:Finally, in view of the COI, I’ve edited out some promotional language. In this scenario it’s best to stick to the crisp language of an encyclopedia, even to the point of being excessively dry. We can’t hold promotion pieces, and the article at the moment is potentially unbalanced, no bad book reviews or adverse comments. Dry words are difficult one with which to argue. Hopefully the article is OK, but there is another checkpoint – new page patrol – who may raise concerns. [[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 13:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
:Finally, in view of the COI, I’ve edited out some promotional language. In this scenario it’s best to stick to the crisp language of an encyclopedia, even to the point of being excessively dry. We can’t hold promotion pieces, and the article at the moment is potentially unbalanced, no bad book reviews or adverse comments. Dry words are difficult one with which to argue. Hopefully the article is OK, but there is another checkpoint – new page patrol – who may raise concerns. [[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 13:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you! [[User:M.J. Magee|M.J. Magee]] ([[User talk:M.J. Magee#top|talk]]) 14:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you! [[User:M.J. Magee|M.J. Magee]] ([[User talk:M.J. Magee#top|talk]]) 14:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Stephen Dornan|Stephen Dornan]] (December 21) ==
<div style=”border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;”> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by MCE89 was:
{{divbox|gray|3=This submission’s references do not show that the subject [[Wikipedia:Notability|qualifies for a Wikipedia article]]—that is, they do not show ”significant” coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in ”published”, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|”reliable”]], [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary|”secondary”]] sources that are ”[[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]]” of the subject (see the [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|guidelines on the notability of people]]). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see [[Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference|technical help]] and learn about [[Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)|mistakes to avoid]] when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.|}}<!–
—
–> The comment the reviewer left was:
{{divbox|blue|3=Thank you for creating this draft. To show that Dornan meets [[WP:N|Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria]], you need to show that he and/or his writing has received [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] in multiple [[WP:INDY|independent]] and [[WP:RS|reliable]] sources. In this case you would likely either need to either find multiple sources that discuss Dornan himself in detail (see [[WP:NBIO]]), or you would need to show that he has written multiple published works that have each received multiple reviews in reliable sources (see [[WP:NAUTHOR]]).}} 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”.
{{clear}}
* If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to [[Draft:Stephen Dornan]] 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 [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions|may be deleted]].
* If you need any assistance, or have experienced any [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|untoward behavior]] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the <span class=”plainlinks” >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Stephen_Dornan ”’Articles for creation help desk”’]</span>, on the <span class=”plainlinks” >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MCE89&action=edit§ion=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Stephen_Dornan ”’reviewer’s talk page”’]</span> or use [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia’s real-time chat help from experienced editors]].
[[User:MCE89|MCE89]] ([[User talk:MCE89|talk]]) 19:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)</div><!–Template:AfC decline–>
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Festival Irish dance, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 01:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you remove all the research? The existing content was not correct. Angeline King Author (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Reading Beans was:
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.
|
Hello, M.J. Magee!
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! Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 22:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC) |
Angeline King, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
- Thank you for updating the article, which I have now accepted into main space, since I interpret it to meet the notability criteria under WP:AUTHOR.
- A few things to add. Firstly I assume that you are the subject of the article, in which case it is important to declare this under WP:COI.
- Secondly I think the article was declined before was that it was missing some key layouts and settings, which made it very difficult to read, particularly on a laptop. So have a look at the changes I made, it’s not actually a big deal and is quick for me to change, but it may have held you up unnecessarily.
- Two specifics, the parameter url-status is only used if the reference has been sent to the Wayback Machine or Archive Today, to help prevent “link rot”. If the parameter says “live” then it says the original version is ok, if it is “dead” then Wikipedia knows to use the Wayback/Archive version automatically. There is a bot that goes around checking. Some of your press coverage may be at risk of this, but it’s mainly an issue if the source is important to the overarching article, rather than some trivial point. If there is no archive version then “url-status” gets confused, so it should not be used. Just for future reference this. Also JSTOR – great to use that, but just put the last set of numbers after the parameter “jstor=” and Wikipedia will link it in for you. One can’t use a full web address, including JSTOR, with the “via=” parameter, for some reason.
- Finally, in view of the COI, I’ve edited out some promotional language. In this scenario it’s best to stick to the crisp language of an encyclopedia, even to the point of being excessively dry. We can’t hold promotion pieces, and the article at the moment is potentially unbalanced, no bad book reviews or adverse comments. Dry words are difficult one with which to argue. Hopefully the article is OK, but there is another checkpoint – new page patrol – who may raise concerns. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! M.J. Magee (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 was: The comment the reviewer left was:
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.
