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

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

Hello Accesscrawl. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Watershed Organisation Trust is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Watershed Organisation Trust will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 9 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

Hello Accesscrawl. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Boris Bojović is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Boris Bojović will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 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

alright, I'll stop Accesscrawl (talk) 02:48, 16 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

I have just revised and added/deleted any verifiable information, replacing sources (especially the "Investigation", "Accident" and the "Lawsuit" section), can you revert back the reject? Ohok12 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Accesscrawl (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ohok12 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Accesscrawl, thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation August Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 3000 drafts already. We have around 1300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in the next 10 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to help make it happen – if everyone who signed up to the drive reviewed just 1–2 drafts a day for the next ten days, we'd be down to zero in no time! A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest, or you can find a random submission here. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply