User talk:Van1985

Hi Van1985. Thank you for your work on Babanango Game Reserve. Another editor, 11wallisb, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Hello. This article has multiple issues which need immediate attention. Firstly, there are multiple citation errors visible in the references relating to author names. Secondly, at least one of the references is a bare URL which needs to be converted into proper citation style. Finally, a third of this article has been detected as being generated by an LLM, this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please edit the article so these issues are resolved as soon as possible. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|11wallisb}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

11WB (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @11wallisb

I hope you are well. Please could I ask you to review my article changes, if it is acceptable as is, or best to leave for a bit while others make further edits?

Please advise. Still a newby editor here, so trying to learn the ropes! Van1985 (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I have only just come online today, but I will make sure to take a look at this in the next few hours and will get back to you! (Replying now so that you know I've seen your reply!) 11WB (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Van1985, sorry for the delayed response. I can see the bare URLs are no longer an issue and the citation errors are fixed. Just make sure the article isn't written using generated LLM text. I have marked the article as reviewed. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is best not to remove the tag about llm content yourself. Instead, ask the editor who placed the tag if they are satisfied with your fixes. Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Abductive

Ok thank-you for your response - I misunderstood the guidelines here on this then. I will reply to the reviewer and ask them to review my fixes.

Thank-you! Van1985 (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, don't worry too much. Leave it for a few days, people may come along and improve the article. Then look at your wording with fresh eyes. Abductive (reasoning) 07:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Annie Minogue. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Dclemens1971

Thanks for your review and feedback. Would you be able to guide me as to what parts of the article you view as promotional? And would it better to remove those parts completely, and just keep the article simple, with introduction, early life and education, and maybe parts of her career? And take out the rest for now? Van1985 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some examples of promotional language:

• The band has been described as combining rock attitude with pop sensibility and blues undertones. Without a source here, this sounds like marketing language.
• In 2023, Minogue released NOW!, an album centered on themes of resilience, social responsibility, and personal truth. What does this even mean?
• She has been profiled in Who’s Who of Professional Women, Passion Vista, and WomLead Magazine, which highlighted her longevity in the music industry and her emphasis on authenticity. (Who's Who is a pay-to-play directory and WomLead is I'm guessing the same since there's no byline there and the article is a puff piece.)

But you could still take those sentences out and the article would still have an overall promotional tone due to its reliance on non-independent sources like WomLead. I would focus on rewriting in straightforward language with every statement sourced to an independent, reliable, secondary source. The WP:TEAHOUSE is a great place to ask for help as well! Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks for your feedback @Dclemens1971, I really appreciate it.

I will work on the article more and then ask for further assistance at The Teahouse. Van1985 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Van1985, for your query on the Women in Red talk page. I think it would be useful for you to become a member of the project: see New registrations on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. In connection with the biography you are writing, you'll find some useful tips in our Ten Simple Rules. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for signing up and welcome to the project. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties.-Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Ipigott

Appreciate your input here! Van1985 (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Annie Minogue, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

João^hola 07:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Josedimaria

Thanks so much for approving my article for creation. Much appreciated! Van1985 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Renishaw Hills. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aesurias (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Aesurias

Thanks for your review of my article Renishaw Hills.

I have made some edits to the parts of content that I thought may be seen as machine-generated text - it should be good now.

I am usually able to see the button "Submit the draft for review" at the top of the article, but I don't see that option now - please could you take a look and let me know if I have missed it?

Thanks! Van1985 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The entire article is AI-generated using an LLM - the giveaway is the unnecessary capitalization in section titles. Aesurias (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Have you run this article through any AI content detectors to back your claim?

You can use any tools likes https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector or https://www.grammarly.com/ai-detector, which I have just done and it has confirmed for me that none of the text is LLM content, so please tell me how you got to your conclusion? Van1985 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Renishaw Hills is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renishaw Hills until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run: U, V, W | Asian women Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Women in Red's Asian women event is part of the global Wikipedia Asian Month 2025 campaign. You are welcome to add your contributions to both event pages. Tip of the Month: Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year. 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women) 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hello Van1985! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Request for help with Renishaw Hills article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hello, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Joekels have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 07:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joekels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joekels until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 07:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Van1985, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OrangeWaylon was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joekels and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

OrangeWaylon (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Van1985! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! OrangeWaylon (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Denodo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denodo (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Athanelar was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources here are entirely WP:CORPTRIV except for a couple of good pieces, but those unfortunately seem to be press release-type features based on interviews eith the company, and the CBN piece is about their subsidiary Laager, and not Joekels themselves.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joekels and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Van1985. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please provide evidence of this? My IP address is only linked to one Wikipedia account, and I have only ever created pages using this profile. I have been unfairly attacked today by the user @Athanelarfor whatever reason, because I asked for help at the Teahouse, and they have proceeded to call me out on something that is simply not factual. Van1985 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

As you can see in the sockpuppet investigation, a CheckUser has confirmed based on technical information that you are linked to User:Southa79, an account which you used to vote 'keep' on deletion discussions of your articles. Athanelar (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Show me the evidence of how I am linked to that account? Can you show me that we are the same IP address? I can guarantee the answer is NO, because I don't know that person. Van1985 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Checkusers are able to see more technical information than just IP addresses, including details of the devices that log into or use certain accounts. The details are not public, but if a CheckUser confirms a link, there is no doubt. Athanelar (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

You could also try to be at least a bit more subtle than dragging the account out of 2 months of inactivity just to leave a keep vote on an article you also wanted to keep and then disappear again. Athanelar (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@PhilKnight Please see my request for unblock on my talk page, with explanation, and let me know what the next steps are. Thanks so much! Van1985 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@PhilKnight please review my request below for unblock. I have been transparent in my response, and would appreciate the opportunity to keep editing on Wikipedia.

Thank-you! Van1985 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please don't keep pinging admins to review your unblock. It's in the queue, and one of the volunteers that are administrators will review it in due course. Pinging an admin about your particular unblock request three times in two days (you did it in the unblock request too) is far more likely to hurt your case than to help it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Van1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here: @PhilKnight I understand the reason for being blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia, based on being connected to another user account, @Southa79. This account does not belong to me as was originally stated, but it belongs to my husband, so the block is not wrong, in that I am associated to that account. However, it is not my account, nor is it linked to my IP address or my email. I am willing to share evidence of this if needed. My husband originally created his own Wikipedia account to edit an old band page that he used to be a part of, called Crossingpoint - you can see evidence of this edit linked to his account. He also made edits on other pages of interest to him. When I had 2 articles nominated for deletion, I asked him to help with a Keep vote for these, to help the case. I was not aware at this point that this was not allowed, and did not think I was doing anything against Wikiepedia policies. I have not asked him to vote in my most recent AFC nomination, because after the last nomination, a comment was made about his account being spam, or something along those lines, so I thought at that point that it may not be the best option. I am being completely transparent here, and have nothing to hide or no reason for suspicion further to the above. I have made consistent edits on Wikiepdia over the last 6 months, editing mostly South African articles of interest to me, and creating articles that are lacking in South Africa. I would appreciate my account being reviewed so that I can continue to make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia, and continue to learn from more experienced editors. Van1985 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Accept reason:

I'll convert this block to a time-limited one. Cheers. asilvering (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Van1985 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Asilvering thanks so much, I really appreciate that. Have a great day! Van1985 (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question: I am not an admin, have no say over your block, and you are under no obligation to answer this; but why did you respond above that I can guarantee the answer [to whether there is any technical connection between the accounts] is NO, because I don't know [Southa79]. if indeed that account is your husband and you didn't believe you were doing anything wrong in asking his help at the deletion votes initially? When you realised that the sockpuppetry block was because of your husband's account, it seems odd to me that your first response would be to categorically deny a connection rather than explain. Athanelar (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Van1985 Please be aware that the edit history of every page is public, meaning that I (and anybody else) can easily see where you attempted to conceal the denial I referred to. Per WP:REDACT please refrain from editing comments which have already been replied to, as it obviously changes the context in which people replied to you. I have therefore restored what you removed/changed, but I left your reply to my comment here out because nobody had replied to it yet and I am charitably assuming that you chose to remove it to withdraw the aspersions against me that it contained. Athanelar (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank-you, I am aware that anyone can see the edit history, so that is fine that you have restored the comments - I simply removed them because what I originally said was not true. And yes, I also removed my last reply here to you, because I did not think it was worth my time arguing with you on this matter any longer, I will wait for an admin to respond to my appeal.

Have a fabulous day! Van1985 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

{{checkuser needed}} - is this story consistent with the technical data? Although even if it's true soliciting meatpuppets to support your case isn't the greatest idea, however that by itself isn't a stand-alone indeffable offence in my book. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

From what data I have available, this story is plausible. Izno (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@PhilKnight, what do you think about converting both of these to one-week first-time sock blocks instead? -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@asilvering - good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Van1985! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help With Article Nominated for Deletion, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page Denodo has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Nil NZ, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft appears to be generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You should not use LLMs to write articles from scratch.

LLM-generated pages with the below issues may be deleted without notice.

These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:

• hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references.
• unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual.
• copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

Not seeing a lot of WP:CORPDEPTH in the coverage. Can you highlight the best WP:THREE sources that you believe meet WP:NCORP?

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Denodo to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

nil ^nz 08:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Nil NZ, thank-you for your feedback here on my AFC.

The LLM comment is not entirely true, it was written by myself without assistance from ChatGPT originally, but after it was nominated for deletion and the feedback was that the history section was too complicated, I did run it through ChatGPT to try rework it - however, I changed it up from what was produced there, so it was not entirely copy and paste. But the original content is my own that has just been reworked. If this is not allowed, then I will reword it.

With regards to sources, I honestly am lost here, because I would have thought that sources like TechTarget, Fintech Futures, Reuters, and Venturebeat, would all be well recognised secondary sources?

They do have articles on the Gartner and Forrester websites, however, these are behind paywalls, so I cannot access them.

Please could you offer some guidance to what other websites would be valuable in this instance to pass WP:NCORP?

Thanks so much! Van1985 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Van1985, the reason for the the LLM comment was because there were a couple of instances of WP:Signs of AI writing that stood out, such as:

• The early emphasis was on improving the speed and efficiency of data delivery in distributed IT environments. (WP:AIVOCAB)
• ...reflecting increasing private equity interest in data integration[...] (WP:SUPERFICIAL)
• ...in a deal reported by Reuters as reflecting continued investor interest in data management and integration technologies. (WP:SUPERFICIAL / WP:AIATTR)

There was also some odd mark up, such as bolding the section headers, which some LLMs also like to do.

That said, the rest of it does appear to be human written, so the LLM reasoning isn't my main concern. WP:NCORP probably has the highest bar of all our eligibility criteria, and is extremely difficult to meet; the unfortunate fact is that 99% of companies and organisations won't ever become notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article. When it comes to WP:NCORP, quality of sources is far more important that quantity of sources.

The majority of the sources appear to be WP:CORPTRIV, which has a handy list of the types of sources that don't count towards WP:NCORP, even if they come from a reliable source. If you're able to highlight the best three sources that instead meet WP:CORPDEPTH, then that will aid the next reviewer in their assessment. Hope that makes more sense! nil ^nz 22:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Nil NZ,

I have cleaned up the areas of concern that you highlighted as LLM content, thanks for pointing that out.

I'm not sure what you mean by highlighting the best 3 sources, how do I do that? Because I resubmitted the article again, and I wanted to comment on the resubmission with the 3 best sources that I think meet WP:CORPDEPTH for this company, but it wouldn't let me. And it has since been declined once again. I am happy to share those sources here, or please guide me to where I do this.

Thanks! Van1985 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Van1985, if you go into the source editor, you can past the following template to the top of the draft: {{AFC comment|1= *Add sources here*, with a comment such as: To aid reviewers, the three best sources demonstrating [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] are... ~~~~}} nil ^nz 09:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Theroadislong, left the following feedback:

This draft reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promotion or marketing. Drafts that are exclusively promotional may be deleted without notice.

Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

• promotional language: see Words to watch;
• personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader;
• informal language.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

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

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Denodo to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Theroadislong, thanks for your feedback. I'm interested to know if you had a chance to even read the article, as I had literally just resubmitted it, and then you declined it? How were you able to tell in that time that I have used promotional language and words, because I looked at the links you referred to, and I haven't used anything promotional in my words or commentary from what I can see. Can you highlight specific words or phrases for me, so I can edit these?

Thanks! Van1985 (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes of course I read it, it reads like the company telling us everything they would like us to know about them, hence it reads like promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Denodo. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your feedback, I will work on the sources. Van1985 (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Denodo. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, 331dot, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company. We are looking for a summary of "significant coverage"; which means critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by independent sources as important/significant/influential about the company.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Denodo to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

331dot (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @331dot, thanks for your review.

I'm struggling to understand how some of these sources are not seen as significant enough? I have added in some newer ones which from researching, I've been told are all good sources? Wall Street Journal, ZDNet, Bloors Research, Reuters? How are none of those significant?

In terms of critical analysis and commentary - are you meaning to write more about what Denodo has done that is influential in terms of their products? Or what they have done as a company in the industry that has changed the industry? Because I can do that. Could you point me to a GA perhaps that has done this well that I could reference? Van1985 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's not the sources themselves that are the issue, but their content. You have primarily just described the offerings of your company and its routine business activities(like attracting investment). If you have independent reliable sources(not based on interviews, press releases, or other sources from your company directly) that have described what makes your company a notable company, that's what the draft should focus on, there should be much less about the offerings of your company and its activities.

Maybe see Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society(scroll down to the businesses section) for some examples.

I will be very blunt and honest- most company represetatives fail at writing Wikipedia articles about their companies, because of two reasons; their goals are fundamentally different than Wikipedia's. They usually want to tell us what they want the world to know about their company(like its activities and offerings) and not what others have chosen to say about the company on their own. They are also too close to their company to be able to set aside everything that they know about it, all materials its put out, and all reporting of routine business activites- it's just something very difficult for most humans to do. Please see WP:BOSS and show it to your superiors and colleagues. People in your position occasionally succeed, but it is rare. Are you one of the rare people who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it.

Also know that an article about your company is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one; disgruntled customers could vandalize it, if only temporarily. Any and all information about your company, good or bad, can appear in an article about it as long as that information appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @331dot, thanks for your response. In the interim before you responded and after, I had started doing some further research, looking for more information and sources. I have now written a new section about industry recognition, talking about some independent analyst reviews that I found in articles that I sourced. There is a PDF by Bloor Research that I came across that I hadn't seen before that shows significant analysis of the company, as well as a couple other articles. I hope that these are going to help my case. Please could you take a look and let me know your thoughts? I have not resubmitted it as yet. Van1985 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, just one further side note - I don't work for Denodo. I have been asked to create a Wikipedia page for the company, as an independent contractor, who works with marketing companies. So my view of the company is completely neutral in that I don't actually know anyone who works at Denodo, or have any affiliation with the company itself, so I am simply writing about what I have found online about the company to be honest.

That being said, I'm not sure now if I have stated the correct affiliation on my talk page about who I work for? Should I rather stipulate the Marketing Agency there, and not Denodo? Van1985 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your user page currently says that you are "self employed". If what you are saying is that you are an independent contractor for a marketing company that has Denodo as a client; you should remove "self employed" and replace it with the name of the marketing company that has contracted you. In this context "independent contractor" and "employee" is a distinction without a difference in terms of the required disclosure. Thank you for the clarification, though.

The businesswire sources is based on an interview, and is about a non-notable award/recognition. Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Most niche industry awards don't qualify.

The Bloor source might be okay. I don't know enough about its provenance.

The source supporting "This study found that Denodo customers benefited from an 83% increase in business user productivity, a 67% reduction in development resources, and data access speeds 65% faster than traditional ETL-based approaches" is not really critical analysis and commentary, it's just promoting an aspect of the company's product. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Van1985. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Van1985. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Van1985|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @331dot, Thanks for your message. The last thing I want to do is be in Wikipedia's bad books - I have been there before. I am still learning and want to be as transparent as possible. I wasn't aware that I needed to stipulate this on my talk page, I apologise. I seem to recall adding something to my talk page when I originally created my account, after advice from someone at the Teahouse, about having a general notice that I create pages on occasion for companies - but I don't see that notice on my page anymore - unless I didn't add it correctly? Is there something else that I can add that can stipulate creating pages for different people? I am not always paid however, sometimes I do this as a favour, which has been the case for the majority of the pages I have created - although it would still be a COI as I know them I guess? Please advise how best to add this to my talk page? Van1985 (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's there now, you're all set. Many people get confused when they go to create a draft and check a box saying that they're a paid editor- but that is not a public disclosure, just a guide to creating a draft. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, MSK, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Joekels to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

msk 17:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, CopyleftEverything, left the following feedback:

This draft reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promotion or marketing. Drafts that are exclusively promotional may be deleted without notice.

Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

• promotional language: see Words to watch;
• personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader;
• informal language.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

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

The critical section is nice, but not clear that any of it is WP:SIGCOV. Also: See WP:SOLUTIONS.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Denodo to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

CopyleftEverything (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply