User talk:George Taylor Bown

Welcome!

Hello, George Taylor Bown, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:George Taylor Bown, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:George Taylor Bown

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:George Taylor Bown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baires Raffaelli (November 1)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You've shown that The Fast Guide to Architectural Form is probably notable, but what about his other books? Are there academic reviews of his work? If you can show that at least two of his books would be notable under the guidelines at WP:NBOOK, we can accept this draft. Alternatively, are there any biographical articles about him?

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baires Raffaelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George Taylor Bown! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! asilvering (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status of your draft

Hi, I got your email. Your draft has not been resubmitted. To resubmit it, you need to hit the blue "submit" button again. You can continue to resubmit after being declined. If you get another decline, it will also give a reason. If you need help understanding the reason, or you disagree with it, you can contact the reviewer to ask for further explanation. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baires Raffaelli (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not quite enough independent, significant coverage.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baires Raffaelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baires Raffaelli (November 8)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baires Raffaelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ratnahastin (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baires Raffaelli (November 8)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No significant coverage on the sources used.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baires Raffaelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email about your draft

Hi, can you please use my Talk page instead of email? It's much easier to keep track of and leaves a record for other editors to see, which is very helpful. Also, it leaves useful links so I don't have to go searching for your username. Thank you.

Regarding your question, the reviewers declining you for lack of significant coverage are probably incorrect to do so. I don't have time right now to check and confirm this, but I have left a note on the draft. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the response. I'm sorry for using email, but I'm not very familiar with it, and I couldn't figure out how to contact you again. You've been very kind once again. I'm sorry that you don't have time to review the draft and possibly point out the things that need correction. I didn't understand if your note is for you as a reviewer or for a future submission. Thank you again for now. George Taylor Bown (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@George Taylor Bown the note was for a future reviewer, since I see that previous editors have noted a lack of significant coverage, which is not necessarily relevant in this case. I did a bit of editing on the draft for you, but didn't quite finish, and I see it's been declined again. I'll have another look in a bit and see what I can do. It seems to me that your draft leans heavily on WP:NBOOK #4, The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, and to be honest, I don't know why that is in the guideline, since I don't think I have ever seen a book's notability successfully defended on this basis. Usually people avoid it because the other criteria are much easier to show with reliable sources. Academic book reviews (WP:NBOOK#1) are usually the standard. I did a quick search earlier and didn't find any obvious ones, which unfortunately usually isn't a good sign. I'll look again, but in the meantime if you know of any, it would be helpful to add them to the article. -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for all the guidance and explanations you are giving me during this first draft of an article here on Wikipedia. I had noticed the changes to the draft and thought they were made by the reviewer who simultaneously noted me to remove references (noting WP.CITEKILL) before forwarding the article. I reviewed the draft, moving some references as noted and deleting other references to universities and scientific research, leaving only the most significant and verifiable ones. George Taylor Bown (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming back to it and find that it's been accepted. Congrats! Sorry it was such a Process. -- asilvering (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, you have been very kind and I am very happy to be able to contribute to the Wikipedia. I will try to insert other articles always in the subject of architecture and to improve the one just approved. George Taylor Bown (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience. I noticed that the article has been moved to draft. I tried to read the reasons but didn't find anything apparently serious from what I can understand. I would like to know if I should continue working on it or if all of this is part of an additional review process in which I don't need to do anything. Thanks again. George Taylor Bown (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange. At this point you don't need to do anything. The person who draftified it is not a member of New Page Patrol or AfC, so I'm not even sure why they touched it in the first place. It isn't required that someone be an AfC or NPP reviewer for them to edit the article you wrote, of course, but it's very odd for someone to just come across it randomly if they aren't a reviewer. I'm going to give the draftifying editor a bit of time to reply to my questions, but if they don't, I'll just move it to mainspace for you. Once an article has been accepted through AfC, if someone thinks it doesn't belong in mainspace, it really shouldn't go back to draftspace, but should go instead to WP:AFD, where it can have a full deletion discussion. Basically the idea here is that if it notability is "controversial" (ie, if individual editors have disagreed), it needs a broader consensus than just a single editor at AfC pushing a decline/accept button.

If the article is still in draftspace in a few days, this will probably because the other editor never replied to me, so I forgot about this. Feel free to ping me again if so. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baires Raffaelli (November 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

"scholarly impact.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]" is one of the prime examples of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder. A full review will be difficult until you have chosen your references. Please deal with 100% of the CITEKILL before resubmitting

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baires Raffaelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baires Raffaelli has been accepted

Baires Raffaelli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]