Captgouda24

Welcome!

Hi Captgouda24! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

Happy editing! --John Cline (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit of mine

Greetings Captgouda24. I am messaging you about this recent edit where I restored some content which you had removed in good faith. Upon reflection, I realize that I easily could have given you the wrong impression with the edit summary I provided, and I apologize for that! I've thought of the many ways I could have expressed myself more collegially and I want you to know that I truly wish that I had. So, if you will, pardon my error, and let me welcome you here, and thank you for your interest and efforts to improve Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy editing and that you will be here for a long time. If you have any questions or need help in any way, please feel free to ask on my talk page, anytime. I'll gladly help where I can. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Pete Klenow moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Pete Klenow. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. —Alalch E. 10:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I’m happy to add additional sources. I must protest that the description of his work is absolutely critical. Anyone who comes to wikipedia to learn about the work of economists is bound to leave in a state of ignorance. I am setting out on a project to change this — I believe that someone who wishes to learn about an economist on wikipedia should learn a little something about their work, too.

This ideal is met in the better articles on economists. For example, Milton Friedman’s page has a more than adequate discussion of what he believed and why he believed it, and frequently refers to what he wrote where he wrote it. The findings in the articles cited have been referred to thousands of times; finding it in survey articles (such as the JEP or similar) will not be difficult. Captgouda24 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pete Klenow (March 4)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Better sourcing needed; fails WP:NPROF. All citations that are about Prof. Klenow are connected to him; we need independent sources. All other citations are to his publications; we need independent secondary coverage about the individual, not his work.

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:Pete Klenow 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.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello WeirdNAnnoyed,

I agree on needing more independent citations, and will add them — in particular, I can structure the honors and awards to refer to sources from the awarding organizations. As for his work, it is often discussed in works which cite it — this is more tedious to track down, but works like HK2009 really are referred to as seminal basically every time they’re brought up.

I would like to protest, though, that as stands now the subject is still notable. In particular, he satisfies criteria 1, 3, and 5 (and maybe 2, depending on how you define award/society membership). I think 1 is trivially showable through citation count alone — these are papers cited thousands of times.

In something broader, I am a doctoral student in economics on a project to expand and improve Wikipedia’s coverage of economists. I believe that the worth of an economist is not their titles and awards, but their work; accordingly, a good economist biography should include a guide to their contributions to the field. Are citations by later, independent authors sufficient to show importance? Captgouda24 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Captgouda24! 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! WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Articles about economists

I'm unfortunately in agreement with the above editors re: the draft on Pete Klenow, in that I don't know if there is sufficient secondary sourcing to support an article (at least, not among what's currently included in the draft). An unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia's notability guideline is that you can have a high h-index and tons of citations and not meet WP:GNG: what matters for notability is whether there is significant coverage in secondary sources about the article subject specifically. If I have time, I'll see what I can find – do you know if there are any sources which specifically discuss Klenow and/or the impact of his work?

You ask above: Are citations by later, independent authors sufficient to show importance? A paper by Klenow being cited by future papers is not itself sufficient for Wikipedia to have content describing Klenow's paper (or to contribute to Klenow's notability) – it would need to describe the paper's importance and context, and be more than a passing mention. The general vibe of Wikipedia is that we, as everyday volunteer editors, are not qualified to interpret primary sources to come to conclusions (WP:OR) – instead, we rely on secondary sources to make these interpretations, which we can then cite. This degree of separation helps a lot towards maintaining neutrality in contentious areas, but as you've noticed can make writing about academics more difficult as this type of source can be sparse. Even if something is commonly known in the field, or commonly deducible from a couple primary sources, we (generally) need a secondary source which says it. For me that's the fun part, but I get it can be frustrating.

I've been thinking about reliable sources about economists a decent amount lately – I'm planning to, later this year, work on some econometricians' articles which are particularly lacking (e.g., Karl A. Fox, Arthur Goldberger, Halbert White) and finding sources has been difficult. Scott Cunningham's substack (imo) is a secondary reliable source in this field, and he has a lot of content about the credibility revolution which could be used to rewrite the page credibility revolution and articles on a number of econometricians. There are also papers like Undergraduate Econometrics Instruction: Through Our Classes, Darkly, i.e., retrospectives on the field, which include so much useful information for Wikipedia articles. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 20:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I can find citations discussing his work. Obviously this is more tedious, but it can be done. Klenow has not broken into outlets like the economist or similar, but that is simply the product of modesty, not a lack of importance in the field. In poking around, I have found favorable references in marginal revolution, which I can include. I do think Klenow is clearly notable on the grounds of being an endowed chair at Stanford in economics, which clobbers point five, as well as a member of the econometric society.

I am concerned that this level of scrutiny is misdirected. I don’t think anyone disagrees with the tenor of the coverage, or the importance of the work for the field. The purpose of procedure should be to get us to good outcomes — we do not follow it for its own sake. There exist numerous articles on economists which would be flunked under this standard. I would not regard junking any discussion of what economists actually do as a positive development. Having biographies be a list of titles would be empty. There would be no economics in it. That’s the whole reason I’m undertaking this project — I want a novice interested in someone’s work to be able to read, in 500 words, what they did, how they did it, and why it matters.

I do have some ability, if need be, to prompt secondary sources to exist. I am unsure of the ethics of this. It would not, in any event, be making a false consensus, but simply getting what everyone already thinks on paper.

In your search for reliable sources, there are some journals which are, in all practical fact, secondary sources. The JEP and JEL stand out. I have not put the draft on Wikipedia here, but my survey of Dave Donaldson relies heavily on Daron Acemoglu’s coverage of his work in the JEP. In addition, I would look at afinetheorem, Kevin Bryan’s blog, which has superb surveys of many noted economists. Captgouda24 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added coverage from the Economist, WSJ, and US Treasury Klenow's work to your draft article. I've also added a link to the AAAS bio to verify his membership. As long as your sources are independent of the subject (e.g. not the CV), you should be able to establish notability via WP:ACADEMIC criteria 3 and 5.Nickknack00 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with you – my message was intended primarily to communicate norms about a community which you are new to. While we have WP:IAR, which lines up pretty well with your "The purpose of procedure..." sentence, it's not really something that can be invoked for scenarios like this. And thank you for starting this project, the topic area needs it.

You bring up multiple issues that make writing encyclopedia entries about economists difficult: professional modesty means people are less likely to seek out media attention proactively, and when that type of secondary coverage does exist it's often not a good introduction to the actual economics that they're doing (such that we'd be left with a list of titles). The goal is (usually, I hope) to give the type of introduction for a novice that you describe, it just requires some more work in sourcing it. In reviewing Chang-Tai Hsieh, I found a number of articles (including in the JEP and JEL) which provided secondary characterizations of Hseih's work. These are great secondary sources, and are preferable to citing only Hseih's work directly, as they place the work in the context of the field. This also applies to articles which are not explicitly reviews but provide that same type of characterization of someone's work. The standard, then, is whether there is enough of this in-depth secondary coverage. In Klenow's case, after reading up on Hsieh's work I think there definitely is, and I agree with Nickknack00 that he meets 3 and 5.

Re: the ethics of asking people to write about something, I personally don't think that's a problem at all. If everyone is thinking something that isn't on paper, it would be great to get it on paper (in a secondary reliable source) so that Wikipedia can use it. Just watch out for WP:SELFCITE, if that applies. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've resubmitted the Klenow article for review after adding independent citations for the content written by Captgouda24 . Vermont, these are really helpful comments to me, too! Helps me to see how you've improved the Hsieh article. Nickknack00 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Chang-Tai Hsieh

Hi, made some updates to your draft article on Chang-Tai Hsieh. I think it unambigously meets notability standards, so I pushed it to the queue for article review. Thanks for all your work reviewing his works! Nickknack00 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! These are absolutely fantastic, and it looks great. I will make sure to match the style when uploading later articles. (First Donaldson, then Arkolakis-Costinot-Rodriguez-Clare, then Melitz, then Peter Hull, Kirill Borusyak, and Xavier Jaravel).

\

Have you worked in economics before, personally? Captgouda24 (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I work in an adjacent field, so I'm familiar Hsieh's work. My relevant expertise here is gathering enough third-party sources that actually notable people are correctly rated as notable.Nickknack00 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Excited to know about your next projects. I think your research summaries are great, they just need some independent biographical details to move through the Wikipedia-specific standards for academic bios. Nickknack00 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Cosmetic recommendation for biographical article reviews: 1. put your article links in Wiki format. There's no formatting webtool for this anymore, but LLMs can help as long as you do QC. 2. Add the Authority Control template. It will help link to other biographic databases and help you find sources. 3. If you use the "Articles for Creation" approach, tag with the "Economics" Wikiproject so you get reviewers who evaluate with field-relevant knowledge, not only general standards for living people biographies.Nickknack00 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added a few secondary sources which support the draft's descriptions and characterizations of Hseih's work, and moved it to mainspace. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lydia Cox (March 12)

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

How is WP:NPROF met? Two of the papers and the interview cited are non-independent of the subject, meaning they don't count toward notability criteria.

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:Lydia Cox 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.

~Liance^talk 18:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Moscona (March 26)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NACADEMIC - relies heavily on primary sources.

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:Jacob Moscona 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

They are quite pointedly largely not primary sources. I found news coverage for all of them, and the underlying research is linked as a courtesy. Captgouda24 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Costas Arkolakis (March 28)

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

Please be clear which of the 8 WP:PROF criteria applies to this subject

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:Costas Arkolakis 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.

Flat Out (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

1, 3, 7, 8.

I am continuing to add to this draft, but the discussion by Acemoglu on Dave Donaldson is sufficient to show notability. I cannot emphasize enough, his work is extremely important, and he is one of the best trade theorists of his generation. Captgouda24 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you're right, but you need to make this explicit and verifiable, for example have any particular contributions been widely cited in peer reviewed journals and how can other editors check this? The 'Specific Criteria Notes under WP:PROF are particularly useful in this regard. Flat Out (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Hornbeck (April 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spinster300 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Richard Hornbeck 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.

Spinster300 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arnaud Costinot has been accepted

Arnaud Costinot, 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spinster300 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Peter Hull (economist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peter Hull (economist). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. Hopefully you can accept the article.

My personal opinion is the Prof. Hull is a vastly more important figure, has a 30% chance of winning the JBC and a 40% chance of winning the Nobel, and is one of the most exciting young economists out there, so I’d prefer he be the default. I understand waiting, though. Captgouda24 (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Hornbeck (May 8)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The article is mostly about the subject's work, not the subject. Furthermore, the sources are either by Hornbeck himself (not independent) or not substantially about the subject, making them irrelevant. For the subject to have an article, we need multiple independent, reliable sources significantly covering the person, not his scholarly work.

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:Richard Hornbeck 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.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Costas Arkolakis (June 1)

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

Not yet notable.

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources: He is well defined in econom8cs but the draft lacks reliable sources to convey that, which may include reviews of his works on that field, etc.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: I wouldn't consider being an elected a fellow of the Econometric Society as one of this. At least it isn't demonstrated by a reliable source. See WP:RS.

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:Costas Arkolakis 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Hull (economist) (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Garsh2 were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Based on a search, this individual is likely notable. However, this article's references would not contribute to notability (either primary or not coverage of the individual). Please see WP:GNG and WP:BIO for guidance. There appears to be issues with the "Work" section. The section reads like it's trying to promote the individual's work (e.g. not from a neutral perspective). See above for some guideline pages to improve neutral, encyclopedic writing.

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:Peter Hull (economist) 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.

Garsh (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Hull (economist) (August 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Johannes Maximilian were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Hello, I pretty much presume that the subject is notable based on his professorship. However, this draft puts way too much emphasis on the subject's work rather than the subject, and it discusses a related topic in a very unencyclopedic way, most likely through the means of original research (WP:OR). Please fix. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

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:Peter Hull (economist) 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Costas Arkolakis (August 24)

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

Please do not resubmit without making any changes since the last decline

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:Costas Arkolakis 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.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jacob Moscona

Hello, Captgouda24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jacob Moscona, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lydia Cox

Hello, Captgouda24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lydia Cox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jacob Moscona

Hello, Captgouda24. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Jacob Moscona".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Andres Rodriguez-Clare

Hello, Captgouda24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Andres Rodriguez-Clare, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lydia Cox

Hello, Captgouda24. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Lydia Cox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Richard Hornbeck

Hello, Captgouda24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Richard Hornbeck, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Andres Rodriguez-Clare

Hello, Captgouda24. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Andres Rodriguez-Clare".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Peter Hull (economist)

Hello, Captgouda24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Peter Hull (economist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Peter Hull (economist)

Hello, Captgouda24. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Peter Hull".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Richard Hornbeck

Hello, Captgouda24. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Richard Hornbeck".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Costas Arkolakis

Hello, Captgouda24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Costas Arkolakis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Costas Arkolakis

Hello, Captgouda24. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Costas Arkolakis".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)