Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing 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)
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Infolegale 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.
Hello :) Thank you for all the information and the advices on how to improve my article. I just edited it adding more references from indepedent, well known medias that, in my mind, meet all four previously mentioned criteria. Hopefully they will make the article more qualified for Wikipedia? Also, I added more links. Is it okay if I resubmit it now? Thank you very much in advance for your help! Pauaime (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pauaime!
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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :) Thank you for all the information and the advices on how to improve my article. I just edited it adding more references from indepedent, well known medias that, in my mind, meet all four previously mentioned criteria. Hopefully they will make the article more qualified for Wikipedia? Also, I added more links. Is it okay if I resubmit it now? Thank you very much in advance for your help! Pauaime (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you're welcome to resubmit the draft whenever you feel you have sufficiently addressed the decline reasons. However, just to say that you have made no new edits to it since I declined it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 12 December 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 BuySomeApples 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:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Infolegale 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.
Can you please tell me more about what is going wrong with the sources? I triple checked everything and every source is an article from a secondary source, is reliable, and indepedent, except for the press release, which comes from the NextStage Fund website. Is it because of the PR ? Because there are a lot of Wikipedia articles using press relases as sources, that's why I thought it was alright.
As regards the format, I rewrited in a more encyclopedic way.
