Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet 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.
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:Microskiff 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.
Hello, I'm a bit lost on the references as they are directly related to the article and are independent of the subject. What should they look like specific to this article? IMacattack (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, for showing notability normally 3+ good sources are required. You have one real source and one from a non independent source that is also just a forum post. KylieTastic (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, not sure exactly how to process this as the term "Microskiff" was created by this online community almost 20 years ago. The term Microskiff really didn't exist until a group of us independently got together and created it. Now it's a widely used and well understood term to describe a specific niche within the general boating lexicon. We are the source for this term. Thus the forum where it originated (old posts are not available due to platform changes) is the most trusted, in-depth and reliable source. The term did not exists within the boating industry nor was it used before this time. IMacattack (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IMacattack!
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! KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer 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 passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet 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.
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:Microskiff 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by NegativeMP1 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.
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:Microskiff 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.
I have thoroughly reviewed the provided help materials and have revised the cited sources multiple times. However, each rejection continues to use the same boilerplate response without providing specific, direct examples of where or how the sources need to be adjusted. This process is beginning to appear subjective and arbitrary.
I formally request detailed, specific examples, resource by resource, explaining how they need to be modified in order to meet the approval criteria. Despite carefully reviewing the referenced help materials multiple times, they do not clarify how my cited sources fail to meet the required standards.
Furthermore, none of the sources cited are "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." To suggest otherwise is an entirely erroneous claim. A minimal amount of research by the reviewer would have revealed this before making such a baseless assertion. This is a serious and concerning accusation without any supporting evidence. I respectfully request that this statement be removed from the rejection, or that the reviewer provide concrete evidence proving that I am the creator of the cited sources. This raises concerns regarding the neutrality of the review process and the lack of thorough research conducted in approving or rejecting articles on this platform.
Additionally, the reviewer stated:
"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."
If the reviewer is unfamiliar with the topic, a minimal effort to research the subject would be beneficial before making such a claim. The assertion that there is an "appearance" of an advertisement without substantiating evidence only reinforces the perception of subjective bias in the review process.
I look forward to receiving a response with direct, specific, and objective recommendations for passing the approval process. Additionally, I request that any claims made against my submission be supported by research and evidence.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples 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)
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.
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:Microskiff 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.
