User talk:Naturevalley87

This is Naturevalley87's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel Nides (February 18)

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 submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia 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 it after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniel Nides 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.

Hoary (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Naturevalley87! 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! Hoary (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel Nides (February 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Avgeekamfot were:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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 it after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniel Nides 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.

Avgeekamfot (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and feedback.

I understand the concerns regarding inline citations and notability. I will revise the draft to ensure that all material, particularly statements about career history and media coverage, is supported with properly formatted inline citations using footnotes.

With respect to notability, I plan to strengthen the sourcing by emphasizing coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that provide substantive discussion of the subject, including feature-style interviews and profiles (e.g., BarBend and Playgirl), rather than relying on passing mentions or recap-style entertainment coverage. I will also remove or condense any material that is not supported by significant independent coverage.

If there are specific areas where the sourcing was particularly weak or where sources did not meet reliability standards, I would appreciate any additional guidance so that I can address those concerns directly before resubmitting.

Thank you again for your time and review. Naturevalley87 (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles