User talk:BookReviewer

Welcome!

Hello, BookReviewer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your submission at Articles for creation: Graham Brown (writer) (April 16)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

What would've established notability here is majorly published reviews but one book is simply so soon in our standards.

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:Graham Brown (writer) 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. He's actuallly written 5 books, two as the co-author with clive cussler. I'll update to add those as well.

BookReviewer (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your interest in Kirkus Reviews. I reverted you because you broke some text, cited a WP:SPS, and made some references unclear. I would talk this through with you. Right now I am more concerned about technical problems and basic rules than any editorial difference. If you have trouble making things the way you want, ask me for support and maybe I can do more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. There was some sales pitchy content earlier that I removed and it looked like you were trying to bring it back in.

The reference you have is both a personal opinion blog, and included out of date pricing information. I'll just rewrite that section from scratch this weekend and let you know when its done.

BookReviewer (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was not my intention to keep bad content and I do not have any particular opinion about what is there now. In looking a bit there are a lot of WP:SPS cited. Give it a go developing it. If I were to touch it, I would (1) remove all citations to kirkusreviews.com then (2) delete all sentences not backed with a citation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, basically rewrote that one paragraph with no citation, but all clear. Removed another sentence that included several pitchy links for services they sell. Also I wanted to include a link to another section of wikipedia (not the root article, but a section of one) and not sure how to do it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_award#Fee_for_review. I'm also thinking there are enough fee-for-review programs and controversy to make that its own page. Suggestion for how to link to that section of the page?

Speedy deletion nomination of Tulsa Book Review

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tulsa Book Review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The garmine ^(talk) 03:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Graham Brown (writer) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Graham Brown (writer). Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Graham Brown (writer) (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This man is most likely notable, but the current draft simply doesn't show it. What you need is several citations which go in-depth about him, from reliable independent sources. Right now you don't really have any. The Tulsa Book Review is a PR piece from the author, and the other two articles aren't about him, one's about his book, and the other is really about Cussler. Please read WP:NAUTHOR.

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:Graham Brown (writer) 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! BookReviewer, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Graham Brown (writer) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Graham Brown (writer), 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) 01:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Graham Brown (writer)

Hello, BookReviewer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Graham Brown".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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) 14:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of San Francisco Book Review

The article San Francisco Book Review has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dearth of independent, secondary source coverage about the publication itself. Mostly finding press releases.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar 01:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of City Book Review

The article City Book Review has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Only press for the org or its publications is promotional in nature.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar 06:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]