User talk:Joekollege

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katherine Timpf (October 25)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people 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:Katherine Timpf 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.

Primefac (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joekollege, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Joekollege! 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! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katherine Timpf (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 Bearcat was:

Still relies entirely on primary source verification of her existence on the websites of directly affiliated organizations, and still lacking in any reliable sources in which an unaffiliated media outlet has covered her as a 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:Katherine Timpf 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.

Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katherine Timpf (November 4)

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:

Are there any more available sources about her and her work overall? Cheers,

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:Katherine Timpf 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.

SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Timpf

Mediaite, The Blaze and Red Alert Politics would all be okay amid a greater diversity of sources, but they wouldn't quite be enough if they were the foundation of an article's sourcing — as a rule, we're iffy about blogs (although having a diverse roster of contributors and a named and listed editorial team does help) and about sources that are too explicitly tilted in one direction or the other ideologically. So those sources would be allowable, but they wouldn't be enough to make the article includable if they were the best you could do for sourcing. However, the Hillsdale Collegian wouldn't count, as we deprecate student newspapers as being unable to contribute to the topic's notability — they're not widely distributed, nor accessible in a widely-available public archive if the content ever disappears from the web. So while they can be used for some supplementary confirmation of facts after an article is already sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, college or university student newspapers cannot help get the topic over GNG. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Katherine Timpf has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Katherine Timpf. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katherine Timpf has been accepted

Katherine Timpf, 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!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]