Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing 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.
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:John E. Till 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, Adcoideas!
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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2025 (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 Paul W was:
Numerous assertions are not supported by reliable independent secondary sources. Subject may be notable, but draft needs references to substantial coverage about Till in published works.
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:John E. Till 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.
Hi Paul, thanks so much for the feedback! I will work on finding the best way of refining that. Would you suggest that it be better to condense the copy or to add in more references? I did feel that the references and links provided were substantial so I welcome any guidance in that realm. I utilized many of Till's medical journals, newspaper clippings and online articles. Perhaps I need more news coverage that is available via URL? Adcoideas (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adcoideas. If you can, I would seek to add further citations (or, maybe, make more and repeated use of the references you already have). You clearly have a lot of understanding about the subject and it may be that many of the "citations needed" can be addressed by using content from your existing references. It is not necessary to always have online sources. You might, for example, quote offline newspaper articles (so long as the journalist, date and title are clear) that others might be able to verify by accessing library records or newspaper archives. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance. We have significantly enhanced the citations and copy to hopefully meet the requirements. Is there a better way for me to review this with you prior to coding in all the references? Adcoideas (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
