Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt 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 for sports persons and athletes). 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:Pat Bastien 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, DCfootball09!
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! Dan arndt (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, DCfootball09! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Entire sections are unsourced, and there are no links in the article, for example there are multiple forms of football.
See also WP:COI.
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:Pat Bastien 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.
Pat Bastien, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Please stop removing the "promotional language" template from an article you created, and let other people judge if the text is sufficiently neutral. The article still reads like a promo piece written by the university, not a neutral encyclopedic description. Fram (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your candid feedback. I am still learning, and was under the impressing I was addressing the flag as stated in the linked article of the message. A different individual took the time to explain the issue and why it was was important for the template to be removed by someone else. I will continue to work through the edits on the article. Be blessed. DCfootball09 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While less obvious, this also seems to be a problem with your previous article, Pat Bastien. You sourced the text
"As a coach, Bastien is known for his emphasis on discipline, routine, and player development. His coaching style is focused on building strong defensive units, and he has been praised for his ability to mentor young players, particularly in his recent work with the New York Jets' secondary."
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.
Hello DCfootball09, I just wanted to clarify that you can remove the "proposed deletion" tag if you think the article shouldn't be deleted. If you don't do antyhing, the article will be deleted automatically in a week. If you remove the "proposed deletion" tag, it's very likely that the nominator will start a discussion-based deletion process at Articles for Deletion instead, where you would be asked to show the secondary sources that demonstrate how Craddock meets the "notability" criteria. If there ends up being a discussion, wikipedians will be looking for detailed, independent articles that are directly about Craddock. I searched at Newspapers.com and did actually find some: [1][2][3][4]. But, they are for relatively minor activities like getting an internship, and in a quite small local paper, so I don't know how persuasive people will find them. Usually a notable academic is more like William F. Wells. Let me know if you have any questions about Wikipedia's notability expectations or deletion processes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
