User talk:Patton2023x

Your submission at Articles for creation: Minnesota Bankers Association (June 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing 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:Minnesota Bankers Association 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Minnesota_Bankers_Association Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Minnesota_Bankers_Association reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I don't follow your reasoning at all. Oklahoma Bankers Association provides less detail and has a website link to its own website and that is it. The Minnesota Bankers Association is one of the largest banking associations in the country due to the number of banks in Minnesota also being amongst the largest in the country. I tried to summarize more history for Minnesota banking fanatics like myself, including a lawsuit which is a big deal in the banking industry of this type.
 * I understand I can improve more details on it but I don't follow your commentary at all in comparison to what has already been published on other pages. Furthermore, the citations are very clear and tie out with people that were named in the posting. Patton2023x (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please ignore other articles. We don't assess drafts by comparison to whatever articles may exist; we assess them by reference to the policies and guidelines which are currently in force. There are any number of problems among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia; that doesn't mean we should create more such problems.
 * This draft consists mainly of the long list in the 'Presidents/Chairman of the Minnesota Bankers Association', which arguably shouldn't be there at all (that sort of information is best hosted elsewhere, such as at the association's own website). Remove that, and you're left with the short lead section which merely states that the organisation exists, plus a short paragraph on the lawsuit. This does not a viable article draft make.
 * (In fact, if you believe that the lawsuit is such a "big deal", then it may be more feasible to develop a draft on that, given how it is the main subject of this draft already.)
 * The other decline reason concerns notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. For this, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject (not of some indirectly related, ancillary matters), in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. In fact, Wikipedia articles should be compiled mainly by summarising what such sources have said. Judging by the sources, and how and where they are cited, I don't believe this is the case here.
 * Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I won't bother adding to the site. Not because I don't think you all do a good job, you do, but I don't think I am up to maneuvering all the red tape. Patton2023x (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)