User talk:Aleksandr Reznichenko

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pyramid over Moscow (April 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:

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:Pyramid over Moscow 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:Pyramid over Moscow, 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 [//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:Pyramid_over_Moscow Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heliosxeros&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Pyramid_over_Moscow reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS message 13:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Your AFC draft
Greetings. Your sources are at fault here. Sources are very important as they will determine the notability of your submission. For reliable sourcing, you should go for: major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality generally trusted mainstream publications. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, Twitter, wikis, or other sites with user-generated content. It is best for references to have significant coverage about the subject. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Secondly, nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject are considered reliable sources. Not their website, and not a press release. The sources must be independent. Plus: you will have to get much newer and recent sources. Per notability of events, sources mustn't be too old or else it will not suffice for notability. Another thing is, for your UFO theory, some sentences are not inclined with citation. As the section is controversial in nature, these inclined citation will help to defend your points when factual conflict arrises. EROS message 07:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)