Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1271

Archive 1265

←

Archive 1269

Archive 1270

Archive 1271

What to do after repeated AfC rejections

My draft article on Herman Richard Kissner Dietz, 19th century artist, was first declined as LLM-generated, then for citation formatting, and now, by a Wikipedia art expert, for original research. At this stage, should I just give up on it, or is there any remaining path forward? PurpleSugarLoaf (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I find it interesting and would be sorry to see it go. That said, however.... Qcne wrote that it seemed to be LLM output, but that was four months ago, and I wonder if Qcne still has this suspicion. I'm surprised to read of Netherzone "spot checking content against some of the sources" as so few of the sources would be easy to find. Here's a randomly selected bunch of four: Report of the Thirtieth Industrial Exposition of the Mechanics' Institute City of San Francisco, San Francisco: Mechanics' Institute, 1897, pp. 72 - 73 | Eldred's, auction, March 30, 2007, East Dennis, MA, Lot 357 (source: Invaluable.com) | Koller, 19th Century Paintings, September 24, 2025, Switzerland, Lot 6213 (online auction). | Sarasota Estate Auction, Important Fine Art, Jewellery, Antiques and Silver Auction, August 25, 2024, Sarasota, FL., Lot 950, items #2689 and #2698 | You imply that the second is on the web. If so, where? (Not just the website; the exact page.) Are none of the other three available on the web? NB unavailability other than from microfiche, microfilm, or paper is no reason to decline a submission; but the number of sources such as these raises the suspicion of a hoax or LLM hallucination. (And if something such as an auction catalogue really is only available as a book on a shelf, can it not come with an OCLC number?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The draft, when I declined it, was pure AI generated slop @PurpleSugarLoaf. This person certainly did exist, but I think you would have a much easier time by writing a short, concise draft based off available published sources. qcne (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

PurpleSugarLoaf, I happen to have a deep interest in Northern California landscape artists for many reasons, including that my sister has been one for several decades. I would love to see an article about Dietz but it needs to be done right. You seem to be under the impression that a massive number of references is a good thing since you now have 71 of them for this lesser known painter. Actually, quality is vastly more important than quantity when it comes to references. Far better to have references to a dozen (or even less) high quality sources that devote significant, in depth coverage to Dietz than a sprawling mess of relatively inaccessible and trivial sources that make the work of a reviewer much more difficult and inevitably raise suspicions. For example, you have a note and seven references for the first two sentences of the "Biography" section. This is commonly called reference bombing and increases skepticism instead of reducing it. Reviewers think, "why the heck are there seven references and a note for this mundane content when one or two would be fine?" And you also seem to have the mistaken notion that an AfC draft needs to include every known detail about Dietz. I agree with Qcne that a short, concise draft based off available published sources is your best path forward. Ruthlessly trim your references down to those that are indisputably the best, and eliminate all content that is not verified by these sources. Exclude inferences and conclusions that come from your own brain after your research, and simply summarize neutrally what the best of the reliable sources say about Dietz. If your slimmed down draft is accepted into the encyclopedia, you can gradually expand and improve it as time goes by. Cullen328 (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Hoary. When I was spot checking some of the references I checked content against online auction records, the Internet Archive, Newspaper Archive, Newspapers.com, Google Books and PDF documents in Commons. Here are few examples why I tagged it for original research:

Citation 43: Eldred's, auction, March 30, 2007, East Dennis, MA, Lot 357 (source: Invaluable.com)

Which I found here: [1]

Rationale: All the citation says about the painting (in terms of description) is: "Clipper ship off a point."

Yet this is used to verify this sentence: Among his earliest surviving signed works is Clipper Ship off a Point (1876), a small painting of a ship whose masts, rigging and hull shape, flying under a Danish ensign, indicate a brig rather than a clipper. Where was this extended information found? Is it personal opinion, or a conclusion the editor came to on their own, or is this an AI description?

Citation 44: Koller, 19th Century Paintings, September 24, 2025, Switzerland, Lot 6213 (online auction)

Which I found here: [2]

Rationale: All the citation says about the painting in terms of description is: "Ships in light swell, Kronborg Castle in the background." Yet it was used to source this content: The turreted building in the background is identical in structure, angle and setting to the castle in the undated work Ships in a Light Swell, Kronborg Castle in the Background. While the two structures do look similar to the eye (whose eye) where is this content found in the source?

This is followed a few sentences later by these unsourced statements:

The near-duplication of line and proportion suggests that Dietz may have been working from his own preparatory drawing, while variations in brushwork and palette indicate that he reinterpreted the motif rather than mechanically copying it. Where did this come from, whose thoughts/interpretations are these?

Here is another detailed description that is unsourced: The vessel had entered San Francisco trade routes in that year. The canvas is a broadside portrait under full sail in a heavy swell beneath bright clouds, flags flying, another vessel, and some landforms on the horizon.

This paragraph is entirely unsourced: Dietz worked primarily in oil on canvas, rendering sail plans and running rigging with technical fidelity: square sails; gaffs and the spanker; staysails and jibs; and halyards, sheets and braces. The set and trim recorded in these details show how the vessel was being worked for the prevailing wind and sea at the moment depicted. The selected canvases below, dated 1876 to 1895, illustrate this approach across varied sea states and settings. He often painted lively seas with detailed waves, and he frequently included small motifs, such as a piece of flotsam in both Ella Rohlffs and Levi G. Burgess, a scattering of seagulls in The Clipper Melanope, or a leaping salmon in The Caspar. Where did it come from, whose thoughts, ideas, interpretations are these? (Original research or possible AI/LLM conclusions?)

WP:OR states that original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. From my understanding of WP:OR the above are examples of original research. Netherzone (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Parker Boudreaux

Can someone please help me edit Parker Boudreaux’s profile? I have a lot of valid amazing content but for some reason people keep removing it it’s annoying ~2025-33004-65 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. Parker Boudreaux has been temporarily protected from editing due to disruption; please use the article talk page to propose edits as edit requests. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-33004-65. I see in the history several anonymous users - are they all you? - edit-warring with a number of different editors, and no discussion whatever on the article's talk page.

Please read WP:BRD very carefully. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine I see it is SemiProtected. SemiProtected articles don't have the SemiProtected symbol on the top-right side? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Using Wayback Machine for live websites

The Wayback Machine is great for saving otherwise dead sources. I wonder if it is appropriate to use it with websites which – while still alive – may be updated in the future to reflect new data not accounted for in the Wikipedia article in question. Rockfighterz M (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. User:InternetArchiveBot does this routinely, and you can trigger it for a specific Wikipedia article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You can also do it yourself if the bot is too slow for your liking, just remember to put url-status=live so the archive link isn't seen as the main one by the citation template. Lovelyfurball (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

How exactly do I trigger the bot to do this? I've tried running the article in question through the "Analyze a page" interface; nothing happened. Rockfighterz M (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That's how I do it; if it hasn't worked I suggest you ask on the bot's talk page; stating both the Wikipedia article and the problematic external link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you check the option to also archive live references? It's disabled by default Lovelyfurball (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on Draft:Art Partner (third AfC submission)

Hi,

I’m seeking guidance on improving my draft for Art Partner: Draft:Art Partner

My latest AfC review noted that the references may not sufficiently demonstrate notability and that the tone reads somewhat promotional. I’ve since revised the draft for neutrality and added independent sources from publications such as Vogue, Dazed Magazine, and The Impression.

I’d appreciate feedback on whether the current references meet Wikipedia’s notability and reliability standards, and if any sections still appear non-neutral or promotional.

Thanks so much in advance for your help!

CurioArchivist85 CurioArchivist85 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. If you have revised the draft, you should resubmit it to get feedback- asking for a pre-review review duplicates process. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You can assess your references against the criteria at WP:42 - the key thing to note is that a good source meets all three criteria, so for example a long interview may have significant coverage but is not independent. Ideally you'll have three or more good sources for your draft.

Since your draft is about a company, you'll also want to make sure it meets WP:NCORP, paying special attention to the list of things that do not make a company notable (WP:CORPTRIV). Most companies never qualify for Wikipedia articles. Since you've disclosed that you're a paid editor (thank you!), WP:BOSS may also be a very useful read. Happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about company or organisation you appear to have a connection to.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form of paid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with the neutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may not intend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result in promotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this is still promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.

People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such as the 'general' notability guidelines, the guidelines for notability of companies or organisations, the notability of creative professionals etc. The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here that ChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.

It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being written backwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written. This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise the existing information available about a subject in reliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not to present new information or to synthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you must first search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting the golden rule) and only include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but you must not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to. If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly read WP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.

If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.

Writing a COI article

First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this at WP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions at WP:PAID to disclose that also.

Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need to forget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sources first. Remember that those sources need to be reliable, independent and secondary. Avoid trivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type of day-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), you must double-check the sources yourself and verify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.

Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, follow Help:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.

Athanelar (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Please approve my article

have carefully reviewed the notability and reference requirements outlined in your message. Based on your guidance, I have now added several new citations from reliable, independent, and secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. my article is "Draft:Duggaraj Shreyas AP"

I kindly request you to review the updated version of the article and consider it for publication. I have made sure that the sources align with Wikipedia’s guidelines for verifiability and notability, particularly in relation to music-related topics.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if any further improvements are required. Sunithashankar (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sunithashankar. The way to get your draft re-reviewed is to pick the big blue button that says "Resubmit".

However, your sources are woefully inadequate.

Citations to selling or listening sites such as Spotify or Apple Music are completely useless, and should never be used. That leaves only two citations, which is not normally enough.

The second has no byline (It is by "Bangalore Newsroom"), and is almost certainly based on an interview or press release, so is not independent.

The first piece I am unable to read, as it displays as an image rather than text, so Google Translate will not interpret it. It is possible that that is an independent reliable source with significant coverage, but even if it is, one source is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about person you appear to have a connection to.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with the neutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may not intend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result in promotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this is still promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.

People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such as the 'general' notability guidelines, the guidelines for notability of companies or organisations, the notability of creative professionals etc. The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here that ChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.

It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being written backwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written. This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise the existing information available about a subject in reliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not to present new information or to synthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you must first search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting the golden rule) and only include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but you must not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to. If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it.

If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.

Writing a COI article

First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this at WP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions at WP:PAID to disclose that also.

Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need to forget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sources first. Remember that those sources need to be reliable, independent and secondary. Avoid trivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type of day-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), you must double-check the sources yourself and verify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.

Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, follow Help:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.

Athanelar (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Tampa International Airport Annual Traffic graph corrections

Hello. Scroll down to Annual Traffic, the graph on the right. How do you access the graph to make corrections or add additional years to the graph? You cant do it through the edit window.Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Theairportman33531. Tampa International Airport#Passenger traffic uses {{Airport-Statistics}} which pulls data from Wikidata. Look for "Wikidata item" on the article. The location depends on your skin. It may in the left pane under "In other projcets" or on a dropdown "Tools" menu at the top right. The link goes to Tampa International Airport (Q571536). See also wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Aviation/Aerodromes. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. Was able to access the Wikidata in reference to Tampa Intl Airport Annual Traffic graph, but the data on the graph doesnt match up for years 2020-2023. Here is the data for years 2020-2023:

• 2020-10,238,151
• 2021-18,115,213
• 2022-21,527,863
• 2023-23,948,889

The years are off, the graph doesnt match whats in the Wikidata. Can you help me with this? Much appreciated.Theairportman33531 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531: The graph shows the data for the following year for 2020, 2021, 2022. I don't know why. 2022 has preferred rank at Wikidata but I don't know whether it matters. Pinging Snævar who has edited the template but only has four edits in the last month. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)