Draft:Joe Calhoun
| Submission declined on 24 September 2025 by Wikishovel (talk). Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Joe Calhoun instead.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
| Submission declined on 11 September 2025 by Theroadislong (talk). 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. This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. Declined by Theroadislong 12 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 11 September 2025 by Anachronist (talk). 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. Declined by Anachronist 12 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 10 September 2025 by Theroadislong (talk). 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. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by Theroadislong 13 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 10 September 2025 by RangersRus (talk). 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. Declined by RangersRus 13 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 10 September 2025 by Aviationwikiflight (talk). The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by Aviationwikiflight 13 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 9 September 2025 by Keironoshea (talk). 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. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by Keironoshea 14 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 1 September 2025 by Rambley (talk). 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. Declined by Rambley 22 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 1 September 2025 by Reading Beans (talk). 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 content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by Reading Beans 22 days ago. | |
Comment: I don't know if I'll be accepting this, but the PennLive story ("What's next...") is clearly SIGCOV and the newspaper refs add up to what is arguably a WP:GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Facebook and YouTube are not reliable sources you are wasting everyone's time here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: zero improvement, the next time you re-submit with little change it will be rejected. You are wasting reviewer time. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: WGAL is NOT an independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: You changed a few words and utterly failed to address the reason (sourcing) why this has been declined multiple times. All you did this time was change a few words. Don't waste a reviewer's time with a further submission until you have found sources that confirm notability, and filled in citations where they are needed (or remove uncited statements) to comply with WP:BLP. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I find it rather bizarre that you have included citation required tags, surely you know where the content comes from? Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Content like "A family man, Calhoun always thinks of his family first" is totally ridiculous in an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Much of the article is unsourced. The entire early life section is unsourced and huge chunks of later paragraphs are unsourced. I am also dubious of the tone used throughout; known for his accurate and insightful forecasts and Joe looked back on his extraordinary career and how his mentorship built a successful weather team of young weather broadcasters are not very neutral to me. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
References
[edit]{{draft categories|