Hello, Radjet88. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kaju Roberto, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Radjet88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kaju Roberto".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 7 January 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 UtherSRG was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Kaju Roberto 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Radjet88! 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! UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

All of the information is completely factual in this submission. In my opinion, it has been written in a formal tone, and neutral point of view, with all references correctly cited.

I'd first like to wait and see what other feedback this submission receives from others before I continue to edit it.

Respectfully,

Radjet88 Radjet88 (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kaju Roberto. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank You for your clear and straight feedback! I've now removed all instances of "the Village View" and will resubmit the article.

Radjet88 Radjet88 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry, I realized after reading your comment again, you are requesting I remove the Village View references. Not the mentions in the article.

What I do not understand is why the Village View, a highly reliable and reputable physical newspaper with 15,000+ monthly distribution and also an online publication in New York City, is not considered to be a WP reliable source.

What if I removed the majority of references for the Village View, but only retained a few? Say about five?

Radjet88 2600:4040:9CED:4500:454D:B6C5:5A1:C73A (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to edit. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:02, 24 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 UtherSRG was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

You need to remove the multiple references to the non-WP:RS Village View, not the single mention of the Village View.

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:Kaju Roberto 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see. What I do not understand is why the Village View, a highly reliable and reputable physical newspaper with 15,000+ monthly distribution and also an online publication in New York City, is not considered to be a WP reliable source.

What if I removed the majority of references for the Village View, but only retained a few?

Radjet88 2600:4040:9CED:4500:454D:B6C5:5A1:C73A (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Kaju Roberto wrote the content in the Village View sources so they are NOT independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we don't care about what the subject has to say about themself. We only care about what others have to say. So any of the articles he wrote, have no standing. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 24 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 HilssaMansen19 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Thank you for your work here. In the current form, this draft is not acceptable in the mainspace. Please check the following standard article style guidelines. If you have a doubt, you can ask at the Teahouse or at my talk page.

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:Kaju Roberto 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 05:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]