• 184.91.156.54 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lil Erv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Im a new rapper 184.91.156.54 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RudolfClausius (talk · contribs)
  • Scrublands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Scrublands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wondering what went wrong - this is a legit Aussie bestseller, I thought it was very deserving of a wiki page. RudolfClausius (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by the reviewer was:

Fails WP:NBOOK, requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. GoodReads is user generated without any independent editorial oversight and therefore not an acceptable source.

Not because of what you think of it makes it acceptable and derserves a wiki page. I suggest you to click into the links and familiarise yourself with our content policies. Here are some more: WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:CS, WP:SECONDARY, WP:SELFPUB ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! On my inbox (talk page?) I just got this:

The reason left by Dan arndt was: undefined

I clearly need to familiarize myself with the tooling a bit better - really struggling to get up and running with even the basic user-to-user communication. I'll try and read some more of the docs.

There are many other independent reviews for this book. I'll try adding some more and try to work out how to get it back into the submit queue. Not even sure if this is how you reply to a message but I'm having a go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolfClausius (talk • contribs) 09:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfClausius: The undefined reason is probably a script bug. You can ignore it. Good luck! ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antonkang (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article deleted? I am promoting a new celebrity, therefore sources are very minimal due to the fact that this celebrity is brand new to the community. Online sources are very little and is difficult to find any references to back up my article. Please have my article reviewed again.

That's exactly why your draft is deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for promotion. If there are too few sources online, you may try book sources. If there are still too few sources, then it does not qualify for an article alone. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no book sources. The celebrity is NEW. And I'm trying to put her information on Wikipedia based on her personal detail. And Wiki is the first few websites that have this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonkang (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonkang: - we are not designed to be the first site to possess information. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, we take what others have written and distill it - not add that first set of data. The article will have to wait until the subject is more established and has had more written about them by secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soumya146 (talk · contribs)
  • List of legendary kings of Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article i want to put a timeline[begin time-end time] of each kings of breton form the time of Brutus. Which is relevant in both Geoffrey of Monmouth and bill cooper's book "After the flood". It is necessary to put a time-line on each event so that we can actually understand the time period of the kings. The article seems to miss the timeline to it because it has only time range like (for example:20 years) but not the begin or ending period.The time range of every king in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" and Bill Cooper's "After the Flood" is actually same.Again the reference of the book is in wikipedia by page name "http://creationwiki.org/After_the_Flood". So why it is there in the first place if not reliable. So in my opinion it will only enrich the original table by adding this extra information. Soumya146 (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Soumya146: I believe the subject is already covered in Wikipedia at King of the Britons and List of legendary kings of Britain. See also Geoffrey of Monmouth#The History of the Kings of Britain and Historia Regum Britanniae. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Code4Coffee (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Twistlock (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I made many modification to the article based on HighKing (talk · contribs)'s suggestions. He also helped editing it and getting it to the high quality state it is now. He was going to approve it, but another editor intervened our of nowhere and decided it is not notable. I'm afraid now with two declines no one will one want to approve it, although as you can learn from my talk page I did provide good reasons this article is notable for creation. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and so far besides the help from HighKing (talk · contribs) it is a very unwelcoming experience.

Code4Coffee (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Code4Coffee: Welcome and sorry that you are feeling unwelcomed. Creating a new article is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and you should not take anything personally. Wikipedia gets thousands of potential new articles per day so only ones that are completely ready will make the cut. Unfortunately, some people come to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting their business, which is one of the things that Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMO). We get a lot of article submissions with a lot of references to minor awards and rounds of funding sourced to press releases, because editors think that more citations and more text will make the article look impressive. Unfortunately for them, press releases or articles based on press releases do nothing to establish how notable a company is (see WP:CORPDEPTH), and actually makes it harder for reviewers to determine how notable a company is. This a kind of reference bombing that reflects poorly on the article. Here are my suggestions. First, answer the notice on your talk page asking if you have a WP:COI with regards to this company, and second, remove everything in your article sourced to a press release, an article based on a press release, or a "Companies to Watch" article, and only include the information found in your 2 or 3 best sources such as Forrester Research. Delete everything else. Good luck, shoy (reactions) 21:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]