In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: The Story of Christmas (August 24)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by MCE89 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:The Story of Christmas 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, Foxcub1984!
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! MCE89 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: The Story of Christmas (October 27)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by ChrysGalley was:
The 12 source pile-up is unhelpful for readers, to say the least. See WP:REFBOMB and the essay WP:THREE for insights into this area.
Secondly there are effectively only 2 sources here, plus a primary source, which isn't sufficient to get notability. Ideally we need 3 in depth profiles from independent sources, rather than relying on connected sources.
More easily fixed is that the tone needs to be more encyclopedic.
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:The Story of Christmas 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 submission at Articles for creation: London Firebird Orchestra (March 25)
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:
So a number of files have been uploaded to Wikicommons today, which indeed seem to indicate notability, however the files are labelled "own work", and that can't be correct, the copyright will belong in the publications. Using the source is fine, but not via this route. If you can't find online access, just give comprehensive offline details so that they can be checked. Things like dates, page numbers, ISSN numbers, author names.
Hi Chris - thanks very much for your help with this. Do you think it would work if I edit the source information of the various PDF files in WikiCommons? If so, how do I do this please? So grateful for your input.... Foxcub1984 (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
@Foxcub1984 It is perfectly OK to have offline sourcing if you cannot find online sources. It's also OK to use an online site which gets stuck by a paywall, that's also OK, so long as you know what the contents actually says. In other words, no need to try too hard! Just write all the details out so that if someone went into the right library they could find the material. One thing you could do is that there is a parameter within "cite web" called "|quote=" and after that you can put in a sentence or two, quoted from the source. No need to overdo that either. Just use WP:REFB to come up with a citation, and keep it offline if necessary. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok thanks very much Chrys...I had removed the PDF citations. The others are live links...which should be enough? Are you happy with the article now? Very grateful for your help. Foxcub1984 (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
@Foxcub1984 I best let another reviewer do the next review so you get an independent perspective, but I think you should include the articles you took out, just as offline sources via REFB. The problem you have now is that Forbes is a "contributor" article, in other words paid PR, Arcana a one-person blog site, and Thrift is about Thrift and not independent. Seen and Heard seems OK though, you need two more like that and those PDFs seem to do that job. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok thanks so much - I have added the offline citations...does it look ok now? Foxcub1984 (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
@Foxcub1984 - I've added the ISSN number for the first magazine reference, since with that number my library gives me online access. ANd I've added a quote, but I'm not sure it's the best one from that article. But that shows what you can still do with an offline reference. I'll let another reviewer have a go at this, they may have other things to improve the draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
