Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dwayne Johnson-Cochran 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.
You rejected this new article submission on the following stated basis:
<<This submission's references... do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject>>
The nature of the cited sources provided in this submission *flatly contradict* the above-referenced characterization. Here is further background on those sources and the specific provided references:
1. CHICAGO TRIBUNE: An extensive, praising film review and profile in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE of the Subject's 2014 documentary. The Subject was interviewed for this profile and review, and is extensively quoted. The CHICAGO TRIBUNE is Chicago's leading daily newspaper. Chicago is America's third largest city, and its population is bigger than San Francisco, Washington DC and Boston *combined.*
2. CHICAGO DEFENDER: An extensive interview and profile of the Subject, with large original photograph. The CHICAGO DEFENDER, continuously published since 1905, is perhaps America's most famous and storied African American-owned newspaper.
3. AXIOS: Axios is a major online news site, owned by Cox Communications (one of America's largest media conglomerates). Axios's focus is short news stories of 300 words or less. The cited story cites the Subject's film, HEIST 88, as notable, and includes a large, prominent photograph of the Subject screenwriter (such photographs of a screenwriter or filmmaker are unusual). This, too, is not an "in passing mention," but is in fact "significant coverage," especially in light of Axios's well-known short news story format.
All three of the above citations completely meet ALL your stated criteria:
-- Published, reliable secondary sources
-- Entirely Independent of the Subject
-- Significant Coverage (not "passing mention")
I respectfully request that you please *explain* how any of the above three citations fail to meet your stated criteria.
Additional cited sources include Voice of America, another "published, reliable secondary source" that is entirely "independent of the subject."
Finally, two of the Subject person's cited films or television series programs are themselves the subject of separate, individual Wikipedia articles, both of which mention the Subject. The Subject, Mr. Johnson-Cochran, received "Created By" credit for the cited primetime NBC Television series MINOR ADJUSTMENT: "Created By" credit is the highest credit a television screenwriter can receive, and this credit is rarely awarded. In the Television industry, money, authority, and prestige are directly tied to the specific credit a writer receives.
Once more, I respectfully request that you *provide a specific explanation,* in light of the verifiable information I have provided here, that the citations provided can be characterized as anything less than:
Hello, GAWebber2!
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! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ratnahastin 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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dwayne Johnson-Cochran 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.
