I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to
leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Welcome back
I see that you've been inactive, welcome back. Your edit at
astrology also reflected the sources already used there more than the previous sentence, thanks for that. —
PaleoNeonate –
18:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Lack of
WP:SIGCOV (depth of coverage not sufficient, and some of the used sources are not independent of the subject); subject does not meet
WP:ANYBIO criteria
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Depth of coverage is significant and sources include several reliable newspapers including Now This, Courier Gazette, as well as two book publications. All sources are independent of the subject with the exception of the organization she is part.
Subject is a Creative Professional and meets "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."
The article will be discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna McNeil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Thanks for writing a biographical article about a woman, we need more of that. I hope the deletion discussion does not discourage you. There is a group of us who want to make more articles about women, we hang out at
WP:WOMRED. You are welcome!
CT55555(
talk)
02:26, 20 December 2022 (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 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:Maria Sweeney 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, Kapyidu!
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!01:15, 9 June 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 Ratnahastin was:
Drafts pertaining to
biographies of living people have higher standards standards for acceptance, please cite reliable secondary sources that make more than passing mention of the subject, 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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
Draft:Maria Sweeney 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 pages uses all reliable sources, all of which are publications, and all sources are interviews or book announcements about the subject. Interviews about the subject appearing in Publisher's Weekly or The Philadelphia Inquirer are plainly sufficient.
Kapyidu (
talk)
12:20, 9 June 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 Relativity 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:Maria Sweeney 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 SafariScribe 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:Maria Sweeney 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, this reasoning exhibits bias and is based on deep inaccuracies. These references are explicitly centering the subject. Did you look at the articles before rejecting? Thank you.
Kapyidu (
talk)
16:03, 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 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.
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:Maria Sweeney 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 your review. The reasoning offered here is inaccurate. Did you read the articles before declining? Thank you.
Kapyidu (
talk)
16:16, 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 SafariScribe 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.
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:Maria Sweeney 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 has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use
Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by SafariScribe was: This topic is
not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: From the sources, it is simply concudable that the subject isn't notable, and no amount of sources added will make it either. Source 2 and 3 is about a book written by the subject of this drat, hence has nothing 'extraordinary' about the author. It is either how good the book is or the vice-versa. Source 7, 8, 10—12 are also about the book, though there is about two unreliable source. Source 9 is an interview and per
WP: INTERVIEW, isn't a reliable source (not that they can't be, but for this context). Clarified?
Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!10:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply