User talk:Lantzra

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/NADCA.
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! User:CorporateM 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NADCA concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NADCA, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 17:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NADCA

Hello Lantzra. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "NADCA".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NADCA}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Lantzra, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for undeletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NADCA. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my "one or two days" for further advice has stretched to five or six, but I will definitely provide it tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated advice

Further apologies for my delay in giving you the promised advice.

The first thing to say is that, although it is not made clear enough to new users, Wikipedia is not a place for companies, or people, to "tell the world" about themselves, even if they refrain from overt self-promotion. An encyclopedia article is a quite different thing from a company website. It is greatly preferred if articles are written by people without a close connection with their subject; editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden, but COI editors are encouraged to declare their interest (as you did) and to work in accordance with the principles of the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (as you also did, by submitting your article via WP:Articles for creation rather than directly).

One reason why simply copying the company's documents into Wikipedia does not give an acceptable article is the inclusion criterion called WP:Notability, which is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about?

That has the advantage of being a more objective test than "Do we think it's important?" and also of ensuring that there are independent sources for the article. It is quite a tough test, and many worthy organizations, especially new ones, cannot pass it. That is not at all to their discredit, but it means they are not suitable subjects for a global encyclopedia. The test applies to non-commercial organizations and good causes, too - we have an explanatory essay entitled Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.

The importance of independent sources is such that a very experienced Wikipedian gave this advice in User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you:

"When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write."

If you want to go ahead, think hard about notability. See WP:ANS for what it means. If you cannot find independent sources to establish it, you will be wasting your time and effort. If you want to go ahead,

Collect your sources
Read WP:Your first article
Click on Help:Userspace draft and fill in the title. That will start a draft page in your "user space" where you can work on the article, with a link to good advice and a "Submit" button which will send the article, when it is ready, to WP:Articles for creation, where an experienced user will look at it, and either accept it or give you feedback.
When writing, make a strong effort to think of yourself, not as writing for the organization, but as writing for Wikipedia about the organization, from outside. You are not addressing a potential customer or member, but a general encyclopedia reader. Bear in mind the WP:Verifiability policy: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source", and when writing any glowing adjective, or indeed any claim, imagine a hostile critic saying "Who says? Can you prove that?" Don't talk about the organization's aims and hopes for the future, or its mission statement, but about what it has achieved. No opinions, only facts, neutrally stated and cited to reliable sources. Write in your own words, without copying from the website.

Realise that this will not be your article: as soon as you post it, it becomes Wikipedia's article. Nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, not its first author and least of all its subject. Others can and will edit it, and you will not be able to insist on your preferred version. If you want an article about your organization which you can control, this is not the site for you.

By now you are thinking "This is much harder than I thought, all I wanted to do was post a copy of our booklet to tell the world about us!" I apologise that (because we are anxious not to put new contributors off by making them read a lot of advice) Wikipedia does not make clear at sign-up time that it is not a "notice-board" site like Myspace or Facebook, which are set up for people to do exactly that; but if Wikipedia is a more valuable resource than Myspace, it is only because we have standards and rules on notability, verifiability and conflict of interest.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]