User talk:Jlocklear51

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 23)

[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 Dan arndt 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 for sports persons and athletes). 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:
Wikipedia does not support the posting of personal autobiographies - clearly WP:SELFPROMOTION.
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.
Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jlocklear51! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello Jlocklear51! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Requesting Neutral Review and Submission of Draft: Kiara Locklear (nee Pralle), has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 28)

[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 DoubleGrazing 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:
Footy players must satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to User:Jlocklear51/sandbox, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove previous AFC templates showing the draft's history. Thank you. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 10)

[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 CNMall41 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:
This is a tough one. She plays at the highest level and based on the mentions in the press, is likely one of the best players (at least on the team). What is hard is because she still must have significant coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. It's disheartening to see that the news media is not writing more in-depth articles about her.
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.
CNMall41 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kiara Locklear (2) (August 9)

[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 Gheus 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.
Gheus (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]