Hello, Campbpt0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:08, 28 March 2018 (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 Bradv was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donna Strickland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Donna Strickland, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bradv 15:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Campbpt0! Having an article 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! Bradv 15:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Press Barnstar
		Excellent work on your article on Donna Strickland. Clearly, you were several months ahead of the curve. Thank you for your contributions. HiDrNick! 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry you had a bad experience with the deletionists on the Wikipedia. The article you wrote was a good article and Brad did make a serious mistake deciding that Donna Strickland was not a notable enough topic to include on the Wikipedia.

There are many old school Wikipedia editors here who are frustrated with the direction the Wikipedia went around 2007, allowing perfectly good articles like this to be rejected.

Thank you for your contributions and briefly being a part of our community. Samboy (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience with the Donna Strickland AfC will be covered in the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you are interested, the draft is here, and you can provide feedback to me on my talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Campbpt0: I'm disappointed that you did not respond to my off-wiki invitation to join the conversation here at Wikipedia arising from your two edits on 28 March 2018 drafting a proposed Donna Strickland bio. In the event you reconsider, please let me pose a few questions.

1. On or after 23 May 2018, did you see the notice posted here at your talk page on that date by the reviewer declining your submission? Since it may in due course be archived, the notice explained in relevant part:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. … Please improve the submission's referencing so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. … You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donna Strickland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
  

Having an article 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!

2. If you saw that notice, why did you make no attempt to bring your draft up to acceptable standards, or ask for help in so doing, and resubmit it for approval?

3. Do you feel media coverage of this incident has been fair to Wikipedia? If not, why didn't you speak up?

I ask this in the hope that your replies can help us learn from an event that has damaged Wikipedia's reputation. I have no desire to discuss the content of your submission or the reasons it was declined; that debate is ongoing elsewhere. My interest is solely in your lack of follow-up to the reviewer's decision and your silence amidst the resulting, belated public outcry. KalHolmann (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me that you're trying to shift the blame onto the author of the original Strickland article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]