User talk:Stakhoverflow

This is Stakhoverflow'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: Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Analytics User Group (AIDAUG) (September 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne 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)
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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Does not yet pass WP:NORG as all your sources are primary (other than source #2, which seems irrelevant?). Please also remove the external links from the body of the text, see WP:EXTERNAL.

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:Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Analytics User Group (AIDAUG) 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.

Qcne (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stakhoverflow! 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! Qcne (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qcne and thank you for the quick feedback! I've mostly been consuming Wikipedia content - like most people out there - and this is the first time I've had a chance to really get a feel for what goes on in the backend and just wanted to acknowledge the work that goes on behind the scenes. I had no idea the levels of edit oversight, communication and workflow that exist (including areas like teahouse). Very cool stuff, and thank you for being one of the volunteers to make this all happen for Wikipedia's users. As for my page submission, I did have a question about one of your comments: you stated that my source #2 is irrelevant. I put that in to substantiate the statement that AI has really become a focal point of attention for mainstream consumers, much more so than in past years. This is a claim that I felt needed to be substantiated by evidence, otherwise it could just be written off as my own opinion. I looked for a source that was legitimate and could substantiate that claim with data. It seemed that the Forbes link had fit that criteria. In light of that, would you still consider it irrelevant? I totally understand your general critique in that sources for the user group itself need to be independent, secondary, reliable and in-depth. I am working on furnishing those, but just wanted to settle the question about source #2. Stakhoverflow (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stakhoverflow.

I meant irrelevant to establishing notability for the organisation. Sorry, I could have been more clear for sure. You are right that the claim should be cited. I do have a worry about using Forbes, though. If you look at the author, it is a "Contributor" which means basically a member of the public writing for Forbes. Although it was apparently reviewed by a Forbes editor, I do wonder how much editorial oversight there is? What makes Kathy a reliable commentator on this topic? Check out WP:FORBES. A better source would be ideal. Qcne (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Analytics User Group (AIDAUG)[edit]

Hello, Stakhoverflow. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Analytics User Group (AIDAUG), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Analytics User Group (AIDAUG)[edit]

Hello, Stakhoverflow. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Analytics User Group".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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!} 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]