User talk:AriLovesTacos

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site (November 29)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 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 passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet 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:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site 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.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AriLovesTacos! 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! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site (November 29)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. 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 Aviram7 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

I saw your draft, Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site, and I really think it is a work of art! I love how it addresses the false assumption in schools. It has some studies behind it too. I saw that it was denied to be an article, which is always hard, but it really is great! I looked at the other article, Reliability of Wikipedia, and it doesn't even include the false assumption in schools! Great job. Please continue your work in creating more masterpieces like this. I can't wait to read your next one! BettyBots (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BettyBots, thank you for your support! I just having to keep trying and see if they will eventually allow me to make my draft into an article. I honestly never see that happening, though, just because of the existence of Reliability of Wikipedia. I don't quite understand why that makes my draft un-publish-able, but I guess it is up to the "professionals." AriLovesTacos (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site[edit]

@AriLovesTacos I notice that you are a relatively new user so you will not be able to edit the article Reliability of Wikipedia yet as it is semi-protected. But this is where you will want to put such content.

I do think the tone is not right for wikipedia though, and did you perhaps generate it with chatGPT? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It actually took me a really long time to write this... Do you have any suggestions for my "tone" then? AriLovesTacos (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AriLovesTacos well the most obvious example is that the title is not encyclopedic. Such a page will likely be hosted here but not in mainspace Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you. See it here User:AriLovesTacos/Wikipedia: a surprisingly reliable site it preserves all the history and you can edit it there. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]