Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrowssapSMM 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.
Hello, PA4C101!
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! DrowssapSMM20:55, 18 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 DoubleGrazing 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:
We need to see significant coverage, directly of the association itself, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
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.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ca was:
This draft needs a major rewrite. Nearly none of the sources I see are independent from AICUP. They are all created by people affiliated with AICUP, the member univerties' news and blogs, and the AICUP's own reports. I recommend starting over, but this time, basing the draft on independent sources.
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.
Nearly of the citations are from independent sources (news outlets, the state senate, the Department of Education). Please see that nearly none of the citations are from the AICUP website, except to cite the names of their members.
The example the last editor suggested I follow (for a Massachusetts organization) has only 4 citations, I listed over 30.
This article meets all of Wikipedia's requirements, and meets all of the requirements from the previous editors since November.
Sad to see this continues to get sent back for no valid reason.
Thanks for considering the many merits I submitted and resubmitted multiple times.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Just blatant advertising.
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.
I appreciate that you're no longer adding this information to the lede of articles but this information doesn't appear to merit inclusion at all. It's simply too trivial and doesn't tell readers anything important about the institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing that this information is no longer in the lede, and is instead further down and in a more relevant section. The information is relevant just as including the Middle States accreditation is relevant. Thanks. PA4C101 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]