User talk:Anakowi

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Anakowi/Propinquity (novel) has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Propinquity (novel), this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anakowi, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Anakowi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Propinquity (novel).
To edit the submission, 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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Propinquity (novel).
To edit the submission, 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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anakowi. You have new messages at Theonesean's talk page.
Message added 11:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 11:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Propinquity (novel), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propinquity

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Another editor had tagged it for deletion, and I concurred.

In 2013 it was released on Amazon as a Kindle e-book and a CreateSpace print-on-demand paperback. — looks like a sales pitch in the very first line. The lead is meant to be a summary of the text.
Reception: No mention of sales (mentioned in lead, which is meant to be a summary of the text) as low. The text

Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include:

generally drew praise from reviewers. — generally suggests that not everyone concurred, but we are given what surely must be the most over-the-top gushings it was possible to find...
(Not a reason for deletion) the manuscript section of the Adelaide Festival's Biennial Award for Literature, which it won. — could do with a ref
(Not a reason for deletion) The plot section is too long and detailed
"Themes" is the section I found most problematic. The commentary is unsourced and pov in tone, and too much weight is given to Macgregor's self promotion. The Da Vinci Code link (self-aggrandisement?) seems to derive only from him
"The author"&mdash I think you have lost your way here, it's suddenly turned into a bio of the author instead of writing about the book. If he meets the notability guidelines, it should be a separate article, if not, a few sentences will do
As a style thing, publications should be italicised, no their authors, or you could use a cite template

The book is probably notable enough for an article (that's a separate debate since books can't be speedily deleted on that basis alone). Do you need the deleted text?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confident that it meets the notability guidelines for books, then go ahead. My first two articles were deleted many moons ago, so I wouldn't lose sleep. I'll post the deleted text here soon. Bear in mind that you are writing an encyclopaedia article not a review. Let me know if you need help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 29/6

Last try perhaps - I'm ready to abandon this wiki entry as I'm now back at work and swamped with more important tasks. HOWEVER one more shot. I can't get reference to Wakefield Presses collapse. It was a point gleaned from conversation with a colleague who knew about this. I'm not prepared to fly interstate to hunt through newspaper microfiche to get actual evidence. So I'm wondering now if I need evidence to explain why a book that received some critical acclaim sold so few copies? I'm going to delete any reference to sales/distribution (along with other "promotional" waffle as suggested) and will be resigned to accept your (Wiki editors) final decision on whether it's acceptable. Anyway it has been a learning curve. Thanks for the feedback/suggestions. I have a much greater appreciation of Wikipedia's content to be sure. Anakowi (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about to go out, but I'll respond within 24 hours. If there is any minor fixing needs doing, I'll sort it out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied it up a bit, just a few mos tweaks and rolling up short paras. Move it to article space and we'll see what happens Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree files

Some of your files may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 1#OTRS pending since June. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]