Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Idoghor Melody 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 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:Inter-Action Centre 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, FreeMarsThen!
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! Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)22:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've made some changes as you requested, please let me know if what I've added has improved it, and I've also added some stubs identifiers to make clear that it still needs expanding if that helps. Appreciate your feedback. FreeMarsThen (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there're other things that immediately jump out. I think he is probably notable for WP, but the draft article needs clean up. Here are some suggestions for improvements:
It reads rather promotionally. WP is not a place to promote people's career that is what Linked In or other social media platforms are for. For more information see: WP:SOAPBOX, and also WP:NOTADVERT. It seems excessive to frame his work around all of these hats: architect, artist, designer of interactive installations, digital artist, participatory designer, urbanist, environmental psychologist, entrepreneur. And the sentence about "one of the most influential figures" sounds like puffery or peacocky see: WP:PUFFERY and WPNPOV. If you were to chose the most important two, what would they be?
Several of the sources are low quality and should be removed or replaced with better citations, as they do not contribute to his notability. For example:
The Forbes contributor piece by Hester Lacey, Forbes is ok, but "Forbes.com contributors" has been deprecated as "Generally unreliable" per WP:FORBESCON. It should be removed.
The two TechCrunch citations are also low-quality per WP:TECHCRUNCH, and are often conflict of interest pieces. I suggest removal.
The Unpacked interview is flagged as unreliable because it's a Wordpress blog, and it's also an interview which is a primary source - anyone can say anything they want about themselves, what is needed are what others say about him who are completely independent of the person. It should be removed.
The reference to Christiane Paul's book is not a citation at all, it point to book sales site. This is promotional and also unverifiable. WP:PROMO and WP:V. Link instead to what Paul wrote about him in the book. Links to sales sites should be removed.
The UgoTrade citation is also low-quality as it is a blog by one person, not vetted by an editorial staff. It's also an interview, a primary source.
Thank you, Netherzone, that was really helpful. I've implemented most of your suggestions (except: I moved the Forbes link to further reading because it is a good text for connecting all the dots; also kept one interview reference but only cited the text that was by the author, i.e. not part of the interview) and added one other interview link purely for biographical career info (again not in the interview text). I also added multiple references for some things where the notability citation didn't give the fullest explanation, or where other citations had more information and images. If you are able to have another look and give me feedback I would really appreciate it.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:
This looks promising. I was about to accept it, but thought I'd clear up the CCA references first. While looking at them, I realized that they did not provide the information that this draft implies that they do provide. An assertion must be backed up by a reference that doesn't merely say something that's more or less compatible with the assertion: the reference must back up the assertion. I wish this draft the best (I'm sure that its subject merits an article); but before accepting this draft, any reviewer should check that the cited references actually say what the draft implies that they say. (NB I didn't even glance at any of the cited references other than those from CCA.)
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:Inter-Action Centre 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.
