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

Jamiebuba (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tell27! 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! Jamiebuba (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tell27. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Tell27. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tell27|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ponyo,

I am not being compensated, directly or indirectly, for my edits. I am editing solely as a volunteer contributor with no financial or professional affiliation related to the topics I've edited.

I genuinely admire him and have read two of his books. I believe his work deserves a Wikipedia page because of its cultural and educational value. I realize that the previous submission was declined, and I find it enjoyable to work on improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I hope this clarifies any concerns you might have about my intentions and motivations.

Thank you for your attention, and I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Tell27 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no affiliation with Marino, yet were in the Maldives to take this picture of him?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were provided to me by someone we both know. I did not take the pictures myself, nor do I have any connection with Marino. I simply used them after receiving them. Am I doing something wrong? Tell27 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you cannot upload images as your own work when another individual holds the copyright. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the situation. I understand the copyright concerns now. I will delete the images to ensure compliance with the rules. I appreciate your guidance. Tell27 (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]