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:

Please carefully read our WP:NPEOPLE criteria.

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:Monica McGoldrick 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) 18:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Suelica! 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! Qcne (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Suelica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Qcne (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

You didn't bother to read our WP:NPEOPLE criteria did you.

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:Monica McGoldrick 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) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I read the article in WP:NPEOPLE (criteria for a biography), and I thought that by adding three citations (references 1, 2 and 3) I was demonstrating independent sources. However, apparently I am not understanding something.

Can you please help me - what else is needed to make this a better entry?

thank you for any suggestions.

Sueli Suelica (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I do not understand why this article is not appropriate.

Can you let me know why this page does not qualify? I would like the opportunity to make changes or corrections.

thank you. Sueli— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suelica (talk • contribs)

There are several issues with the content that you had on your userpage.

• The biggest concern I had that lead to me deleting it is that it appears to have been copied from Karl Petry's website. This is a copyright violation, and could lead to legal issues. Please do not copy and paste content from elsewhere into Wikipedia.
• The next concern that I had was that the text appeared to be promotional in nature, which makes sense if it was copied from his website. The purpose of his website is to promote his services as a clairvoyant. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, providing neutrally-written summaries of what other sources have said about a topic.
• You mention above that you have read WP:NPEOPLE. That is a good start. You say you thought that by providing three citations you were demonstrating independent sources.
  • I will note that what I deleted cited 6 sources, 3 of which were written by Petry. Those three are not independent. We need to summarize what people with no connection to him have said about him, not what he has said about himself. Of the remaining three:
    • "Jersey psychic has a few ghost stories for you". nj. 2018-10-10. Retrieved 2023-12-10. - This might be an acceptable source. I'm concerned about the lack of a by-line on it. It's the type of credulous, fluffy, local-news reporting that articles on paranormal topics often get criticized for over-reliance on, so I wouldn't build an article on just sources like this, but it's a start.
    • I don't have ready access to the two sources written by Rosemary Ellen Guiley; so I have trouble evaluating them. Please understand, offline sources are perfectly acceptable to use, but it does make it harder for people to evaluate your article. Looking at The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits's listing on Amazon, I think you would have some trouble convincing skeptical editors that it meets the standard of reliabilty though.
• You put your draft content on your userpage. Your userpage is meant to tell the Wikipedia community a little bit about yourself in the context of your editing here. It's not intended as the location of draft articles. This in and of itself is not a big deal - I really deleted this because of the copyvio more than anything else, but if you try again I reccomend putting a draft in draft space. You can use the Wikipedia:Article_wizard to get started.
• I'm a little concerned you may either be Karl Petry, or that you are working for him. If so, please read the policy on conflict of interest editing and the policy on paid editing, and make the necessary disclosures. Also read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
• If you really want to continue trying to write an article about Karl Petry, I suggest you forget everything you know about him, and write it by summarizing only the information from the three independent sources you used. Do not write anything from your personal knowledge, do not use anything from his website or anything else he or his team have written or produced, and include a citation to the source from which you found each and every fact you put in the article. You can cite the same source more than once by using named references. Do not put any external links in the body of the draft, and avoid adjectives.

Good luck! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:26, 13 December 2023 (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 Seawolf35 were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:

WP:NPEOPLE is still not met.

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:Monica McGoldrick 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.

Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Monica McGoldrick. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will continue to work on this article, and I appreciate your feedback.

Sueli Suelica (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2024 (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 Ldm1954 were:

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This should have been moved back to a draft. It needs work as many have said before it can be accepted.

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:Monica McGoldrick 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]