• Pjholm (talk · contribs)

My new article about the 1803 Georges Head Battery was rejected by Drewmutt because he said "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Georges Head Battery instead." However the article Georges Head Battery is about a completely different site, the GPS coordinates will confirm this and I allude to it in my article. These are two discrete items and warrant their own individual articles. Pjholm (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Pjholm (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pjholm. Wikipedia favors large, comprehensive articles. Georges Head Battery mentions the 1803 battery before going on to describe the 1871 battery. There is only one paragraph of text in User:Pjholm/sandbox. That content could easily be covered in the context of Georges Head Battery, and that article could absorb the new material comfortably. I recommend that you start by following Drewmutt's suggestion. As the article grows, the advantages of splitting it can be reevaluated. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

We don't appear to have titled the page we have created. It was submitted under our username. Is there an option to give the page a correct title? Many thanks. Flyingduckagent (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The titling can be easily resolved. The more immediate issues are, firstly, that the article has no citations to reliable sources and, secondly, as you represent Mr Wardle, [1], you would need to declare a Conflict of interest and consult the policies and guidance relating to editing with a conflict before proceeding. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft had moved to Draft:Michael Wardle. Matthew_hk tc 09:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mullenoverit (talk · contribs)

Hello! I'm just trying to figure out whether or not this draft even has potential of getting approved with editing? I question the subject's notability and am not sure if, even with editing, this will make it through. I've read through a lot of the Wikipedia beginner's guides and I am making an effort in good faith to NOT make this salesy, but informational. Any tips or light you can shed on this topic? There is inherent bias as well, which is a huge roadblock and I understand that, which is why I'm coming to people who spend quite a bit of time on here to determine if this is largely a fruitless effort or if there is a possibility it will go somewhere. Mullenoverit (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be about a line of miscellaneous products from a non-notable company. I suspect it will never be accepted as an article here. Maproom (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]