User talk:Linkhopper

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Linkhopper. Thank you for your work on Justin M. Berg. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Since it falls under WP:BLP, please add more sources and make sure that all claims are backed up by an in-line citation. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: thank you for the feedback! I will review and make these updates. Linkhopper (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeremy Utley (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 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:Jeremy Utley 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Linkhopper! 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! CNMall41 (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rebecca Messina (November 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ibjaja055 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:Rebecca Messina 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.

Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing! I have revised the draft to address the notability concern by tightening the focus on Rebecca Messina’s senior executive roles and relying primarily on independent, secondary coverage from major business publications (including CNBC, Forbes, Adweek, and Campaign). I’ve also removed sections and sources that did not materially support notability.

In particular, the updated version emphasizes her appointment as Uber’s first chief marketing officer, her leadership through the company’s 2019 IPO, and her prior long-term executive tenure at The Coca-Cola Company, all of which are covered in depth by independent sources. I believe the revised draft now aligns more closely with the general notability guidelines.

I look forward to receiving your feedback! Linkhopper (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Luke G. Williams (December 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mwwv 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Notability is close, but under the bar. Reference 3 definitely stands out and I'd say it counts. Ref 7 only gathered opinions from Williams, stating nothing more but professor[...] and author of the book Disrupt for information of him. As far as I know, ref 9 doesn't have any mention of him or his book, and the rest of the sources are either primary or not independent.

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:Luke G. Williams 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.

mwwv ^converse∫_edits 01:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the additional context and feedback! Also appreciate the catch on the original Ref. 9; that was a mistake on my part, which has now been corrected.

I’ve added an Entrepreneur.com article, which provides contextual, third-party information about Williams beyond abstract opinion, including his academic role, institutional affiliation, authorship of Disrupt, and public speaking activity (e.g., the World Innovation Forum in New York City). In addition to drawing on his expertise, the article attributes specific innovation frameworks directly to him.

I’ve also incorporated coverage from Poets & Quants, Core77, and Woodworking Network. While these are domain-specific publications rather than general-interest newspapers, they are independent, editorial outlets within business education, design/innovation, and industry journalism, respectively. Each discusses Williams and his work directly, rather than using him solely as a background source or passing expert. Taken together—and in combination with the Entrepreneur.com coverage—these sources demonstrate sustained, independent discussion of Williams and his work consistent with the general notability guideline.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback and any additional thoughts. Linkhopper (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naomi Bagdonas (December 2)

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

This submission appears to read more like a résumé than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, that provide secondary analysis of the subject's life in context. In contrast, résumés will tend to list individual accomplishments and rely on self-published sources, which might unduly focus on positive events and fail to properly balance their weight. Please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies by using independent, reliable 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Naomi Bagdonas 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.

Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicholas Epley has been accepted

Nicholas Epley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MCE89 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rebecca Messina (January 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary 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:Rebecca Messina 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.

MurielMary (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]