Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Idoghor Melody 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:Chidiebere Emmanuel Okechukwu 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, Scientistcore!
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! Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)11:36, 16 November 2024 (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 Memer15151 was:
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it 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:Chidiebere Emmanuel Okechukwu 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 recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Remsense was:
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
It is not clear you are engaging with the actual criteria that have been plainly provided by previous reviewers. Please read them if you haven't already, because you can cite as many papers co-authored by the subject as you want, and you can cite as many articles that have nothing to directly do with the subject as you want, but that expressly does not qualify the subject for a Wikipedia article. If you are under the impression that being of a membership tier in an obscure professional society that is "designed for people who have been working for five years" is helping, then again, you need to actually engage with the criteria in good faith. Next time will be a rejection, and you will not be able to resubmit.
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:Chidiebere Emmanuel Okechukwu 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.
Dr. Okechukwu has made substantial contributions that merit recognition on a platform such as Wikipedia. I have noticed numerous individuals with lesser achievements and more questionable credentials who have been published here. I urge you to reconsider Dr. Okechukwu’s scientific works and review the relevant literature and links I have included. His work is both impactful and deserving of wider acknowledgment. Thank you for your time and consideration. Scientistcore (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
