Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bakhtar40 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies 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)
Make sure you add references that meetall four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes 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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Legora 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 andmay be deleted.
Hello,Neilyoung77!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 theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Bakhtar40 (talk)09:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by alarge language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Legora 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 andmay be deleted.
You may want to consider using theArticle Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed onDraft:Legora requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated bylarge language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by anyreasonable human review:
Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that aredead on arrival,ISBNs with invalidchecksums, and unresolvableDOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer fromlink rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.
Text produced by these applications can beunsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.
If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at theTeahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions.Sophia∠θ pr′me17:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies 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)
Make sure you add references that meetall four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes 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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Legora 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 andmay be deleted.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:
This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies 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)
Make sure you add references that meetall four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by alarge language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Legora 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 andmay be deleted.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Niafied was:
This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies 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)
Make sure you add references that meetall four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes 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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Legora 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 andmay be deleted.
Hello Neilyoung77. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made toDraft:Legora, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia'smandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category ofconflict 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 onneutral point of view and whatWikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; theWikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin toblack-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on thetalk 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 thearticles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you arerequired by theWikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page atUser:Neilyoung77. The template{{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:{{paid|user=Neilyoung77|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.Niafied (talk)07:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - this was a genuine error on my part! Legora is one of my agency's clients but they do not cover all of my contributions to Wikipedia. Hence I had added the paid disclosure saying I was paid by my agency firstlight only. I have now added the full disclosure which mentions Legora. In any case I was very much aware I shouldn't create an article directly, hence the AFC submission.
Regarding the submission, I see you have declined it based on notability. I am not sure where to go from here as the sources are reputable and many are in-depth. Legora is one of the leading platforms in the legal tech space. Coverage is rapidly accumulating so I will review and add more relevant citations as they arise before resubmitting – or would you recommend a different approach?
Many thanks for taking the time to review the submission and I really appreciate you pointing out my error.
I've worked on the draft to address the notability concerns. Just wanted to share a summary of what i've done below to get your thoughts before resubmitting:
- Cited two Financial Times articles which give substantive coverage of Legora
- Minor tweak to remove language which could be construed as promotional
- Added an external link to a CEO interview for added context
I also had a question about including a citation from Substack to verify the details of a Reddit AMA. I know Substacks can be considered self-published. Do you think permissible to include in this limited context, or would it be safer to remove the AMA mention entirely?
Great work! I think adding those sources will help with notability so that it's probably ready to be resubmitted. I would avoid self-published sources whenever possible. It won't help with notability and an argument could be made that if it were worth mentioning, a reliable source would mention it. Is it absolutely necessary to include that information? If not, maybe best to leave it out.Niafied (talk)04:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Niafied! I've taken out the AMA mention for now. It adds some interesting context but hasn't been mentioned beyond that self-published substack. Really appreciate your advice. The draft has now been resubmitted.
