Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeanette Rowley (March 4)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reasons left by Bonadea 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.
All sources are from her own organisation's website, which should not be used as a source at all (except possibly to verify some uncontroversial claim such as the year it was founded).
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:Jeanette Rowley 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, ML 76 GR!
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! bonadeacontributionstalk 12:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Jeanette Rowley has a new comment
Many thanks for your comments, feedback and help! I will edit and resubmit when the issues have been addressed ML 76 GR (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeanette Rowley (May 15)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by GoldRomean was:
I see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, Issuu is not a reliable source.
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:Jeanette Rowley 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: Jeanette Rowley (June 5)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by SafariScribe was:
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:Jeanette Rowley 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.
AfC notification: Draft:Jeanette Rowley has a new comment
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jeanette Rowley. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeanette Rowley (August 9)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by Gheus 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.
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:Jeanette Rowley 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: Jeanette Rowley (October 14)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by Cabrils 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:
Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does.
As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.
Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc).
Please note that many of the references are not formatted correctly (see Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help).
Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial, which Wikipedia is not; and contains prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK).
Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page.
It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").
Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess.
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:Jeanette Rowley 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: Jeanette Rowley (February 16)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by Giuliotf 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:
Thank you for your submission, I do not think the article currently shows that the subject meets wikipedia's notablity guidelines.
Specifically, the court document is a primary source and does not count towards notability, while the other sources provided are passing mentions in articles where the subject is asked for a quote and do not represent significant coverage.
As a rule of thumb try to include at least three secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject.
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 it after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jeanette Rowley 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: International Vegan Rights Alliance (February 20)
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 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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
The IVRA may be notable but the existing citations do not present the significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources needed to meet WP:GNG. May be best to merge this into The Vegan Society and incubate it as a section there (if it grows sufficiently to warrant its own article, it can then be spun out).
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 it after they have been resolved.
Your submission at Articles for creation: International Vegan Rights Alliance (March 16)
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, Paul W, left the following feedback:
First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time and making the effort to review my submission. I really appreciate it.
With regard to the latest comment about the draft being AI generated, I want to say that it is not. I researched for a week after the previous comment you left, found good quality secondary sources, and then rewrote the whole draft. As English isn't my native language, I ran the text in Copilot in order to get the structure and language right. However, all the work is mine, not AI generated. ML 76 GR (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi, User:ML 76 GR. A telltale sign of AI-generated text contributed to Wikipedia is repeated use of sentences that read broadly as "The [publication name] reported [something] ..." followed by an inline citation. The draft is currently littered with these constructions, which are unnecessarily verbose and also not encyclopedic in tone. Human Wikipedia editors usually make assertions about their subjects followed by inline citations - the publications are often not mentioned in prose at all.
For example, the second section could start with a sentence that says simply: "In 2016, the IVRA criticised a proposed Italian bill associated with politician Elvira Savino that would have introduced criminal penalties for parents who placed children on diets deemed nutritionally inadequate" (followed by the relevant inline citations). Paul W (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your time and useful feedback and advice. I will correct these accordingly and resubmit ~2026-16611-34 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I forgot to login! The previous comment was also mine ML 76 GR (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
No worries.
PS: I will see your replies more quickly if you reply to me using [[User:Paul W]]. This "pings" me a notification in my Wikipedia toolbar.
