User talk:173.70.124.233

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ten Broek Premier League
Please do not submit drafts for pre-publication (AfC) review, like you did Draft:Ten Broek Premier League, without addressing the reasons why they were previously declined. This only generates work for the reviewers, without the draft having any chance of being accepted. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ten Broek Premier League (March 21)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ten_Broek_Premier_League Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Reasons for rejection:

1) Declined twice already for lack of notability and insufficient sources, and resubmitted without a single improvement.

2) Most of the contents are unreferenced.

3) The few sources cited are either primary, non-RS, irrelevant, or all of the above.

4) Written in a highly promotional, non-encyclopaedic style and tone, and would therefore need a significant rewrite to be acceptable.

On these grounds, I am rejecting rather than merely declining this draft. --

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)