User talk:LewisDGKCSA

This is LewisDGKCSA's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fade258 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It requires more reliable and independent references to 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:LewisDGKCSA/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.

Fade258 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LewisDGKCSA! 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! Fade258 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fade. I appreciate your feedback. I resubmitted with significantly more and more impactful sources. I hope this meets Wikpedia's rigorous standards.

Respectfully,

Lewis LewisDGKCSA (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: KCSA Strategic Communications (July 7)

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

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.

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:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing

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.

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:KCSA Strategic Communications 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.

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ari Tuckman, PhD (July 7)

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

See WP:NACADEMIC. All your sources are just interviews.

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:Ari Tuckman, PhD 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.

qcne (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi @LewisDGKCSA. Please check the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Currently all your references are formatted strangely. qcne (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

qcne, thanks for your rapid review of my submission. I'm a bit confused as Ari has published 5 books (a sixth is on the way) and has been cited in dozens of articles, plus his inclusion into CHADD (Children & Adults with ADHD--ADHD advocacy nonprofit)

Adult ADHD Support Group Facilitator (2000-2005)

Teen ADHD Support Group Facilitator (2005-2009)

Conference Committee Member (2010-2015)

Board Member (2014 - 2017)

Conference Committee Co-Chair (2015 - present)

Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADHD advocacy nonprofit)

Board of Directors (2007-2008)

Vice President (2008-2010)

Understood.org: expert (2024-present)

Pennsylvania Psychological Association: Psychology in the Media Award (2011)

CHADD (Children & Adults with ADHD--ADHD advocacy nonprofit): Hall of Fame (2023)

I'm happy to resubmit. Thanks for reviewing the above and for your work on behalf of wikipedia. LewisDGKCSA (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LewisDGKCSA Being an author of books isn't a criteria in itself, and I don't think he meets the other criteria under WP:NACADEMIC? At least, the sources you used don't evidence meeting any of the other criteria.

If he can't meet WP:NACADEMIC, then we default to WP:GNG which means we're looking for a minimum of three sources that are each indepednent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. That specifically excludes interviews.

I will also note, as I think you are being paid to write an article on Dr Tuckman, that you will be under a much greater degree of scrutiny than "normal" editors. qcne (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and for clarifying the standards.

Just to confirm, I am not being paid for this submission—I'm a friend of Ari's and am voluntarily disclosing a connection out of an abundance of caution regarding Wikipedia’s COI policy.

Regarding notability: I agree that book authorship alone isn't enough for academic notability. I was aiming to demonstrate notability under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 7 (substantial public impact as an academic expert). However, I understand that if you feel the sources do not establish that, the default is WP:GNG.

With that in mind, I believe the draft meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), since there are several independent, reliable, and substantial sources with significant coverage of Dr. Tuckman—not just interviews or passing mentions.

For example:

Multiple features in The New York Times (e.g., Reese, 2024; Caron, 2022), where Dr. Tuckman is cited as an expert and original researcher.

National features in The Washington Post (Maguire, 2022), Men’s Health (Zane, 2019), USA Today (Trepany, 2025), and CNN (Kerner, 2018).

All these sources are fully independent and cover Dr. Tuckman’s research and public education work in depth. If you see a specific gap in the sourcing or in how the criteria are being applied, please let me know which sources you don’t find sufficient, and I will do my best to address it directly. LewisDGKCSA (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know you're not being paid to edit.

Regarding GNG and using the sources cited in order:

Reese, 2024: Has quotes from Dr Tuckman but no coverage of him.
Caron, 2022: Brief review of his book, then a quote from him. Not significant coverage.
Maguire, 2022: Brief quotes from Dr Tuckman, not independent.
Zane, 2019: Quotes from Dr Tuckman. Does have a little bit of analysis, but still not independent.
Trepany, 2025: Brief quotes from Dr Tuckman, not independent.
Kerner, 2018: Brief quotes from Dr Tuckman, not independent.

I am not seeing any independent significant coverage in these sources. We very specifically do not want interviews: we want sources that go into depth about him and his work. qcne (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed review and for clarifying the requirements regarding independent, significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG. I understand that interviews and passing mentions do not meet the standard for notability, and I appreciate your specific feedback on each of the sources provided.

At this time, I do not have additional independent, in-depth sources about Dr. Tuckman beyond those already reviewed. Unless such sources can be identified, I accept that the subject does not currently meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article. That said I have asked Ari for any coverage ABOUT him not just quoting him. If he provides them to me I will update this submission.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. LewisDGKCSA (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]