User talk:EDWM Truth

This is EDWM Truth'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: Doctor of Behavioral Health (July 22)

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

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.

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)
reliable
secondary
independent of 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:Doctor of Behavioral Health 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EDWM Truth! 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! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Doctor of Behavioral Health (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Alpha3031 were:

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)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

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.

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:

I find the lack of independence of the majority of sources cited deeply alarming. Please correct this before resubmitting.

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:Doctor of Behavioral Health 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.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question regarding the required sources

Hi EDWM Truth, unfortunately, Wikipedia is not intended to be a complete listing or repository of all items of a category, and multiple independent secondary sources are required to meet our core content policies, including the policy against original research (Wikipedia:No original research), as well as the other content policies. More specifically, requirements in the sourcing guidelines (multiple independent secondary sources) are intended (see WP:WHYN) so that we can make a reasonable assessment of what can be considered a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (i.e., reflective of views published by those independent reliable sources, in proportion to their relative prominence). If there aren't multiple such sources meeting the four criteria (in-depth, independent, reliable, secondary) then it is generally not considered suitable to have a standalone article on that topic.

While non-independent sources are suitable in limited cases (see WP:ABOUTSELF), an article should not and cannot be primarily based on such sources. Wikipedia is not intended to be (or contain) a brochure for every course out there, and as such we require the independent assessment of other sources to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate to say. A non-independent source might be inclined to emphasise or deemphasise different aspects of the subject than would an independent source on the same subject. Similarly, if a source treats a topic narrowly or tangentially, and only covers a few points rather than acting as a broad overview (i.e. is not direct and in-depth) it would be difficult to assess how to weigh those points against areas not covered in that source. Thus, we have certain minimum sourcing requirements for non-list articles, purely out of necessity, as editors are not qualified to conduct their own original research to overcome the lack of available sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]