User talk:JohnPRyan

JohnPRyan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JohnPRyan! 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 experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Gildred (May 20)

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

Article still seems promotional and reads like a CV.

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:Tom Gildred 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.

Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Gildred (May 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 Devopam 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please avoid making the BLP sound like a professional summary. Kindly develop the article into a good read, and resubmit.

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:Tom Gildred 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.

Devopam (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JohnPRyan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Draft:Tom Gildred, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, if you have a conflict of interest with Draft:Tom Gildred (e.g. employee/paid to make article) declare it now to avoid problems down the line. This is not a indication you've done anything wrong- just a paid editor previously edited the Draft:Tom Gildred article, and since they didn't declare their connection, the article was deleted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Gildred (July 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 Chris troutman 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 is obvious hagiography.

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:Tom Gildred 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Gildred (July 19)

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 (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), 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:

Too suggestive of an advertised business profile and the current information and sources are only announcements or notices; notability cannot be inherited.

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:Tom Gildred 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 22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Portner Nominated for Deletion

Proposed deletion of Emma Portner

The article Emma Portner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, not a notable enough figure to justify a page

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.

@QueerFilmNerd: Message text. JohnPRyan (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Hey [User talk:QueerFilmNerd] Emma Portner is already referenced in at least 2 places in Wikipedia (Ellen Page, and Meatloaf's Bat out of Hell musical), and along with her being discussed in the New York Times, Fox News, USA Today, et cetera, I think her notability is established.[reply]

I could merge her stub into Ellen Page's main page, but I feel like users there would protest.

For pages about a living person, I usually like to create a stub and then let the community gradually flesh it out. I can go back and flesh it out myself if that would help justify her notability. Thanks, let me know. JohnPRyan (talk)John

If you want to go add more to her page, I'm perfectly fine with it not being proposed for deletion. Perhaps just some more background in her dance history and her career as a choreographer.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @QueerFilmNerd: Message text. Hey, thanks for being so understanding. I have fleshed out her career section with more information. I left the marked for deletion tag up, so you could remove it after you'd reviewed my changes. Thanks again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Portner

QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==  Proposed deletion of Emma Portner ==

The article Emma Portner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

apparent lack of significant coverage other than her relation to Elliot Page

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.

Nomination of Emma Portner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emma Portner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Portner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Dentren | ^Talk 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]