Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Qcne 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:Massimo Filippini 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, Leaschlatter!
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)10:03, 24 April 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 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:Massimo Filippini 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.
What is your connection to Massimo Filippini? Based on the edits to the draft you submitted, it would appear you may have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 26 April 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 Superboilles 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:
You need to document the article with references that are centered on M.Filippini (e.g., a profile in Bilanz, a description of his work in a mainstream publication). Anywhere that has no connection (and therefore no potential Conflict of interest in publishing a profile). This means that ETH and other former employers are not acceptable in that regard.
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:Massimo Filippini 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 reasons left by Greenman were:
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:Massimo Filippini 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 Superboilles 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:
Same as before. Please do not attempt again lest we request this page to be blocked and your account banned.
If you are Mr. Filippini's Research Assistant then please understand having you create his bio is highly inappropriate.
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:Massimo Filippini 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. To answer your question, you need to understand the difference between M.Filippini being interviewed on SRF as a subject-matter expert, and SRF doing a feature segment on him specifically. Both SRF segments quoted in your draft discuss carbon taxation (or related topics), not this gentleman's life and achievements. Superboilles (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply and the clarifications. I have edited the draft accordingly.
Looking at theWP:NACADEMIC, I think that Massimo Filippini check the points 4 (Full professor at ETH Zurich), 5 (Full professor at ETH Zurich, Direct of the chair of Energy Policy and Economics) and 8 (associate editor for the Journal of Productivity Analysis, and part of the editorial board of some journals such as the Energy Journal, and Energy Efficiency). Would you have any more comments before resumbitting the draft?
I apologize in advance if what I am going to write feels harsh, but I have the uneasy feeling that you are doing your best to not understand what has been told to you multiple times. Wikipedia requires independent, third party sources discussing MF's general biography. When I write independent, third party sources, I mean generic media such as Bilanz, NZZ, Le Temps, Forbes, FT, etc. An outlet where he worked and/or published is not independent in that regard.
Where and when he was born, grew up, whether he's married or not: those are basic informations that any subject-centric mass media would want to mention, if only in passing. You provided zero reference to those elements because quite frankly nobody cares and this makes it the textbook example of someone that is not notable (which is not a judgement on his academic merits - it simply is the world we are living in). I also disagree with my fellow editor at the AFC helpdesk as to whether NACADEMIC is at least partly met.
What you are trying very hard to push is little more than a CV puff piece, as evidenced by the very references you used in your draft to describe his academic background (refs. 4 & 7). Four different editors have told you that he did not make the cut. I think it is high time you consider taking no for an answer. Superboilles (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
