Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Vidhya Rangaraju 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MCE89 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fabianb85! 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! MCE89 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Fabianb85! I'm UtherSRG, and I've been assigned as your mentor. All new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! UtherSRG (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2025 (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 Cabrils was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject. The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage in trade publications for similar researchers (see WP:ROTM). Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid or being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please see WP:COI and/or WP:PAID). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NPROF criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess.

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:Vidhya Rangaraju 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a draft for Dr. Vidhya Rangaraju. I want to be transparent that I am her spouse. I'm trying to follow the guidelines for academic notability by focusing only on her work, awards and citations, avoiding any promotional language. Fabianb85 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Timothy Ryan (biochemist). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and the article appears to have been intended for AfC review. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you created this with the AfC submission template on it, but posted it in the main article space, so I wasn't quite sure which of those mutually contradictory things you actually intended. However, given that you have written about the doctoral supervisor of your spouse, I think that's probably enough of a connection to give rise to a conflict of interest, and for that reason I felt it best to move this into drafts. Please put it through review rather than moving back into the main space yourself. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoubleGrazing, thank you for moving the page to draft space and for the helpful note. To clarify my connection: I am the spouse of Dr. Vidhya Rangaraju, who was a doctoral student of Dr. Ryan. I didn't realize that being the spouse of a former student would fall under COI guidelines for the advisor's page, but I completely understand the need for caution and an independent review. I have updated my user page to reflect this connection and will strictly follow the AfC process for this draft. Best, Fabian Fabianb85 (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Timothy Ryan (biochemist) 2. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because This is the second time this has been moved to Draft space. You have a WP:COI submit it for review.. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing This is annoying after your conversation above 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is frustrating. Curious to hear Fabianb85's reasons for this – eg. are the instructions on COI editing somehow unclear? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing @Timtrent Apologies for the snafu. After the conversation with @Timtrent, the original article was still available and had in the meantime also been edited by another user. So I had wrongly assumed it stayed up.

@Timtrent I added the COI to the TalkPage of the Draft. Before I submit, any other areas of concern? I see a note that citations are missing - no glaring omissions are catching my eye but happy to rectify. Fabianb85 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, thank you for your feedback regarding the sourcing!

I have significantly overhauled the draft to address your concerns about primary and dependent sources. I have stripped out the self-citations and employer-based press releases and replaced them with verification from independent awarding bodies and research consortia (NAS, ASAP, NINDS).

I would appreciate if you could review this updated version specifically under Academic Notability (WP:PROF) guidelines. I believe the subject clearly meets multiple criteria for inclusion, any single one of which is usually sufficient:

• Criterion #3 (Prestigious Societies): The subject is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences(2024) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2024).
• Criterion #2 (Prestigious Awards): He is a recipient of the NINDS Javits Award and a two-time recipient of the McKnight Technological Innovations Award.
• Criterion #1 (Significant Impact): His work has had highly significant impact on the field, evidenced by a Google Scholar h-index of 70 and over 19,000 citations (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9EkM1A8AAAAJ&hl=en - reference not used in the draft).

I have ensured the article text is strictly factual and supported by the citations from these independent bodies. Does this version look ready for submission to review? Fabianb85 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid pre-reviews are not a thing. As soon as you are c certain please submit it for review. I am rather too close to it, having effectively reviewed it already. It is rare indeed that I review more than once. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timtrent, understood completely. Thank you for the guidance on the sourcing issues—it was very helpful in getting the draft cleaned up. I will post the specific WP:PROF case on the draft's Talk page and proceed with the formal submission. Thanks again for your time. Fabianb85 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ryan (biochemist) 2, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, @Reading Beans: I appreciate the acceptance of the article and the note regarding its Start-Class assessment—that's a reasonable starting point given the current scope and sourcing.

Good to know about the autoconfirmed status as well. I'll weigh the direct creation pathway against AfC depending on the relationship, complexity and sourcing situation for future submissions.

Cheers, Fabianb85 (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fabianb85. Thank you for your work on Timothy Ryan (biochemist). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for helpfully creating this biography through the AfC process and for outling your relationship to Ryan. They are clearly notable (WP:NACADEMIC, even though in a high-citation field.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Ldm1954, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for academics. The draft requires either:

• evidence that the subject meets any of the specific criteria for academics;

or multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Please do not keep resubmitting this without paying attention to the main issue -- she is not as yet notable. Her citations are low, and her awards are all junior; we would look for an h-factor of 40 or more, so hers of 10 is much, much too low. Please read WP:TOOSOON. Keep a copy of the page and resubmit it in 2-3 years when she has more recognition.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Vidhya Rangaraju to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]