Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Jovanmilic97 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. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). 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 when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:National Native American Veterans Memorial, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Hello, RedFeatherFriend!
Having an article 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! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your unanswered request on the IRC #wikipedia-en-help channel, but I saw it too late; you had already given up and left. That's okay, coverage has been a bit sparse on the channel, but when someone, as you did, follows the instructions and posts a link about the issue they want help with, we can followup.
I imagine you are feeling a bit frustrated by the decline on your draft about the memorial. The boilerplate instructions are somewhat terse and jargon-filled, so the meaning is not always clear.
In short, the main problem with your draft is that it relies on a single reference put out by the sponsoring institution. All by itself, this sort of reference cannot establish notability, a key component of what makes a Wikipedia article possible. We expect to see secondary coverage, usually in the press about new things (we like to see books and journal articles for older topics). Speaking in depth about a subject that does not yet exist must be done very carefully, so as not to have it sound like Wikipedia is promising that a future event will occur (see CRYSTAL).
So, there should be some newspaper coverage about the legislative journey to authorize this memorial that you can use, summarized in your own words, to write about it. If there was a design competition, there might be some discussion of that. Those are the sorts of sources you would need for this article to be accepted – it's this coverage by what we call "reliable, independent sources" that makes or breaks notability.
