• JEFFLOYNES (talk · contribs)

Two matters: (1) Disagreement with the reviewer as to the manner of writing. It definitely does not promote the Foundation and is written in a very matter of fact modality. Our Board of Directors, which includes a Member of Parliament, 3 Academics - one of whom is a prior UN Secretariat and another who was a former Dean at Univ. of Hawaii - plus the Chairman of the Red Cross Society and former members of SOPAC, SPREP, CHOGRM, ACP Advisory Board to the EU, plus other well established international organizations, all disagree with the reviewer. It seems the reviewer did not read the article but only scanned it, as he stated the name of the organization was never mentioned, when in fact it was mentioned 6 times. It also seems he has confused the goals and differences of the organization, which must be stated as they are the primary reason the Foundation warrants an article, with "self-promotion". It is nothing of the kind and the article is written in a very formal manner, according to our Board. If it is believed that the article is 'advertising' for the Foundation then I ask to cite exactly where in the article this is apparent, so that I might modify the content at that point.

(2) The reviewer has asked to cite references others have made about the Foundation. This is impossible. Again, he did not read the article. The Foundation was only recently incorporated and has not yet as an operating entity established a track record. We are preparing, however, a list of references addressing the issues the Fondation that are focus points of other organizations. JEFFLOYNES (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is User:JEFFLOYNES/sandbox. On a third read of the draft, having read it twice before declining, I can infer, but am guessing, that its name is the Island Prosperity Foundation. If it was only recently incorporated and does not yet have a track record as an operating entity, see WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is more interested in what others have written about your organization than what you have written about yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• JEFFLOYNES (talk · contribs)
  • User:JEFFLOYNES/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Submission of article was declined as "unambiguous Advertising". Our Board of Directors, which includes a Member of Parliament, a former UN Secretariate, 4 PhDs, 3 Academics (including a Dean from the Univ. of Hawaii), and members of SOPAC, SPREP, CHOGM, plus the Red Cress Chair, all disagree with the reviewer and all agree the article is not bias. Please advise where there seems to be bias or unambiguous advertising and we will edit the contents. Please do not confuse the uniqueness of the Foundation's goals with advertising. The name of the Foundation is mentioned in 6 places (the reviewer said it was not mentioned anywhere.. I suspect the reviewer did not read the article) I suspect the article is missing the page title.. Please advise.

JEFFLOYNES (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking people within the subject if the subject is biased, which is a huge conflict of interest. Also, the reviewer did read the article; he/she cannot review it without reading it. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising. Since the author says that the foundation is new and has not been in business long enough to establish a reputation, it is almost certainly too soon for the foundation to meet corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ChefNathan (talk · contribs)
  • Rafael Cardona Salazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

just wondering why my article was declined. My references and research are solid, and the only other page of Rafael Cardona Salazar is a confusing German wiki page.

ChefNathan (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your submission may not be notable enough for its own article. Please read the comments and pages provided by the reviewer. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is the 2017 in baseball article coming. 2600:8803:7A00:19:2525:F99C:4F62:97CB (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you write it. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated demands that someone write the article are becoming tiresome. This is a warning that you may be blocked from editing if all that you do is to complain that no one else has written an article, when you can either create an account and submit it to Articles for Creation or simply submit it to Articles for Creation from an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Roshni Kanchan (talk · contribs)

Hello, I wrote an article on a book. From the other articles that I read, there doesn't seem to be a fixed format for individual chapter summary. I'd want to know if I should continue improving my draft article (there are 14 chapters, 350 pages approx) or wait 2 - 3 weeks for the draft to be reviewed and considered fit to continue? Is there a way to know immediately just that much - whether the topic of the article is ok or not per Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you.

Roshni Kanchan (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts that have empty chapter headings, as yours does, are almost always declined as incomplete. I don't recommend writing a chapter summary of each chapter. A long summary of the contents of a book, such as it would be if you summarize each chapter, reads like an advertisement for the book. If your objective is to describe the notability of the book, please provide summaries of reviews and similar third-party discussion. If your real objective is to advertise the book, some other medium than Wikipedia is more appropriate. What have others, such as reviewers, written about the book? Also, do you have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unqienyc (talk · contribs)

Please tell me why the submission was rejected Thank you Unqienyc (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission does not adequately show its notability and why it should have its own article. It is also not supported by reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Vlenneville (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Vlenneville (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Poisoned Pen Bookstore wikipedia page as a template for creating the VJ Books page. Why would our page be shut down and their page remain?

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't nominate the other bookstore for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a deletion discussion of the notability of your bookstore, which concluded that it was not notable. An article that is re-created following a deletion discussion that is substantially the same as the deleted article can be speedily deleted as per G4, the rule against re-creation after deletion discussion. If you disagree with the deletion discussion, you can ask for its review at deletion review or demonstrate that your article is a substantial improvement on the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the conflict of interest policy. You appear to be one of the owners of the bookstore. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]