Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gusfriend were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:

It is not clear that the subject meets the notability guidelines for an article and the sources may not meet the reliability requirements of WP:RS due to their self published nature.

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:David Dunbar (mathematician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:David Dunbar (mathematician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mruthsanderson! 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! Gusfriend (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard for me to get secondary sources as the subject (David Dunbar) of my article spent 40 years teaching and not doing a PhD and then producing research papers and/or text books in mathematics. I think that it is very laudable to be teaching the next generation for 40 years, that does not detract from David Dunbar's great achievement of becoming a Senior Wrangler. There is a Wikipage on a Senior Wrangler who became a Brewer but that was accepted. Mruthsanderson (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mruthsanderson! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing thank you very much for your welcome. There is no way at this point I can circumvent the primary source impasse. The School magazine article was published pre-web, the other material is in the school Archive and the Clare College Cambridge material is not web accessible only through the archivist. I have now put in the links to other Wiki articles Best regards, Mark. Mruthsanderson (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard for me to get secondary sources as the subject (David Dunbar) of my article spent 40 years teaching and not doing a PhD and then producing research papers and/or text books in mathematics. I think that it is very laudable to be teaching the next generation for 40 years, that does not detract from David Dunbar's great achievement of becoming a Senior Wrangler. There is a Wikipage on a Senior Wrangler who became a Brewer but that was accepted. Mruthsanderson (talk) 16:30, 20 May 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 Felix QW 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:

Just as Gusfriend below, I doubt that the subject meets the notability guidelines, as there seems to be no independent significant coverage in reliable sources.

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:David Dunbar (mathematician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:David Dunbar (mathematician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Felix QW (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse member,

I wrote an article about someone that taught me at School. It came about that I saw that he was not in the list of Senior Wranglers

on the Wikipedia web site and I knew that he was missing and found out the year he became one. His entry is still Red as

it was not supported by a Wiki article as were others, like Jacob Bronowski who came to my parents house for dinner when I was

young and had an imprortant contribution to WWII work and later produced the excellent series Ascent of Man having made

a career in the Coal Board. I thought that people would be very interested to know about David who dedicated his whole life

to teaching others mathematics and he was a brilliant teacher. He could easily have done a PhD and gone into Mathematical

Research and had plenty of seconday citations. He chose not to, which is very praiseworthy. I have written the article as best I can

and it gets blocked really by Editors that say that his life is not sufficiently notable. I beg to differ on this point and pointed out

another Senior Wrangler that had an interesting professional life with Guiness Breweries and his wiki page was accepted.

Maybe you can help me through this impasse

best regards,

Mark Mruthsanderson (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mruthsanderson. I saw your note on my talk page. I am sorry to disappoint you. Wikipedia uses the word notable differently from standard English (worthy of attention or notice; remarkable). We use it in the sense of already well-known to be worthy of attention or notice. To quote the guideline: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. I have looked for sources that would show this but could find none. Archives and people's memories are not published sources. Articles from the school are not independent. There need to be sources that show that he was already well-known to the wider world as a teacher (very difficult to show for teachers in general). See here for the requirements for an article about university professors for example. He is certainly worthy of attention, but to have an encyclopedia article we need to see that he has already gotten a lot of attention. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear StarryGrandma,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. It is very helpful. I shall read through the section on University Professors it should be helpful.

best regards,

Mark @Mruthsanderson Mruthsanderson (talk) 03:52, 2 August 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 Slywriter 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:

Does not meet WP:GNG and a review of Google Scholar does not show them meeting WP:NSCHOLAR. also notability not inheritable so who they taught does not contribute to notability

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:David Dunbar (mathematician) 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that who one has taught does not contribute to notability is quite frankly absurd. If this is taken up as a criterion then one would not get contributions to

wikipedia regarding teachers and their pedagogy Mruthsanderson (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Socrates and Plato ? Mruthsanderson (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. Wikipedia criteria is that notability is not contagious, hence who taught a person and who that person taught contributes nothing, even if those people are subjects of articles. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2023 (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 Eagleash were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

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:

References need to be placed inline at the points in the text which they are intended to support; see WP:REFB.

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:Stephen Neidle 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eagleash (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of editing the article on Stephen Neidle when you appear to have started reviewing it. I have now finished working on it and put in the references correctly as I was half way through. The article is very reliably supported by his Who's Who entry which is Internationally acknowledged to be a highly reliable Biographical source. In fact one of the most reliable in the World as the Editors go to great length to check that the biographical material is correct as their publication hinges on it ! It is used throughout all Newspapers and publishing houses as a biographical check.

Also by the entries on the UCL website and in the issue Honouring him in Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemical Letters in 1922. Mruthsanderson (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2023 (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 CNMall41 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Subject is notable (h-index of 100+). However, this draft is all WP:OR and some of the content isn't even referenced. I cannot find any secondary sources that would be useful so don't see this being more than a stub. If you can add some secondary sources and cut this down to what those sources support, I think it can be published.

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:Stephen Neidle 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I strongly disagree with this assessment. The content has been well referenced in the references at the end, and his Career has been fully supported as I mentioned above from a biographical point of view by the Who's Who entry, the content of his UCL website, and the biographical issue in Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry in 2022, You really should take a look at similar accepted submissions to wikipedia from people at the forefront on the same field, like Bill Denny (medical researcher), Stephen D. Levine, Donald Crothers, Ignacio Tinoco ... This article I have submitted is adequately supported by reliable sources. Mruthsanderson (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking of this biography as you might of an Artist where someone has written a monograph of the person in question.

In the main this does not hold for scientists except for the likes of Einstein and a scientists standing is based on his research and

the publication thereof. I have given examples of researchers in the same field who have Wiki sites so that you can make a comparison and also I have made more links to other Wiki articles and highlighted these - for examples in the areas of DNA quadruplexes and RNA quadruplexes and their structures. These are very important as they are at the end of chromosomes

and are the focus of anticancer drugs and studies in longevity (correlations with telomere length) Mruthsanderson (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Stephen Neidle. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thereoadislong, Thank you very much for your comments. I have removed the family material from the piece, but I do not understand your comment "Remove the external links as we do not use them" since these links are clearly available with the editor

so that material not already covered within Wikipedia can be accessed. For example in my article there is not an Article on the German Cancer Research Society within Wikipedia and I put in link in my article an extermal link to this ?! Mruthsanderson (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps I could strip out all these external links but it will be a lot of work to put them back if this is deemed necessary, It was a lot of

work to put them in, in the first place. Mruthsanderson (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I shall go ahead and strip them out Mruthsanderson (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Earwigs copyvio detector shows that 48.7% of the content of the draft was copied and pasted from elsewhere, this needs to be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if one has a University biographical website then there is going to be the repetition of a lot of biographical material as it is in common ?! I have not copied and pasted material. Mruthsanderson (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting the same facts is fine, but you can't copy-paste copyright material, and it's clear that you've done that. See this for evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, a number of the sentences appear to be either a word-for-word copy or such a close paraphrasing so as to be still in violation of copyright. The sources can be used as references, but the wording needs to be substantially different, i.e., in your own words. (The "mirror" comment was because in some instances, what it detected by the Earwigs copyright detector is in fact content that was copied FROM Wikipedia and used elsewhere without attribution. I doubt this is the case in the concern raised by Theroadislong.) David notMD (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from 48.7% of the content of the draft was copied and pasted from elsewhere, this needs to be removed/re-written. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Stephen Neidle may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...this will be Rejected and 'salted', meaning that permission to try again will first need an Administrator's approval. Several very experienced Teahouse Hosts have advised you, yet you ignore their guidance. Either learn Wikipedia's requirements or give up. David notMD (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Website https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pharmacy/people/professor-stephen-neidle includes a biography for Neidle that can be used for many of the factual statements in the draft. See Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to use one ref multiple times. Basically, name the ref at first use and ref just the article name for subsequent uses. David notMD (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. Theroadislong (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you make your edit summaries more descriptive, simply saying "various edits" or "more edits" tells users nothing about what you are doing, see Help:Edit summary for more details. Theroadislong (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theroadislong, I was adding back biographical material which had been linked in the text to the reference list. Neidle's UCL

pharmacy site and all its information. Removing the Who's who entry. Adding an article from the Institute of Cancer research bulletin

on this work and adding the reference to his Honour Issue with its historical article written by Helen Berman and Gary Parkinson Mruthsanderson (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mruthsanderson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:David Dunbar (mathematician), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2023 (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 DoubleGrazing was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Almost entirely unreferenced.

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 User:Mruthsanderson/sandbox 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 references which cover this person - I have found another which links to his brother who died at El Alamein

Richard Howard Le Bas. I want to reorder them and wish to put in references [1] again and get an error it forces it to [2].

I would like the article to have these references inserted as below. There is a lot of material on him in references 1.2 and 3.

Michael Henry Le Bas

Air Vice Marshal Michael Henry Le Bas, CB, CBE, DSO (awarded on 14 Nov1944)[1] was nicknamed "Pancho" (2 Sept 1916 –26 January 1988)[1]. Le Bas was a British Royal Air Force (RAF) pilot who flew and fought during the Second World War in England, Malta and North Africa and continued a very successful career post war in the RAF[1],[2],[3].

Early life

Michael Le Bas was born in Rosario, Estado de Santa Fe, Argentina on the 2 Sept 1916[1] to Ricardo and “Minga” Le Bas who lived in the small village of Fisherton outside Rosario close to the Pampa. He spent his early years in Rosario, Argentina, where his father worked for a very successful Grain export company run by a British family, the Parrs. His father Ricardo had been educated at Downside School, Somerset before returning to Argentina. Michael Le Bas travelled from Argentina to England to be educated at Malvern School, Worcestershire (1929-1934). Like many members of the large British community in Argentina (the largest community outside the Commonwealth at this time) he returned to Britain to fight the Axis forces. His brother in the 3^rd King’s Own Hussars was killed at the battle of El Alamein[4].

The Second World War in the RAF

After flying training he joined Squadron No 234 Sqn at Ibsley in September 1941 flying the Mark II Spitfire in Channel patrols. In March 1942 he was transferred to No 610 Squadron and looking for more front line fighting volunteered for service in the Middle East, No 601 Squadron which was re-equipping and embarking their Spitfires on the Air-Carrier USS Wasp in April 1942. On the 20 April they flew off from the carrier to reinforce the defences of Malta. After his stay in Malta in June 1942 which involved heavy dog fighting with German Squadrons flying from Sicily under the direction of General Kesselring[2],[3], the squadron was transferred to the Western Desert where it took part in armed reconnaissance patrols and ground attack missions in support of the 8th Army advance from El Alamein.

Michael spent some time as a flight instructor in Abu Suweir in Egypt and then he was promoted and made Squadron Leader of No 241 Squadron which flew Spitfire VIII/IX's in Italy. Here his squadron supported 57th Bomb Wing, USAAF with Tactical Reconnaissance and Photographic Reconnaissance.  They were based at the US air bases for the results of their reconnaissance were input directly into bombing missions.

The citation for Michael Le Bas’s Distinguished Service Order (DSO)

"LE BAS, Michael Henry, S/L (104423, Royal Air Force) - No.241 Squadron

Since this officer has been in command of his squadron he has taken part in a large number of operational sorties of a varied nature, including shipping and strategical reconnaissances. He has himself led his squadron on long-range low level missions and bomber escorts.  Under his fine leadership the squadron has recently achieved some brilliant successes and has inflicted considerable damage on the enemy's mechanical transport and rail and river communications."

(Source - Air Ministry Bulletin 16313)

Post-World War II

Le Bas was given a permanent commission by the RAF after the war and had various postings prior to the Suez Crisis In 1946 he was on the staff of the Directorate of Organisation (Forecasting & Planning). This was followed (1948-1951) being on the Directing Staff at the RAF Staff College, Bracknell. Then from (Jul 1951 to Apr 1952) on the Training Air Staff at the HQ of the 2^nd Tactical Air Force (TAF). From Apr 1952- 1954 he was Officer Commanding at RAF Wildenrath in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany and then in 1954 to the staff at the School of Land/ Air Warfare till the Suez Crisis[1].

Suez Crisis and afterwards

In 1956 he was Wing Commander, deputy officer commanding, No 215 Wing/RAF at El Gamil, Port Said, Suez, Egypt. Michael Le Bas’s commanding Officer was Group Captain Bill Crawford-Compton. Following the Suez Crisis he spent 1956-1957 returning to the School of Land/Air Warfare and then moved in 1957 to be the Officer Commanding the Administration Wing of RAF Cottesmore till early August 1959 when he became a Staff Office in the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff[1].

This was followed in late August 1959 by his appointment as the Officer commanding RAF Coningsby. Then from late 1961 to late 1963 he was Group Captain - Operations, Head Quarters at Bomber Command. Then for three years Senior Air Staff Office  HQ Air Forces Middle East till June 1966 when he was mad Air Officer in charge of No 1 Group. Then as Air Vice Marshall his final position in 1969 he was Director-General of RAF Personal Services[1].

References

1.   https://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/LeBas_MH.htm

2.   Denis Barnham. Malta Spitfire Pilot. Ten Weeks of Terror April-June 1942, Grub Street Publishing 1956.

3.   John Nichol “Spitfire”, Simon and Schuster, 2018 (Malta, Chapter 6)

4.   https://www.hailsoc.org/kipling-le-bas-roll-of-honour Mruthsanderson (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mruthsanderson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "David Dunbar".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 28 March 2023 (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 DoubleGrazing was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Possibly notable, but the referencing needs improving, as there are several paragraphs and even entire sections without a single citation; also, the 'Career' section has just one cite, and it's in the middle, leaving the remainder of the section unsupported. Where is all this information coming from?

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:Paul S. Freemont 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Neidle, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 13:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mruthsanderson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Mruthsanderson/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2023 (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 DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 User:Mruthsanderson/sandbox 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S. Freemont, 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]