User talk:Nathanluckhurst

This is Nathanluckhurst'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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Morpho (September 18)

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

A large number of the sources you currently have either led to dead links, or had titles that were from articles from different publishers. I've fixed a few, but several I was unable to. Non-existent citations are very often generated by LLMs, and (while I'm not accusing you) I'd greatly discourage their use in working on this draft for reasons such as exactly this. In any case, please fix the remaining citations that I've tagged as "dead link" in the references citation.

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:Morpho 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.

Perryprog (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind and helpful comment Perry.

There shouldn't be any straight-up non-existent citations here so I will clean up the draft and resubmit, thank you very much! Nathanluckhurst (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nathanluckhurst! 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! Perryprog (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Morpho (September 19)

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

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.

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This is just you telling the world about your client, and that is considered pure promotion here. We don't want a company presentation, we want to see what reliable and entirely independent secondary sources have said about this business, and what in their view makes it worthy of note. As it stands, this draft cites no such sources.

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:Morpho 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am struggling to get my head around this exact rejection.

Striking the balance between objective, fact-based entries and what is termed a "company presentation" is a little difficult. It seems that almost every source referenced is an independent, unpaid article published by a trade journalist who deemed the milestones that they were reporting on newsworthy, so if you could provide a little more guidance on what you would feel better satisfies the requirement of neutrality and relevance here?

Thank you! Nathanluckhurst (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]