Hello, Accesscrawl.

Thank you for reviewing the Sidney Eden draft.

I am requesting reconsideration because I believe the draft now contains multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. These include:

Multiple Chicago Tribune articles covering Sidney Eden and the First Chicago Center Theatre. Linda Winer's feature article discussing Eden and the theatre in detail. Additional Chicago Tribune coverage by Aaron Gold, William Leonard, and Roger Dettmer. The New York Times coverage of Eden's later theatrical work. Independent coverage of the 2002 Actors' Equity Association library donation.

Your review states that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, but it does not identify which of these independent sources fail to satisfy the applicable notability guideline.

Could you please explain which specific sources you believe are insufficient, and why? If I have misunderstood the guideline, I would sincerely appreciate any guidance so I can better understand the issue.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

Hey @Accesscrawl, could you look at my draft for VoteHub? I saw your comment but I don't know how I can improve it. I am not involved/associated with the group, and I have no bias towards an effort to promote them. I was just wondering if you had any ideas on what I could do? I tried to fix the problems with NPOV, if anything is still wrong let me know. Last thing, would you mind providing me insight into how i can make this fit WP:GNG and WP:NCORP better? Thank you for the time, I appreciate it MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

main concern is, available sources appear to be routine coverage or closely tied to the organization. The draft still needs independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Check WP:GOLDENRULE Accesscrawl (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will change it, but just so I know, do any of the current sources in the draft follow these criteria. I felt like they did when I wrote it, but if there is one that fits the criteria I will know what to look for MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I haven't gone through each source, so I can't say which ones meet the criteria. I'd focus on sources that discuss VoteHub in significant detail and avoid sources which rely on passing mentions. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Were the sources that you did look at ones that were incorrect? I just don't think the sources have passing/trivial mentions of the website, so I don't really know where to start in changing them MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've already explained the concern and another reviewer independently reached the same conclusion. It's your responsibility to evaluate your sources and show that they satisfies notability guidelines. I'm not going to assess each reference individually for you. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, I am not asking you to individually assess each reference, I just wanted to understand how I can improve my article. I don't quite understand the instructions I am being given, so I wanted to ask for clarification, and I hoped you would be able to help me. I am not challenging your assertion to the article. If you are unable to help I understand MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Accesscrawl, I understand you're from India. Look, I've edited Draft:Andrew Pomiankowski so many times to provide references, why are you so dismissive. If I understand your argument "I don't see this passing WP:GOLDENRULE" correctly, it's not enough about Life, The Universe, and Everything D'you want me to add "42" or something? But isn't Sex and The Origin of Life exactly that? And as for "...lacks WP:NPOV", Ok, this is at least somewhat more comprehensible. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I've not carried out any original research here, and if I have been biased, and I don't think I have, why not edit that bias out? All of my citations are to verifiable literature. Please can you all stop this, and let Andrew Pomiankowski be released out into the wild, and then others may edit it to their satisfaction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eratosignis (talk • contribs) 07:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Eratosignis: Instead of badgering people on their talk pages, I'd suggest spending some time reading WP:GNG, WP:RS & WP:CIRCULAR. There's no need to rush, the draft was declined only a couple of days. Take your time and address the issues properly. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Lancelot2026 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lance Letscher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Review of Lance Letscher page Hello Accescrawl, I am writing to request another chance to create the page on Lance Letscher, which was just rejected. Under Presumed, Letscher has exhibited all over the United States and Europe. A documentary was made about him in 2017. Under Significant Coverage, I can point to the monograph of his entire works published by the University of Texas Press and Letscher's own children's book, "The Perfect Machine". For Reliable, don't Psychology Today, the Austin Chronicle and the New York Observer fit that category? I have more references I can use, but honestly, I was concerned about upsetting "Sulfurboy" who has been pretty rude. I wanted to just get this page accepted, then add more to it. I have photos of Letscher's work, which is very impressive. Maybe I didn't do a good job of describing the significance of Letscher's work; this is the first page I've tried to create and I'm trying to follow the rules. Please allow me to continue to improve this page. Thanks.

Lancelot2026 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The concerns raised in earlier reviews remain unresolved. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Accesscrawl, thanks for looking at Draft:Bail for Immigration Detainees and for the steer. You were right that it leaned too much on .pdfs and BID's own material, and that's what I've tried to fix. I've gone back through it and cut the reliance on primary stuff for the notability side. The sources I'm now leaning on are ones that are actually about BID rather than just its own reports; mainly a Feminist Review article (2003) and a batch of coverage over 2025. I've kept some of the .pdfs and BID's website in, but only for factual details in the body (not to show it's notable). I'm still getting the hang of the difference between what counts for notability and what's just for content, so if any of it still looks too primary-heavy, please say and I'll keep trimming. Thank you. LoreGatherer2 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update. If you believe the draft now shows notability through independent sources, go ahead and resubmit it. Someone will review it sooner or later. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Accesscrawl.

Thank you for reviewing the Sidney Eden draft.

I am requesting reconsideration because I believe the draft now contains multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. These include:

Multiple Chicago Tribune articles covering Sidney Eden and the First Chicago Center Theatre. Linda Winer's feature article discussing Eden and the theatre in detail. Additional Chicago Tribune coverage by Aaron Gold, William Leonard, and Roger Dettmer. The New York Times coverage of Eden's later theatrical work. Independent coverage of the 2002 Actors' Equity Association library donation.

Your review states that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, but it does not identify which of these independent sources fail to satisfy the applicable notability guideline.

Could you please explain which specific sources you believe are insufficient, and why? If I have misunderstood the guideline, I would sincerely appreciate any guidance so I can better understand the issue.== Request on 15:21:44, 5 August 2026 for assistance on AfC submission by Alexandereden ==

• Alexandereden (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sidney Eden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alexandereden (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t use AI at any point writing this draft article. All of the text from the article is paraphrased from the sources, except for where I’m directly quoting real individuals. CyannaLocke (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

alright Accesscrawl (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear Articles Accesscrawl Thank you for taking the time to review my draft on Dr. Svetlana Dmitrenco.

I would respectfully ask you to reconsider the draft or to indicate specifically which notability requirements you believe have not been met.

My intention was not to promote the subject but to document the career of a scholar whose achievements are supported by reliable published sources.

The draft is based on independent publications, including scholarly and biographical works, as well as official academic records. Some of the key sources are in Russian and Romanian because Dr. Dmitrenco has spent her entire academic career in the Republic of Moldova. Unfortunately, there are very few English-language publications covering Moldovan scholars in the social sciences.

The draft documents, with reliable sources, that Dr. Svetlana Dmitrenco:

was among the first scholars to establish sociology as an academic discipline in the Republic of Moldova; became the first woman to hold the position of Chief Research Fellow in an academic research institute in her field in Moldova; became the first woman earned the degree of Doctor Habilitat in Sociology; authored nine scholarly monographs and numerous scientific publications; supervised doctoral research and participated in the development of sociological education and research in Moldova; has been the subject of independent biographical essays and bibliographical studies published by independent authors and institutions.

The article does not rely solely on institutional webpages or self-published material. It includes independent publications devoted specifically to Dr. Dmitrenco and her scholarly contribution. These include biographical essays, scholarly reviews, and bibliographical studies rather than routine mentions.

I fully understand that non-English sources may require additional effort to evaluate. If helpful, I would gladly provide English summaries or translations of the relevant passages from the cited publications.

I am an elderly contributor and not a native speaker of English. I have tried to follow Wikipedia's policies as carefully as possible. If the draft still falls short of the required standards, I would sincerely appreciate specific guidance on which sources are considered insufficient and what additional evidence would be necessary to demonstrate notability.

Thank you very much for your time, your patience, and your work as a volunteer editor.

Kind regards,

P.S. The subject (Svetlana Dmitrenco) is notable not merely because of her academic positions or publications, but because independent authors have considered her career and scholarly contribution significant enough to publish dedicated biographical and bibliographical works about her. This is precisely the type of significant independent coverage contemplated by Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]} 1vikbak17 (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@1vikbak17: i think the draft includes independent sources which may pass WP:GNG. My concerns are with the article itself. It still reads like a CV with routine career details and publication lists. Also, appears to have AI Flavour. Let me ask, did you use AI to generate the article? Those issues haven't been addressed. Please address those points and resubmit. Another reviewer will then assess the draft afresh. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Accesscrawl:

You've asked whether I have used AI to write this article. Short answer is no: this is a personal rework of the original article I wrote for es.wikipedia.org about Angustias García Usón. The English article is not simply a translation of the Spanish one, it is a rework, in order to explain certain Spanish references to the English-speaking readers and a relocation of certain information, where I thought best. Long answer is I have actually used AI to translate certain sentences to make sure they were idiomatically correct, but most of the work is mine. No AI in this message either :)

Hope this answers your question, Accesscrawl. GreatMjollnir (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

just heads up about Draft:Aníbal Gómez, it has been under "review" for 23 hours now. WXchaser (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am a little confused. I see you are a probationary AFC reviewer. Excellent and welcome.

When you accepted this draft you failed to make life easy for yourself by using the script. I wondered if you needed a little help?

I'm about to tidy the AFC atrtefacts away from it. Using the script does that automagically 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah, got it. You closed the windows/tab before the script had finished. It needs to complete before you move away! We've all done that! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Accesscrawl (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. [WP:INDICSCRIPTS] only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of India's neighbouring countries."

This means that when the Shiva article has Sanskrit text in lead/infobox, it doesn't have to be removed unless there is local consensus on the article itself. Same goes for Tripura Rahasya—since it is a text that was originally written in Sanskrit, so INDICSCRIPT does not apply. And, as User:MaplesyrupSushi rightly pointed out here, INDICSCRIPT would also not apply to Guru Gobind Singh. These exceptions are important, they're why Sanskrit, Mahayana, Sanatana etc. have Devanagari text in lead, and why Punjabi, Tamil, Bangla etc. have text in their respective scripts in their leads and infoboxes. Please be more careful in the future and please read wiki-policy/guideline fully before applying it (though I understand this isn't always easy). I would also suggest you self-revert on other such articles where you may have removed non-latin scripts when they didn't need to be removed. I would've done it myself but from a cursory look it seems you've done this on too many articles which are covered by exceptions and I currently do not have the time. Regards, UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

sorry but this must be some half arsed attempt, literally everything in the Summary is sourced from TORRO, did you even read the fucking article and it's sources? literally all of them have a source, maybe next time you review an article you can actually read the article and it's sources, rather than rejecting it for a totally invalid reason. Loaf5979 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply