Draft talk:World Benchrest Championship

Requesting clarification for decline

@Gurkubondinn: I'd like to address both points raised in the decline.

Regarding the LLM flag: this draft was not generated by a large language model - it was researched and written by hand over several days using primary and secondary sources. Happy to discuss any specific concerns you may have regarding the writing.

Regarding notability: the draft cites independent, reliable sources with editorial oversight including CTV News, the Grand Forks Herald, the Otago Daily Times, The Outdoor Wire, and GUNS Magazine. These provide significant coverage of the championship, not just passing mentions. The World Benchrest Championship has been held 17 times over 30+ years, is organised by a governing body representing 35 member countries and has drawn international press coverage across multiple editions.

Furthermore, the World Benchrest Shooting Federation article which describes the governing body contains no mention of the actual championship it was created to administer. The draft I've submitted would help fill that gap while also providing a natural link target for the federation article. Other international shooting sport governing bodies on Wikipedia such as the International Shooting Sport Federation have corresponding articles for their major competitions.

Could you clarify which specific notability criteria you believe are unmet? I'd like to address any remaining gaps. Eraeyyc (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria of being human-written. For starters, it cites sources that do not exist. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn:Interesting, as the article was written by me, so I am confused as to what made you come to the conclusion that it is not human-written. I've also verified every single source that is used (twice), and they are all live links, to real articles - at least three of which are independent and reputable sources, with editorial guidance. Could you please identify which specific source you believe "does not exist?" Thanks for clarifying. Eraeyyc (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Eraeyyc: I didn't see this because your ping didn't work. You have to do a WP:PINGFIX if you add the {{ping}} later. But regarding the sources, they all work for me now. They didn't when I tried them the other day, but that's hardly your fault. They work, but you need to use WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY sources to show notability in the WP:V sense of the word. --Gurkubondinn 17:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the response. To confirm — the sources from CTV News, the Grand Forks Herald, and the Otago Daily Times are all independent publications with editorial oversight, which meets WP:RS. Each provides substantive coverage of the championship, not passing mentions, which meets WP:SECONDARY. I’ve addressed both decline reasons. If there’s a remaining specific objection, could you please identify which source or claim you believe falls short of meeting the criteria? Thank you! Eraeyyc (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are WP:SECONDARY. I was talking about the citations to the website of the championship/league (the same ones that didn't work for me previously). You can plausibly establish notability with citations to those sources, you should just submit it for AfC review and see what the reviewer thinks. --Gurkubondinn 17:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do! Thanks for clarifying :) Eraeyyc (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.