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:
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:Davide Belletti 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, M pascal!
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 ScribeEdits!Talk!12:58, 23 October 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 NeoGaze was:
The subject seems notable enough, but several of the sources have issues for which I decided to decline the draft; a citation need for a pharagraph, two broken links and user-generated content (we can't count wikis and social media as proper sources). I added tags to point the problematic sources, as soon as this issue is fixed, contact me through 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:Davide Belletti 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.
I tried to find alternative sources to the death links cited on Davide Belletti's page, but in two or three cases there seems to be no trace of the destination pages, because in the meantime the source site has updated its site and the older articles are no longer present. However, I found a couple of people who have the newspaper articles stored privately. Since ChatGPT told me that it is possible to do what I write below (I am referring specifically to the parameter "| format = PDF stored privately"), I would like to know what you think and if you confirm that it is possible to make those citations in this way:
I also read that you considered as user-generated the links to the site www.openwaterpedia.com even though on that site it is not allowed to publish anything on your own because the contents are inserted exclusively by the administrators and it is not possible to register an account, so in this case too those links should be removed? M pascal (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am unsure if privately kept material can count as adequate sources, as any user and editor should be able to access them to check if they support what is in the article. I suggest you ask this question at the AFC Help desk, where more people can give you a hand. If what you say about www.openwaterpedia.com is true, then I assume it would acceptable to use as a source (if nothing else more reliable is available). Hope this helps! NeoGaze (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, and I followed your suggestion. On this page AFC Help Desk, I asked what to do when a source has a dead link but you have a hard copy of the article or magazine that reported the news and the answer was this: "As long as the source has been published and is accessible then you don't have to provide a URL. Newspapers, for example, have obviously been published and are likely accessible from public libraries or archives. In this case, you would just cite the source in full to allow readers to find the source in a library or archive and not include a URL. Sources do not have to be online, they just have to be published and accessible - even if it is difficult to access them."
Following @Qcne's instructions, I fixed the problematic sources and performed some minor checks and edits on the other sources, including the one related to Openwaterpedia, which, as I told you before, is not a self-referenced source because only the site administrator can publish pages (you can it see here).
Hi again @M pascal. I notice you have two Google Drive links which appear to be hosting copyrighted content (magazine scans). Please remove these, and simply provide a full offline citation. qcne(talk)17:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
