User talk:Willowjohnson23

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donnells Dam (May 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Winner 42 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Donnells Dam instead.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donnells Dam and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Willowjohnson23, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEIGRAM

Hi Willowjohnson23. I've taken a look at Draft:CEIGRAM and I have a few concerns.

First, it looks to me like many of the sources you've cited come from CEIGRAM's website. For a new article this presents an immediate problem. Wikipedia articles should be created for subjects only where there are multiple independent, reliable sources covering them. These can be books, news articles, and the like (see our page on identifying reliable sources for some more detail). That does not mean those sources have to be cited in the article. They just have to exist. However since many of those sources are likely to not be in english, it's an unfortunate reality that community members will not effectively or exhaustively search for sourcing before nominating the article for deletion or refusing to move it into the mainspace.
Second (but no less important in the long run), relying largely on sources close to the subject can distort our coverage. The draft right now spends considerable time on the management of the organization as well as its mission statement and operations in different countries (in a section that was titled "international reach"). While these are salient facts about most organizations, they're likely to be things that are most prominent when the organization is writing about itself, rather than reflecting a broader look at what sources have to say. In fact, this worry is one of the animating reasons behind the guidance I noted above--if all we have to write an article are reflective statements from the organization, we can't write a neutral article no matter how much we try.

Thankfully, both of these problems are easily solved by integrating sources which talk about the organization but are independent from them. As many of these are likely to be in spanish, you may be best equipped to add them. Remember that sources from other languages are perfectly acceptable in the english wikipedia. If anyone tells you otherwise, they're wrong. So if you update the draft to tackle these two issues I'd be happy to take another look and see if it can be moved into the mainspace. Thanks, Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CEIGRAM (July 10)

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 submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CEIGRAM and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Flat Out (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Donnells Dam concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Donnells Dam, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Donnells Dam

Hello, Willowjohnson23. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Donnells Dam".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CEIGRAM concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:CEIGRAM, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:CEIGRAM

Hello, Willowjohnson23. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "CEIGRAM".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]