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:
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:Gabriele Scheler 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.
There are many reliable sources here: peer-reviewed articles, patent applications, articles that were referenced on wikipedia pages (this is how I found out), there is a link to a podcast, and there is a non-profit with a board of many scientists which has been offering scholarships since 2016. She is president of the non-profit. Clearly information about such a person is relevant to wikipedia. Once the page is there, others will probably contribute. 79.199.170.144 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 79.199.170.144!
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! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:22, 6 July 2024 (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 CanonNi was:
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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Her own publications do not establish notability. (see WP: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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gabriele Scheler 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.
As stated above, the scientist in question is also head of a non-profit research organization see above, and she has been interviewed in a podcast. The non-profit has been offering scholarships since 2016 and clearly the founder is notable and of interest. She has been working at Stanford, the Salk institute and Berkeley, and there will be more information once the page is out. By blocking the page from appearing you just make it more difficult for people to find information about her. She is very active on social media (check it out). People do want to know about Gabriele Scheler, maybe you should start looking at how often this page gets accessed once it is out. 79.199.170.144 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the 8 criteria, this scientist would fulfill criterion 8, except that she is not editor of a journal but head of a research organization. This is not listed but it is clearly equivalent. 79.199.170.144 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She founded and is president of the organization. You admit that it is a notable organization, so the president should have an entry. There is already one independent reliable source which discuss her work with significant coverage. It is not just any university, these are top worldwide universities, and she ran an organization at one of them. It is ok to wait until the next independent reliable source appears. I was told that it takes 4 months to review an entry. Instead it was a few hours. I complained to the editor that there may be a competitor behind the anonymous person in order to limit the outreach of the non-profit by denying the founder sufficient background information. Also, the rejector seems to think that the fabric of persons she is linked with does not matter. This is not just any academic. Please read the text carefully. 79.199.170.144 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AlphaBetaGamma 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 (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:
The amount of resubmissions makes me question if you have read the comments left by Cabrils. Since this draft is a biography of a living person, you really would want to cite most claims with a reliable source if you want this article to pass, especially at "Early life and education" section where there is just a single Youtube link.
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:Gabriele Scheler 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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:
There are zero independent reliable sources here?
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:Gabriele Scheler 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.
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
