User talk:RitaTBC

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, RitaTBC! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oliver Charles Hughes (May 19)

[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 Paul W 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:
Draft references appear heavily reliant upon employer PR/marketing including interviews provided to various fintech channels (press releases, etc are not independent or reliable), with several being interviews - per WP:IV: "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source." Care is also needed with statements that could be construed as promotional or corporatespeak.
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.
Paul W (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, RitaTBC! 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! Paul W (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oliver Charles Hughes (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 Alpha3031 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:
Please note that "Notability" and "Significant" coverage as used on Wikipedia is jargon meaning coverage that discusses and analyses a subject directly and in detail. The Bloomberg article has two short mentions of Hughes, para. 1 and 3, with little analysis, the rest being quotes, and very little if any of it is analysis. Same applies to bne.
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.
Alpha3031 (tc) 14:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]