Your recent article submission to
Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject
qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published,
reliable,
secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the
guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see
technical help and learn about
mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Fails
WP:NAUTHOR - Wikipedia and the author's publishers are not acceptable or independent secondary sources.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
User:Owikiskichikew/sandbox 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.
Hello, Owikiskichikew!
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!
Dan arndt (
talk) 01:31, 3 April 2024 (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 Bearcat was:
This is depending far too heavily on
primary sources that are not support for notability at all. For instance, you do not establish a writer as notable enough for a Wikipedia article by citing her writing to itself, or to its promotional profile on the
self-published website of its own publisher, or to an online bookstore, as proof that the writing exists -- you have to cite her writing to third-party journalism about her and her writing, such as reviews of it by literary critics, as proof that it garnered independent attention from somebody other than herself and her employer. And while there are a few sources scattered in here that do meet that standard, such as the National Post and The Globe and Mail and the CBC, they're extremely outnumbered by the bad primary sourcing that's making up the majority of the footnoting here. The rule isn't that an article is allowed to be based mainly on bad sourcing so long as there's a bit of GNG-worthy stuff in the mix -- it's that the article has to be based entirely on GNG-worthy sourcing with no bad sourcing in it at all.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
Draft:Jowita Bydlowska 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.