User talk:FloridaArmy/Archive 97

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sprague, Alabama (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic 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:
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:
Concerns of previous reviewer not addressed. Needs a lot more refs to establish notability.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharon Hartman Strom has been accepted

Sharon Hartman Strom, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel C. Kincheloe (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Needs more sources to establish notability.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kittie Brighton has been accepted

Kittie Brighton, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waters Turpin (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Doesn't seem to be notable. Needs a lot more sources and a lot of expansion.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: E. C. Perrow has been accepted

E. C. Perrow, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Burrell James has been accepted

Burrell James, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Robert H. Wood

Hello, FloridaArmy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Robert H. Wood".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: George B. Willis has been accepted

George B. Willis, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Doris E. Abramson has been accepted

Doris E. Abramson, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

─ The Aafī (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Waters Turpin (January 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:
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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Resubmitted without improvement to sources. Additional resubmissions without addressing issues will lead to rejection of the draft
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.
Slywriter (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The entry is already well sourced including to an entry entirely about him in an Oxford reference book. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Downing Industrial School has been accepted

Downing Industrial School, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Waters Edward Turpin

I took this one out of AfC and cleared it to the mainspace. I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for starting this article. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Wayne Niles has been accepted

John Wayne Niles, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Drmies (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Wayne Niles (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Article may meet WP:GNG, but definitely needs more sources to back up the article. The Darity source ([1]) may be overused; more sources are needed to back up what it's saying (not many more, but a few). Then it can be accepted!
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Mattdaviesfsic, I just sent this draft into article space. I do not understand why you turned it down. Maybe you thought the writing was bad--well, that can be fixed. But there was plenty of evidence of notability. There is no need for raising standards here above the normal bar. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clinton J. Calloway has been accepted

Clinton J. Calloway, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Drmies (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel C. Kincheloe has been accepted

Samuel C. Kincheloe, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Drmies (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Brazier has been accepted

James Brazier, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Drmies (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Goodbread (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TheChunky were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I resubmitted. He was a three term state legislator in Florida. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Please double check his date of birth. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John G. Marler (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChunky 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:
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:
Citations are subjected to North Carolina not John G. Marler. Please add some WP: SIGCOV which coveres the subject.
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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tipton Female Seminary (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChunky was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 06:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Goodbread has been accepted

Thomas Goodbread, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, FloridaArmy. Thank you for your work on E. C. Perrow. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ways to improve Thomas Goodbread

Hello, FloridaArmy,

Thank you for creating Thomas Goodbread.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Refs #3&5 appear to be blog-type sources, and may not be reliable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DoubleGrazing}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:DoubleGrazing, it looks to me like ref 3 is to the State of Florida Archives which are online as Florida Memory and #5 is a pdf of minutes from a meeting? These cites look A-okay to me. Admittedly citation improvements would be helpful for clarification. Unfortunately that's not my strongsuit and I've had trouble trying to use our ref templates. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I just thought I'd flag that up, as PDF uploads can sometimes be of dubious provenance. If you're satisfied that these sources are RS, then feel free to remove the tag, obvs. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: W. H. Moore (state legislator) has been accepted

W. H. Moore (state legislator), 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canton Mail (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic 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:
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sumner Normal School (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic 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:
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Policy Man (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Confusing... is it the film or the phrase? If it is the film I don't think it's even a stub. Needs to be much, much more clearer on what the focus of the article is.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Artie Young

Hello, FloridaArmy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Artie Young".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and restored this, as it clearly shows promise. BD2412 T 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: North Lenoir High School (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by VickKiang 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:
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:
Currently WP:NSCHOOL (which requires either GNG or NORG being passed) does not appear to be satisified. The refs appear to be databases, routine sport news, or non-WP:SIGCOV announcements primarily quotes, i.e., 1, 2. However, the La Grange reference might be WP:SIGCOV and there are also references from Google Books, 1, 2, that might help in demonstrating a passing of either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Thanks.
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.
VickKiang (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Cherokee One Feather (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Qualla Boundary. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
No independent notability for this paper. Can be covered in a paragraph or section within the existing article.
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.
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Robert T. Bess

Hey, I did some work on Draft:Robert T. Bess, but there is still more work to do. The good news is he does appear very notable, the only black-owned stock brokerage on Wall Street, but also the only NYC black stockbroker (in the 1930s). I moved the development notes to the talk page, as I am still confused about how this person got to the U.S. and his backstory. I will look at it again soon. Feel free to let me know if you have any others that need sourcing or editing. You're doing important work here, just say the word and I am here to support. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Jan 2023 ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slywriter (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Rice Hovey (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it 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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Helping with your drafts

Hello! I saw your discussion w/JimboWales on his talk page and was wondering if you'd be okay if I contributed to some of your ongoing drafts. I can either find sources on the talk page or work on actually writing/fleshing out some articles. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 17:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for you generous offer User:ThadeusOfNazereth. I took some time to reflect how best to respond. I started a list at Draft:Missing Pieces that might be useful. I hope whatever you work on here you find subjexts you enjoy and that interest you. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Langston High School (Arkansas) (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TheChunky 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:
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.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing 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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is in mainspace. Not sure why the redirect was deleted. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Brazier (January 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
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.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
In mainsapce under Killing of.. title. 06:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clinton J. Calloway (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChunky was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing 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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 12:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Entry moved to mainspace. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Terrell Hudgins

I think this was a prodded subject that was deleted and I requested it's restoration. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Okporo (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Turnagra 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:
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:
Article still doesn't have sufficient coverage to demonstrate that it's a notable topic in my view. I'd suggest taking a look at articles for other towns nearby to see what sort of material they cover as a reference.
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.
Turnagra (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alec Lovejoy (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
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.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zoe Vrakatitsis has been accepted

Zoe Vrakatitsis, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Cherokee One Feather has been accepted

The Cherokee One Feather, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John G. Marler has been accepted

John G. Marler, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Cresswell (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it 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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Welch High School (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic 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:
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:
Some sources, but has to be a reason for notability enough for a WP article - if there is one, then it's unclear or unstated.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Missing Pieces

Draft:Missing Pieces, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Missing Pieces and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Missing Pieces during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

An olive branch

I am willing to work with you to move some of your best declined drafts into the encyclopedia.

Articles I have worked on regarding African-American topics, with my percentage of added text

Articles on African topics, with my percentage of added text

Let me know what you think. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

FA, did you know - your creation of The Colored Citizen made me create the three blue links there - and you inspired me to write several articles on other historic newspapers (including the first African-American newspapers of eight states)? Let me know if you write about politicians, newspapers, or periodicals; I can try to take a look. I find the subjects of your articles, like The Phrenological Journal and My Lord's Gonna Move This Wicked Race, particularly important. About once a week, I look over your talk page and read through all the cold (and often wrong) declines and feel hurt - and when I have time, I try to intervene, but time is increasingly short. Keep up with it, stay in touch, and if you feel like I can be useful, I'm only a ping ( and maybe a few days reaction time :p ) away. Urve (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the update and inspiration User:Urve! Draft:Caucasian (newspaper) is a draft I recently submitted. So many interesting and sometimes wild subjects. The influential phrenological newspaper that was published for decades is pretty mind blowing. User:Cullen328 I will take you up on your offer. Please keep in mind that my work is not finished and often I start an entry to get it going because it's been missing. I simply don't have time or resources to perfect every submission. Many are peripheral to what I'm focusing on but I didn't want them to slip through the cracks for another generation. I posted some in progress drafts and redlinks to Draft:Missing Pieces. Feel free to add others you come across. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Old Man Minick has been accepted

Old Man Minick, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sandfield Cemetery has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sandfield Cemetery. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Silberman Gurovich has been accepted

David Silberman Gurovich, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Caucasian (newspaper) has been accepted

Caucasian (newspaper), 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Linkage Templates

You can use the templates {{adddisamb}} and {{addhat}}, as AFC comments, to indicate that an entry should be made in a disambiguation list when a draft is accepted, or that a hatnote should be put at the top of an existing article if a draft is accepted with the same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell Duncan (professor) has been accepted

Russell Duncan (professor), 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Middlefork Savanna has been accepted

Middlefork Savanna, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Old Man Minick (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic 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:
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:
Don't believe this would meet WP:NBOOK
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless our notability criteria have changes user:Mattdaviesfsic I believe a work is notable if it has been adapted into a notable film. This was also adapted into a play and this isnthe entry where it is covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that just after I submitted it! However, the article itself is still badly lacking citations to verify some parts, and apart from adaptations, it's just not very clear what influence - other than the adaptations - the story itself has had. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Mattdaviesfsic does it meet our notability criteria and would it survive at an Articles for Deletion discussion? Like all our entries expansions and improvements are always welcome. It seems quite interesting and influential to me for what that's worth. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It probably does meet the notability criteria; it probably would be redirected or merged at AfD, if not deleted. The plot has no source, and there's not a lot of detail generally - the only 3 sources relate to its adaptations. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
How do we get it to an Articles fo Deletion discussion so we can get broader input [[User::Mattdaviesfsic]]? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I added a couple of sources and accepted it, others free to disagree and take to AFD of course. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mattdaviesfsic basic plots are one of the rare exceptions that do not require sources. See WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. I actually had to do a bit of digging to find it and I am sure it is not common knowledge. The only reason I knew is coming across some discussion somewhere at some point and time (or maybe someone fussed at me at some point for requiring a source?). S0091 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: West Virginia State Museum (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic 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:
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:
See reasons below. Article doesn't demonstrate what it's notable for - not every museum is notable.
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.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James H. Jones (North Carolina politician) has been accepted

James H. Jones (North Carolina politician), 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hal W. Ayer has been accepted

Hal W. Ayer, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

PK650 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about William L. Richter

Hello, FloridaArmy, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username BoyTheKingCanDance, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, William L. Richter, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Richter.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|BoyTheKingCanDance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cuffie Mayo (January 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TheChunky were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Clifton Conference has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Clifton Conference. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clifton Conference has been accepted

Clifton Conference, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, for future reference please do not use Commons as a ref for the same reason as not using Wikipedia as a ref. If you need to use an image in the article from Commons then just add the image. 14:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi User:Blaze Wolf, thank you for approving the draft. I believe I was citing the book that is on Wikipedia Commons as a pdf document? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but you still shouldn't be using commons as a source. If the book is available on commosn then I"m sure it can be found elsewhere. If there's something that says you can use commons as a source in a case like this then please tell me. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I used Commons as a source. I used the book as a source and linked to it on Commons where it is available online as a pdf document. I don't know if the book is available elsewhere, but it's definitely on Commons as an easily accessible pdf file. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah ok so it was intended to be used as something in a further reading section? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
No, I was citing the book. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
sigh Blaze is saying that you need to actually cite the book then, not just link to the Commons copy of the book. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Bare URLs are acceptable (not ideal, but acceptable), and it's fine to link to a source that's hosted at Commons. Linking to a book at Commons in a ref tag is fine. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah ok. I was not aware of that since usually anything related to Wikipedia being used as a source (which is usually what a ref tag is for) is unacceptable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I just added it as an External link given a cite really is not needed for a publication listed in the body as the details of the publication are already there but a link to it is quite helpful so readers can access it. S0091 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The pdf of the book itself is also linked directly from the image. I think the captioning could be better. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy to amend. Suggestion? S0091 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure user:S0091, but I also added the pdf at Clifton, Massachusetts. It seems weird not to say what it is so I'd note the title and say it's a viewable pdf file of the book online? Maybe saying it's viewable is redundant but I'm not sure how to make it clear to readers that they can click on the image and read the book which is pretty awesome. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I did away with the EL section and linked it as part of the publication listing itself. I think that solves it nicely. Duh! S0091 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Someone added a list of attendees. This is terrific! Is the source for the attendees the book? It's fascinating that Union Army general and Freedmen's Bureau head Oliver Otis Howard attended. I think that would be good to note in the article body. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • One other issue is that the entry's last sentence in the body notes that the book documents the proceedings. But it is far more than just a documentation of the proceedings. I believe it includes photos of schools, stuff about Abraham Lincoln, and biographical profiles. This is what makes it such an interesting and important book. I wrote about some of that but maybe it got taken out or needs to be better organized all together. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Mabson (January 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TheChunky were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 09:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Drmies. I had read WP:POLITICIAN before, but upon double-checking the references, I noticed that they are not specifically about the politician in question. I believe that these types of references are considered as passing mentions and may not be suitable for this notability but WP: POLITICIAN says if a politician is national or international level that can be notable. I appreciate your guidance and experience on this matter, and I will continue to learn from you and others in the Wikipedia community. Thanks again! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FloridaArmy/Archive_97&oldid=1138894691"