted, but not when the purpose is to conceal something.

I ask you directly: are you the same person as Dharam iibs?

And (the question that that account never answered, as far as I can see), are you employed by IIBS? ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

17:37, 5 September 2026 review of submission by Smdharam

• Smdharam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:International Institute of Business Studies (IIBS) Bangalore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

   I have tried multiple time to content should be appropriate based on policy but each time it get decline, Please help me and suggest to make changes on the approval status. Smdharam (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Answered above. Please do not start multiple items on this page. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

September 6

00:03, 6 September 2026 review of submission by Dd0eg

• Dd0eg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eli Wachtel (Favorite Ginger) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know more in depth about why this was rejected. Dd0eg (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

While it doesn't exactly apply to your situation, Wikipedia:GARAGE might help you. Articles on Wikipedia are summaries of independent, reliable sources. You do not meet our notability criteria. To be blunt, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of random people's stories. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

13:17, 6 September 2026 review of submission by Prabakarangkm

• Prabakarangkm (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Counter State Terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How you say that it is generated LLM? Is it because of title I used or the format I copied. Bulletin format I copied to make it look better. What you say about it? we should not copy the bulletin concept of LLM? I am a software Engineer, I used to file 5 documents for each use case. I won't generate any documents that is not standard. Just because it looks standard template style don't assume it like it is generated by llm. When I speak to colleagues I set one tone, when I email them I set another tone. I know that You people from call center how designed . You are no better than LLM in reacting for any appeal. Am I right? Prabakaran K 🐅 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Prabakarangkm. That is quite an aggressive message for no reason. Please do not speak that way on Wikipedia. I agree the draft you created looks like it was generated by an LLM and have declined it as such. qcne (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks like. What bulletin is looks like LLM generated? I said it is generated by me. How should I prove you? Prabakaran K 🐅 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the AI signs in the draft itself, it's really hard to read this message and come away believing that you wrote that draft without significant levels of AI help. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I speak multiple languages my mother tongue is tamil. We speak English like llm only. we are not native speakers. I use tools to check grammar and spelling correction Prabakaran K 🐅 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not a case that you just so happen to speak like an LLM. There's a very clear difference in English fluency and construction difference between the draft and your comments. And the problem is, this draft wouldn't be usable even if it wasn't at least heavily written with an LLM. It's in the form of a personal essay, and the concept itself is barely touched on (and completely unsourced) and it's mostly about the LTTE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Please abandon all use of tools to check spelling and grammar. We would rather see imperfections in spelling and grammar that deal with what a tool wrote. Most tools that check spelling use AI in some form nowadays. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

14:46, 6 September 2026 review of submission by Octabina

• Octabina (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Guy Strazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@RangersRus:Hello , my draft was recently declined with a blanket template stating it looks like text generated by AI when in fact, I have been chipping at getting it right using my own words. I have a PhD and am a teacher, so I have looked at encyclopedic entries in various online articles in Oxford online as well as Wikipedia entries. So, the structured approach to my recent edits reflects a rigorous revision of the syntax and fixing broken citation specs, which I worked with inside my private user sandbox first. Once the layout previewed correctly without errors, I copied the clean text to the live draft and submitted. However, the draft was declined saying that: "This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content". Without intending to sound sarcastic, should I then write in a way that is lesser than how I write? IOW, basic written language so that Wikipedia software will then accept me as the original creator of the text? I can't help it that I am an academically educated person and I try to recreate a text with encyclopedic style writing. I am lost as to what to do next, so I am asking for help here, please. Octabina (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping @RangersRus} qcne (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Octabina. You have removed the previous decline notices from Draft:Guy Strazz. Please don't do that, I've restored them. You've also confusingly submitted your sandbox for review too, as a duplicate. I've declined that as a dupe. qcne (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

(And to note, this is the second time you've removed previous decline notices. You've already been warned once, this is a second warning - please don't do it a third time!) qcne (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello qcne, thanks for the explanation, I apologize for the confusion. I am a new editor and didn't realize that overwriting the text to start fresh would accidentally delete the historical templates. Now I understand and will make sure to only edit the text below the templates in the future, or use the standard deletion tag if starting completely over. Thanks for the warning. Octabina (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries. qcne (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Octabina - Take source 3: this is a link to a SMH story, where the title and author are fully specified in the citation. However the URL indicator is to the top level of SMH. There are multiple other examples. One particular LLM is in the habit of doing this and it's rather difficult to see this as a human mistake. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChrysGalley, thank you for the heads up, I appreciate you flagging these mistakes. My plan now is to head back to the drawing board and rebuild the draft in my sandbox piece by piece. It will likely take me a week or two to complete it. In the meantime, whenever I need help, I will reach out for advice. Many thanks Octabina (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

15:21, 6 September 2026 review of submission by W-mjrh

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

I based the stub content on what the accepted Wikipedia site for: Royal Philatelic Society of Canada has done.

What exactly is missing from my draft, please. W-mjrh (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Royal Philatelic Society of Canada was never drafted (first edit predates AfC, 2009/Apr/26). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

A summary of what independent reliable sources with critical analysis and commentary say about this organization, that's what's missing.

Not all articles that exist have been accepted or approved by anyone. The draft process has not always existed, and is not required of all users. This is why we judge each article or draft on their own merits and not based on the presence of other articles. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Have you checked what I added to the draft in my sandbox? There are several new references. W-mjrh (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive.

Bastard Helper From Hell source assessment

• https://philatelicspecialistssociety.com/ - and anything on that domain - does not help for eligibility (connexion to subject).
• https://canadianstampnews.com/philatelic-specialists-mark-70-years-since-societys-founding/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). A clear majority of the article is direct quotes from the organisation and its members.
• Reference 3 points to the source immediately above; I heavily doubt this was intentional.
• I can't assess Reference 4 (copy required).

I can only assess half your sources, but that half I can assess isn't helpful for the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

18:50, 6 September 2026 review of submission by GoldenBootWizard276

• GoldenBootWizard276 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Death of Carlito Vale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was this draft rejected? The case is notable and even the subject of a documentary. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, @A.Classical-Futurist, that this was probably a hasty rejection. Would you undo the rejection in good faith? qcne (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I genuinely believe this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS; while the documentary might make WP:GNG, I don't believe this event has any more significance than any other Wheel-well stowaway. Personally I'd say it would probably be better suited remaining as a list entry or being discussed in a background section of an article on the documentary, but I can see how one could potentially make a case for its notability. I'll convert the reject into a decline notice and you can submit it for someone else to review. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276 What's your argument for the lasting impact of the event? Being the subject of a documentary doesn't demonstrate that by itself. You need to demonstrate that this had some kind of significant impact on legislation (relating to immigration, aviation safety, airport security, whatever it might be) or on society or what have you; or at least that there has been sustained, ongoing, significant coverage of it in the media in the years since it happened. All of the coverage you've provided is from either when it happened, or when the documentary about it came out (which naturally would cause a resurgence of interest).

If you can't demonstrate any lasting impact or at least sustained coverage, then it would indeed seem that NOTNEWS applies. Athanelar (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

21:19, 6 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-48387-13

• ~2026-48387-13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Great NycTriddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just want to know why my submission was rejected. This is a serious article about a serious person and influencer. I just wanted people to know about her lifestyle and I wrote this article for traction and to help people know more about her. ~2026-48387-13 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You have no sources at all, which is a must for articles about living people. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable person. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary about the topic.

Where did you get your information? Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. If you want to help people know about her, that is exactly what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

23:04, 6 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-48413-38

• ~2026-48413-38 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hassan Varasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know the main reason why it was declined and also what would be done for you do collect it ~2026-48413-38 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48413-38 Please read the decline notice at the top of the draft. Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

September 7

08:02, 7 September 2026 review of submission by ArchiveObserver

• ArchiveObserver (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John Rey Malto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently revised Draft:John_Rey_Malto following previous reviewer feedback. I reduced promotional language, retained sourced factual information, and worked to present the draft in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. I would appreciate guidance on whether the draft is now suitable for resubmission through Articles for Creation, and whether there are any remaining issues with sourcing, notability, neutrality, or formatting that should be addressed before resubmitting. Thank you for your time and assistance. ArchiveObserver (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

If you believe you have changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you need to resubmit it for review, we don't do pre-review reviews, because that just duplicates what the reviewer will do. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft was AI assisted, as was your comment above, and it remains AI assisted. It's now been rejected so it's the end of the road.ChrysGalley (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

09:42, 7 September 2026 review of submission by Moondragon21

• Moondragon21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Next Saxony state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Next Saxony state election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article was recreated after my draft was rejected under TOOSOON. This discussion made me more confused. Please can I have assistance. Moondragon21 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Moondragon21 I'm not really sure what assistance you want. Your draft was rejected, and then somebody else created a substantively similar article directly in mainspace. Subsequent discussion has determined that TOOSOON does not in fact apply, hence why the article still exists. Athanelar (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to know why my draft was rejected if TOOSOON doesn't apply. And what I should do now with the draft/merge. Moondragon21 (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

If you do nothing, the draft will be marked for deletion after six months of inactivity. You may also place {{db-user}} at the top to mark it for an author request speedy deletion. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@331dot Because reviewers are volunteers and sometimes make the wrong judgement, or what seems to be the right judgement may later turn out to be wrong when multiple people put a lot of effort into thinking about it and looking for sources. Either way, the reviewer thought TOOSOON applied here, but it turns out it didn't. Considering the article seems to be substantively similar to your draft, probably nothing specific needs to be done. Athanelar (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

10:27, 7 September 2026 review of submission by Hieronimomorfejev

• Hieronimomorfejev (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Stories from Magatrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since this draft have been declined a few times, I find it reasonable to use "Ask a question" option. There have been two contributions made after the last review in January, including mine. I'd like to learn and see what I am doing wrong. Hieronimomorfejev (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

You have resubmitted the draft for review, the next reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

12:02, 7 September 2026 review of submission by Emmanuel Ubani

• Emmanuel Ubani (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Nemiscau Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Nemiscau Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Bkissin:I am affiliated with Nemiscau Airport and am therefore requesting that an independent editor review and make the following updates to the article.

The current article contains information that predates a significant change in the status of the airport. On 17 November 2025, the Government of Quebec announced that the Nemiscau/Nemaska aerodrome had officially been opened to public use. The Government described it as the first Hydro-Québec aerodrome to be opened to the public.

Hydro-Québec continues to own the aerodrome. The public-opening arrangement involves Hydro-Québec, the Société de développement de la Baie-James (SDBJ), the Cree Development Corporation and the Cree Nation of Nemaska.

The Government of Quebec announcement also states that Aakutaah Holding Corporation, jointly owned by SDBJ and the Cree Development Corporation, participates in the management of Hydro-Québec aerodromes in the region. For Nemiscau, an additional partnership involving the Cree Nation of Nemaska was established through Nikaanch.

I would therefore appreciate an independent editor reviewing the article and updating the lead and history sections to reflect the airport's public-use status as of 17 November 2025, while removing or revising older wording suggesting that public access remains solely at Hydro-Québec's discretion.

Suggested factual wording for consideration:

"Nemiscau Airport (IATA: YNS, ICAO: CYHH) is an aerodrome serving Nemaska in Eeyou Istchee, Quebec, Canada. The aerodrome is owned by Hydro-Québec. Originally developed primarily to support Hydro-Québec's activities in the James Bay region, it was officially opened to public use on 17 November 2025."

A short history addition could read:

"On 17 November 2025, the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Québec announced the opening of the Nemiscau aerodrome to the public. The Government of Quebec described it as the first Hydro-Québec aerodrome to be opened for public use. The initiative involved Hydro-Québec, the Société de développement de la Baie-James, the Cree Development Corporation and the Cree Nation of Nemaska. Hydro-Québec retained ownership of the aerodrome."

Source: Gouvernement du Québec, 17 November 2025: Ouverture de l'aérodrome de Nemaska au public

I am also aware that Nadashu Corporation currently has an operational role at Nemiscau Airport. However, I have not included a requested change to the operator field here because I understand that Wikipedia requires a published reliable source explicitly confirming that relationship. If an appropriate source is available, I can provide it separately for review.

Thank you for reviewing the request. Emmanuel Ubani (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

You must disclose your affiliation on your user page, click your username, currently in red above, to access your user page. If your affiliation is employment, that must be explicitly stated per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID.

You should use the edit request process to propose edits to the existing article. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

12:40, 7 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-48513-67

• ~2026-48513-67 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pinnamaraju Harshith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey may i know the reason for rejection ~2026-48513-67 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

(answered below) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

12:42, 7 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-48513-67

• ~2026-48513-67 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pinnamaraju Harshith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

may i know why it got rejected what is wikipideia even for then why cant it have info about a person ~2026-48513-67 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not merely host information. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, which is called notability, like the definition of a notable person. Any article about this person needs to summarize what is said about them by independent reliable sources with critical analysis and commentary.

I get the sense that you are writing about yourself; that's exactly what social media is for. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are Apollon 0129, remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

12:43, 7 September 2026 review of submission by Lionfish0

• Lionfish0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Environmental Land Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I don't feel particularly strongly, but I wonder how the references don't meet the criteria?(significant coverage, reliable, independent): There's 9 references in the article that aren't links to the UK government's page: these are independent (i.e. news organisations, etc), they discuss the subject in detail - e.g. the impact of them, problems farmers are facing etc; and are from reliable news sources. Besides putting even more references in(?!), I'm not sure what else to do? I'm aware it's a bit of a stub article still - but that's not the reason it's been rejected (or a reason to reject)? I guess people/me are more likely to contribute once it's a real article anyway. Thanks for any advice! Lionfish0 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lionfish0

Looking at your sources;

1. gov.uk obviously isn't independent since this is a government scheme

2. is based primarily on an interview with an MP, so again isn't independent of the subject

3. This is good

4. This is also good, but the only thing you use it for is to source the claim that the scheme exists.

5. gov.uk again

6. ditto

7. This is an analysis of an update provided by the government; not independent

8. This is also good

9. Doesn't seem to have WP:SIGCOV about the scheme.

I'm stopping there because you do seem to have 3 solid sources, which should be a good enough claim for notability. The problem is that your article doesn't really stand strongly on them; it's sort of written like a response to an exam question asking for an essay about the scheme rather than being an encyclopedia article, with the sources haphazardly tacked on afterwards

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 advice would be to start from your three best sources and summarise the important things that they have to say about your subject. Then, and only then, add what you feel to be important, missing detail that you find in the other sources. By the time you're done with that you should have a pretty solid article. Stick to the facts. Stuff like As an example of a SFI intervention... isn't important; again, you're not answering an exam question "What is ELMS?" You're trying to write an encyclopedia article. Similarly, the bulk of your article right now is a "Reception and challenges" section. It's all well and good to include some of that; but when it's longer than the part which is supposed to tell us what the thing actually is, that's a problem. Athanelar (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

15:42, 7 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-41210-58

• ~2026-41210-58 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chris Vander Kaay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dread Central, Rue Morgue, Daily Dead, and other sites here are notable sources for horror and genre news, but editors have been dismissing them as “fan sites” or “blogs;” I would respectfully request someone with actual knowledge of the genre space vet this article. To put it in perspective, the first editor to reject it started an AFD for a notable anime cover artist that’s since failed because the editor assumed the person was not notable based on their own lack of knowledge of that particular space. ~2026-41210-58 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not required that an editor or reviewer be an expert in a topic area in order to evaluate it; in fact, it should not be necessary at all as Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what published independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic. We have no means of verifying claims of expertise in a topic area in any event.

If the sources you provided are considered authoritative in the topic area, with a reputation of fact checking and editorial oversight/control, that is a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard. Most blogs don't have that(though not all). Interviews may be useful for some things, but never to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41210-58 also be mindful the sources need to also meet the other notability criteria. Using Dread Central as an example, it might be reliable but their editorials are not helpful for notability as the are primary sources (see WP:NEWSOPED). Another one was an announcement about their "Found Footage Double Feature" which mentions a Q&A with Vander Kaay. That fails the other three criteria as it not secondary, independent, or contains in-depth coverage about Vander Kaay but fine to use to say he participated in the event. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

16:48, 7 September 2026 review of submission by AEtheEditor

• AEtheEditor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:AEtheEditor/Delaware Township, Wyandotte County, Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I cancel this request?; I am even planning on deleting this draft, due to the page already existing, and that I added some of my work to that page. AEtheEditor (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I have interpreted this as a request to delete, so I did so. If you need it restored for any reason, please ask at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. AEtheEditor (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

17:16, 7 September 2026 review of submission by Coffeerickrick

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

can you accept it i finished it Coffeerickrick (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Coffeerickrick: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

18:51, 7 September 2026 review of submission by Mpeter741

• Mpeter741 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Mpeter741/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it's correct. I've two submissions with the same content. The problem is, that I cannot edit those one you want to review

Mpeter741 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

What exactly stops you from editing Draft:Jürgen Angele ? If you could be a little more specific then we may be able to find a solution. Broadly speaking, and with a few exceptions, all editors can and should be able to edit all drafts. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

September 8

01:10, 8 September 2026 review of submission by 6767king

• 6767king (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Crim4sion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ikd why it got rejected

6767king (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I do know though. There is a flat requirement for notability in reliable sources. So once you've got coverage in the New York Times, kindly update the article and we will take another look. In the meantime you can have a read of Help:Your first article. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

02:50, 8 September 2026 review of submission by SammiFloof

• SammiFloof (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brazilian Muay Thai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What parts of this submission look like it was made by an LLM and how can I fix it? I am not a great writer so I used one to format it and make it read better. How can I fix this so it is not declined? SammiFloof (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You would need to take WP:TNT to the page and start over from scratch and re-write using your own words. We cannot accept articles written with the assistance of LLMs. If you are not a great writer, then you might want to consider other ways you can contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Writing articles from scratch is one of the hardest tasks you can take on. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

06:01, 8 September 2026 review of submission by QuietPelican

• QuietPelican (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Stephanie Short (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page has been declined due to lack of references, however unsure where I'm lacking these references as all are listed below. QuietPelican (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

That review, with 9 unreferenced paragraphs, was based on the article's position in July. Two days later another editor added further references and citations. You should review the draft again, make any further improvements, then submit for another review. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

12:30, 8 September 2026 review of submission by ~2026-48483-21

• ~2026-48483-21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zizi the hamster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this is a non fiction hamster IT DOES NOT EXIST and you can not decline it all the time i would really want to tell the world about it ~2026-48483-21 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to write in Polish, you need to go to the Polish Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about something; that's exactly what social media is for. Here, an article must summarize what is already written about a topic by independent reliable sources like news reports. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48483-21 A "non-fiction" hamster would exist, though; a fictional hamster would not exist! David10244 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

12:50, 8 September 2026 review of submission by Cherrypotatoes

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

I want to ask for another review and consideration for the article please. I've since updated the draft to address the notability issues by fixing the citations and adding new independent news coverage throughout the article. If there is anything else I can do to make the drafter tighter please let me know. Thank you! Cherrypotatoes (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you must first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask that they reconsider their rejection.

If you haven't already, please read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your superiors and colleagues. In short, you are not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without prior Wikipedia editing experience. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

13:10, 8 September 2026 review of submission by SBF2004

• SBF2004 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Naruto Shippuden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Naruto Shippuden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have asked on the talk page for both series that I had to propose a split of the article, is there any way to figure things out? SBF2004 (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to pursue splitting an existing article, see WP:SPLIT. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes but even if I try using WP:SPLIT it would not work because, still the 2004 original and Shippuden are distributed separately per TV Tokyo and Shippuden has its own page on the Japanese Wikipedia, and would merge the information back into the Naruto anime. SBF2004 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

14:35, 8 September 2026 review of submission by Bdctg2026

• Bdctg2026 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohammed Shaiful Azam Al-azhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

he is a propuler islamic scholar of bangladesh Bdctg2026 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

You have provided references and an infobox, but no prose. A Wikipedia article needs to summarize the sources provided, which should be independent reliable sources. If you write prose that summarizes the sources, you may then ask the reviewer to reconsider their rejection. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

ok i will Bdctg2026 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I NEED TO PUBLISH THIS PAGE Bdctg2026 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Please turn off your caps lock and tell us why. No one "needs" to do anything here. I've already said how you may proceed. You need to ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

What is your association with Mohammed Shaiful Azam Al-azhari? Also be aware that there is no deadline on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Mohammed Shaiful Azam Al-azhari is the best islamic scholer of bangladesh , he is my idole , i am student of Mohammed Shaiful Azam Al-azhari, Bdctg2026 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to tell the world about your idol, that is precisely what social media is for. Writing a new Wikipedia article is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia. It requires much knowledge and experience. I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial and spend much time editing existing articles before attempting the difficult task of writing a new one.

You still have not asked the rejecting reviewer to reconsider, you may do so on their user talk page, User talk:Qcne.

Also consider that if you are too personally invested in your admiration of this man in order to write about him dispassionately.

You may want to consider editing the Bengali Wikipedia, which likely has looser standards for inclusion than we do. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bdctg2026.

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.

This means that to successfully write an article about Al-azhari, you would first have to find several sources where people completely unconnected with him have chosen to write in some depth about him (and if there are such sources that you disagree with, it would still be your duty as a Wikipedia editor to include them). Then you would need to set aside everything that you know or think about him, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say - even the ones you disagree with.

Not many people can do this about their idol. Do you think you can? ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Bdctg2026 How do you know he is the best? Do you know the details about all of the Islamic scholars in Bangladesh? David10244 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

yes almost Bdctg2026 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)