User talk:CanadianLit

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tanner James (June 17)

[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 Rambley 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.
Rambley (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, CanadianLit! 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! Rambley (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tanner James (June 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic 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.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Dubois formatting of sources that are mostly dead links plus other tells, plus gptzero agrees - pure LLM/AI slop
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Tanner James has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tanner James. Thanks! LR.127 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tanner James (June 26)

[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 Cabrils 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:
Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCORP) but presently it is not clear that it does.

‘’’Firstly, this draft has previously been declined three times, following each time you removed the 'draft declined' notification: do NOT remove these notifications, they are a record of the page history and are highly relevant to reviewers of the draft.’’’ As other reviewers have noted, As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. The image used likely breaches copyright, which Wikipedia takes seriously, so should be removed unless clear evidence of its legal use is provided. If it is indeed the draft's author's "Own work" then the author clearly knows the subject and has a conflict of interest that must be declared (see details below). In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject. Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc). Please note that many of the references are not formatted correctly (see Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help).

Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not; and contains prose that is
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.
Cabrils (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]