Thidevall

Your submission at Articles for creation: Climate Resilience Dialogue (March 11)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Please cite WP:SECONDARY 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:Climate Resilience Dialogue 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.

Gheus (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Thidevall! 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! Gheus (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gheus!

Added secondary sources from Insurance Europe, AMICE, FERMA, EIOPA, and a leading B2B trade publication. I hope that the page can be approved:) Please make any amendments you see fit or give suggestions on improvements Thidevall (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

By secondary sources, I mean coverage in reputed newspapers and magazine. IMO, this topic is likely notable but first we have to cite 2-3 in-depth secondary sources. Gheus (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

A question here: the Climate Resilience Dialogue is not the kind of things usually mentioned in big media. As examples of (online) media in the insurance sector (see references in the article), hope that you agree that the following are reputed enough.

- www.experten.de

- Welcome to Eurofi | The European think tank dedicated to financial services

I further hope that these together with the mentions on Insurance Europe, FERMA and others' webpages, online news/newsletters mentions (not so much in depth) and actors such as I4CE can be enough to prove notable. Have tried to mention sources from different Mamber States.

If you have further questions after the new amendments please advise :) Thidevall (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gheus, any thoughts on the updated draft? :)

- further examples of mentions just recently: Stakeholder Workshop : Lacunes dans la couverture d'assurance pour les dommages climatiques Mind the climate-related protection gap – reinsurance pricing and underwriting considerations Hot Topic: Mission Roundup - Adaptation to Climate Change | EURAXESS Thidevall (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I'd prefer that another reviewer review it this time. Gheus (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to for reviewing! Gheus, or any other reviewer please give suggestions for improvements prior to or after approval. :) Or any other comments of any kind Thidevall (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Climate Resilience Dialogue has been accepted

Climate Resilience Dialogue, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)