Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reasons left by Theroadislong were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes 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 a large 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 resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Saffronesther/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, Saffronesther!
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! Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 25 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 MCE89 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies 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 meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes 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 resubmit after they have been resolved.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by RangersRus was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by Fermiboson was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies 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 meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about 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:
Does not meet WP:NCORP as most of the sources are either not independent or not about the article subject directly. If you disagree, don't citebomb and instead name the WP:THREE best sources you feel meet the NCORP criteria.
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 it after they have been resolved.
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Grapesurgeon, left the following feedback:
provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.
Still haven't adequately proven notability by independent secondary coverage. Please add more coverage before resubmitting. The coverage needs to be discussing the organization in depth too; it can't just be a passing mention.
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, CopyleftEverything, left the following feedback:
This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.
Current draft fails WP:GOLDENRULE of WP:SIGCOV from multiple WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Coverage in these sources is either not substantial or is a WP:INTERVIEW (ie, a primary source). Please find RS with SIGCOV and resubmit.
