User talk:Nothingisreal1967

This is Nothingisreal1967's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt 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 passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:GNG, lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Blogsites are not acceptable 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:Nothingisreal1967/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.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nothingisreal1967! 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) 00:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Nothingisreal1967/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Nothingisreal1967/sandbox. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe 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 passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of 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.

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:Nothingisreal1967/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.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Let It Be Beatles (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MicrobiologyMarcus 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

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.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Let It Be Beatles 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.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let it Be Beatles

I'm not an Articles for Creation editor but I do sometimes see when people try to cite blogs. Let me offer two suggestions:

(1) Cite actual newspapers and magazines, anything with an independent editorial voice. The Age has an article. Why wouldn't you cite that? That's the best I can find, but I found it in about 30 seconds searching for {"Graeme Dickenson" 3wrb}.

Anything more regional than The Age can be challenged as hyper-narrow circulation. That won't count towards notability but the regional newspapers can be good for verifiability as long as they aren't just pushing out press releases and interviews with the DJ.

(2) Do your citations as inline citations (footnotes). This requires citations (see point 1).

(Bonus) Per WP:BLOG the use of blogs and self-published content is discouraged, with some exceptions. If Ringo praised the show on his own blog, I'd say cite it.

Find another cite like the Age, find a handful of smaller journalists, and edit them in as footnotes. I'm dubious, but I'm rooting for you. Oblivy (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]