User talk:Lstanley1979/Archive 5

Quest101

Hello, Thank you for the review, however I feel the article is not promotional. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... It is a biography of a prominent person who established (with his wife) not only a well-known institution throughout the region of Southern California, but in Western Europe as well. He was an important figure who contributed significantly to the spiritual teaching and welfare of persons throughout the United States and Canada.

The article does not promote any commercial interest whatsoever, in fact purposely only mentions the subject matter of the books he published--not any of their titles in order to specifically NOT promote them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest101 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Quest101. Promotional articles do not have to be commercial in nature; it's possible to promote spiritual concerns as well as commercial ones. As it stands, your article talks about the subject in a highly promotional tone, and draws too much from one particular source. If you can demonstrate the person is talked about in neutral sources, and can write a good, well-sourced article in Wikipedia's house style - WP:NPOV - then it might not get deleted. However, you might like to post the article to WP:Articles for Creation so you can get feedback and help in this before an article gets put into the main article space. Please think about using more sources and discerning whether the institution is written about widely in reliable national or international media. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Shevonsilva

Thank you much for reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings! Bungalow (restaurant) and Terra Kulture

LouiseS1979 Seasons Greetings! I have been offline for a while and only recently came back online. I only recently saw your message on my talk page. I'm not trying to prove you wrong but in my opinion, the reliability of the references used in citing the article is more relevant in establishing notability. Some of the citations used for Terra Kulture are different from the ones used for Bungalow (restaurant). Terra Kulture was significantly improved after it was deleted. I removed the promotional contents and it is currently not a travel guide. Any suggestion on improving the articles are welcome Eruditescholar (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC).

Please can you close the AFD discussions for Bungalow (restaurant)? I'm actually no longer interested whether the article is kept or deleted. I usually have difficulty assessing the internet and having two AFD debates at the same time is too much for me to handle. Thanks!Eruditescholar (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Eruditescholar - All your sources are promotional - they are routine coverage in travel guides, not discussion of the significance of the restaurant beyond that. Please read WP:CORP and consider what the sources actually are rather than claiming they support notability just because they mention which restaurants exist in Lagos. A restaurant (or other company) needs coverage in neutral, third party sources - not websites which are geared towards promotion - which you need to find before the articles will survive AfD. If I may be so bold, improving the articles requires you to read the guidelines to make sure you know what makes a restaurant notable, rather than ask the people what you need to do - because we're unlikely to tell you anything different.

Sorry I can't be of more help, but you have a lot of such messages on your talk page about the businesses you create articles about, and you need to actually take in what people are trying to tell you about those articles rather than beg us for assistance we can't give you if you can't provide us with sources that demonstrate notability in our opinions. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

While I appreciate your reviewing, you created an edit conflict and I have just lost over an hour's worth of work on Tân Mỹ Base Mztourist (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mztourist: - I apologise for the problem. LouiseS1979 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why you deleted my page?

Why you deleted my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayjetavat (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ajayjetavat. I wouldn't have deleted it myself - I only nominated it for deletion. However, Wikipedia isn't a place to host your resume or an 'about me' page - it's reserved for people who are important enough - or notable - to have other people write about them and discuss their contributions to society or their legacy in their field. This is nothing personal, but I think you may find Wikipedia isn't what you think it is, and encourage you to read a few of the WP:Policies and guidelines to be able to make more constructive additions to the project. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok thats fine

Can u tell me which category are supporting on wikipedia (e.g - actor)

Can u give me list— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayjetavat (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ajayjetavat - no problem. Have a look at the Wikiproject Film if you're interested in film, WikiProject Theatre for stage acting. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Louise, Thanks for your help in improving the articles I started. Best wishes,

Mirrortoamermaid (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you, Mirrortoamermaid, for writing them. Good luck with your future contributions. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Museums & thanks

Dear Louise, I am trying to put the information of the official museums (so no commercial attractions) correctly on Wikipedia, just like they exist in Dutch and a variety of languages. I only saw that 5 of them did not have a proper English page. So that's why I am trying to put it on there. Please help me if I did something wrong, Thank you very much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranepa4 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ranepa4 - I've left a fuller explanation on your talk page. However, just because a museum exists, it doesn't mean it's inherently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Even though the museums are not commercial enterprises, it's still promotional to upload articles about them. To have its own Wikipedia article, a museum would have to be culturally significant in its own right (for instance, would have to be one with enough history or importance to have been discussed in WP:Reliable sources - so the Louvre has its own article, but not my local town museum). Basically, we're not a directory of local attractions - we have strict criteria for inclusion, which is probably why your museums didn't have articles in the first place.

Before you create any more articles, please read the links someone has listed on your talk page. This should give you some idea of what to write about and what not to write about. If you have any questions, please ask them at the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk forums. Thanks! LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

New York Sunday News

Thanks, Just trying to be a better wikipedian. I wish I was more experienced. I am finally getting some mentors on here to help me out. CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, CrazyAces489. Good luck. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Bachner draft

Thank you so much for your help TimHitchings (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No problems, Tim. I have to work tomorrow :(, and then we're out for New Year's Eve, but I have a day off on Thursday and I'll be able to give a bit more time to it then. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm making the suggested changes and I'm fixing all the cites as you recommended. I'm hopeful I've done the bulk of the work as you did SO much to help me. I wouldn't want you to have to spend additional time on anything tedious and mechanical that I should and can do now that you've demonstrated how in your revisions. I'm unsure if I was to respond to you here or on my talk page. Let me know which is the most appropriate. Have a Happy New Year. TimHitchings (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi TimHitchings - here is fine. I get automatically notified of messages here whereas it's a little bit more difficult to notify someone of messages elsewhere (although it's often good to keep the discussion in one place; usually for live articles that's the talk page of the article). Have a look at the ping template for how to message someone away from their own talk page.

Thanks for your contribution to the encyclopaedia. You've got some more advice there - as I said this helps me too. I learn a lot by doing things like drafting and doing 'cite news' templates so it gave me the opportunity to practice writing an article. I also wanted to help because I enjoy cricket and your article reminded me in some ways about the recent death of Phillip Hughes. LouiseS1979 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Lstanley1979!

Happy New Year!

Lstanley1979,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 07:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Dear Lstanley1979,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}} on someone else's talk page.

Happy New Year!

Thank you for the nice comment and reviewing the Plamen Panaiotov article! Hope the year 2015 will be a great one for you and you will be able to achieve many milestones! :) Oleg Morgan (talk)

Щастлива Нова година, Oleg! LouiseS1979 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Сърдечно благодаря! Oleg Morgan (talk)

Re: to the Deletion request of article on VTRAKS

Sir, I disagree to the fact that it is promotional as I have given an unbiased view on this website which is clearly evident from its true revenue and sales. What part do you think seems promotional? Please reply as soon as possible with the quoted text so that I can edit it and this article can be termed fruitful for every reader. --Pravirmalhotra (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravirmalhotra (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Pravirmalhotra (I'm a woman, by the way :)). Generally, your article lists a lot of services more relevant to a promotional advertisement rather than an encyclopaedic article. You need to refocus the article away from services or products you provide and towards the history and significance of your company within the wider world. Basically, if you are notable enough for the encyclopaedia, you will be able to point to discussion about you in reliable sources - third party sources discussing your significance within your marketplace or locality. Whether or not you want a 'fruitful' article, unfortunately if you don't fit Wikipedia's strict standards for inclusion, you can't establish yourself here. Also, re-adding content that has been previously deleted could be considered as disruptive.

Before you go any further, please read and digest the various links to the guidelines you've been given on your talk page. That is the general way to create a fruitful article. Thank you for contributing, however. We just need to make sure your article will pass initial scrutiny, which is why I suggested you write a draft and submit it to WP:Articles for Creation rather than try to re-apply the article after it has been deleted. LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit for VTRAKS

Ma'am, I have made significant edits in the article so that it does not seem as an advert. Please review the below given article for errors(if any) and suggest me edits for the same. Reply as soon as possible as I need to publish an edit to my article.

Article draft

VTRAKS is an Canadian electronic commerce website founded in mid 2014 and is maintained by UControl eBiz Limited. It operates on a global platform and accepts orders from countries like USA, Canada, India and all other major European countries. VTRAKS is globally head quartered in Mississauga, Ontario, that is one of the ten provinces of Canada, located in east-central Canada. VTRAKS stocks a premium line of Best Beauty, Fitness Products, Recreation Gear and Marine Electronics and promises them at the lowest rates possible. The website also offers high level of service and support and claims to be the best one in its category to be doing so. History VTRAKS was founded in mid 2014 by a Ontario, Canada based entrepreneur. vtraks.com as a domain was registered on 18.8.2014. Being a small start-up vtraks.com had quite limited brands available in its initial days, but now this fast rising urban electronic commerce website has numerous brands and suppliers working under it. VTRAKS allows payment methods ranging from secure payments from Paypal to payments using debit cards and credit cards. VTRAKS also ships globally every country. Revenue and Sales VTRAKS has an estimated worth of $ 37,800.00 as reported by Alexa which is a trusted website for getting net worth and ranks of websites on the world wide web. Daily sales of VTRAKS are estimated to be around $ 63.00. Initial founders had spent around $ 10000.00 on the creation and advertisement on the website and has seen about 278 % increase in the website's profits. With outsourcing of VTRAK products to other websites, vtraks.com has been able to yield more than $ 25000.00 in the last 4 months. Finance VTRAKS as an electronic commerce website runs on in-house investments by the owner as well as investments by a partner firm UControl eBiz Limited which is based in the same nation. VTRAKS has seen a significant increase in the investments made by its partner firms. Brands such as Garmin have partnered with VTRAKS and have invested in the website/firm as well as given permission to the electronic commerce website to officially sell Garmin products.

--Pravirmalhotra (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pravirmalhotra - do you have any independent sources referencing your business? As a small start-up, you may not fulfil the corporate notability guidelines, and therefore won't qualify for an article at all (notability can't be improved simply by editing out promotional language). Please read the guidelines before you continue - I doubt this will qualify for an article, I'm afraid. LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ma'am, if you see that article carefully I mentioned that it started as a small start-up and now has grown into a notable electronic commerce website. Ma'am I completely disagree with you if you don't want to let VTRAKS as an article be present on Wikipedia just on the grounds of you believing it to be a small- start-up even after I removed each and every element that seemed to be an advert. Please approve the article as I don't find any reason that conflicts with the fact that it would be encyclopaedic for the reader. I would suggest you to read the wiki article about Flipkart that has the same elements just on a larger scale and stands as a quite informative article. Reply as soon as possible.

--Pravirmalhotra (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OK - that's fine, but you need sources to demonstrate that - please compile the article again and quote those sources discussing your notable company, and read the guidelines before you begin again. Current standards for acceptance are quite high, and so pointing to another article isn't really relevant when people are assessing yours for inclusion. An AFC draft is probably the best way forward if you want considered review. LouiseS1979 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wenfei Fan new article

Thanks for your attention. According to the guidelines, Fellows of the ACM who also hold personal chairs should be definitely notable. Ott2 (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for clarifying that. LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Terra Kulture

Happy New Year and Thanks for assisting with improving the article! Eruditescholar (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, Eruditescholar. We're all in this together. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Booqlist

Hi, Many thanks for your help in improving my articles and for your tips in referencing! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booqlist (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Emerald Reprobates

Hi Louise, Thanks for your notes on the page. The podcast is not my own although i do know the guys. What exactly will i need to add or change in order to improve the chances of the page being considered notable? GammaBro2015 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GammaBro2015. You need to add reliable sources: neutral and independent assessments of the podcast. That is, not links to their own site or commentary, or where you can download the podcast, but media reports which aren't just promotional. Essentially, what people unconnected with the podcast think about it. Have a look at the link to understand what sources Wikipedia needs for a subject to be considered notable. I've had a look online and my gut feeling is that there is a lack of reliable sources on a Google search - there's not a lot of information out there except on their own wordpress blog, which wouldn't be enough sourcing for an article to stand up to further scrutiny. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what i can find and update ASAP. Thanks again. How long do i have? GammaBro2015 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@GammaBro2015:: I haven't nominated it for deletion yet, so you've got a while right now. I removed a speedy-deletion tag because the criterion was wrong, but you might want to consider also changing the language for WP:NPOV. I'll see what I can do to remove promotional language - but thanks for contributing and I hope we can work something out. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@GammaBro2015:: just seen Tutelary's Proposed Deletion tag - which I think is fair as it gives you more chance to sort out the issues. This gives you 7 days to sort out some sources before the article can be deleted. This should be enough time to sort it out. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Any help would be greatly appreciated in relation to the promotional language. GammaBro2015 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Louise, It seems i wasn't afforded the time i was told I'd have to find sources and that the page has been speedily deleted. I understand it wasn't you personally who deleted it but have you any idea why this has happened? GammaBro2015 (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, GammaBro2015; I'm only one person and it may be that someone investigating the article still felt it came under one of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Tutelary Prodded it; I hadn't investigated it since.

Were there any possible sources? If you think you can still find sources, then maybe create a WP:Articles for Creation draft to get this sort of feedback, after reading all you can on what sources are acceptable. If the only thing, covered by the RS criteria, available was the wordpress blog, I'm not sure it's going to be worth writing an article on them yet, unfortunately. LouiseS1979 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input and help. GammaBro2015 (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the teahouse help

You recently provided many paragraphs of help to me over at the teahouse. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benthatsme (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, Benthatsme. I hope I was of some use and your problem gets sorted out. LouiseS1979 (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you have written some excellent Teahouse answers recently, and I just want to say "thanks" and offer you a big box of brownie points. I hope you like them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm honoured, Cullen328, and certainly the brownie points will keep me going during the day. LouiseS1979 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm BethNaught. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hotels in Sagara,Karnataka, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi BethNaught - to me that looks pretty unambiguously promotional - I added a speedy tag but I think the original creator is removing them as fast as we can add them. LouiseS1979 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that you had tagged it. Thanks for keeping an eye on these things. To stop this happening again, you may wish to not mark them as reviewed in the first place. I think page curation does it automatically, but if you use Twinkle you can use that and change your prefences to stop this behaviour. BethNaught (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And yes, my original message here was automated, I didn't realise page curation did that either. Sorry for templating you. BethNaught (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught Yeah, I'd noticed that, actually - it's rather curious - if they remove the tags I guess it shows up as reviewed and TW might be the better option. And templating is not a problem. I recognised the language. LouiseS1979 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@BethNaught: - I'm feeling a bit dim here - not sure where to change my preferences. LouiseS1979 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences. Click the Gadgets tab and Twinkle is under the heading Browsing. Once you enable Twinkle, you can alter your Twinkle options at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Does that help? BethNaught (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great. I already had Twinkle enabled, but that helps. Thank you :) LouiseS1979 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :) BethNaught (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. LouiseS1979 (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Krolickinaltai

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Krolickinaltai (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC) It is not promoting me or anything that would benefit me. It is merely informational, strictly objective, and no different from thousands of other entries in your system (e.g., Dmitry Orlov (Writer)). If you feel it is problematic, so be it. Delete it. But, I would contest your judgment and question your apparent grounds for deletion. But, since this is not my deal, but yours, I guess you control what's here. So, let it be. I really do not care at this point. Sandy Krolick, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krolickinaltai (talk • contribs)

Hello Krolickinaltai - I guess it read promotionally to me, and obviously in creating it you have a conflict of interest - it's hard to speak neutrally about yourself or determine whether or not you are notable as fits the relatively strict guidelines Wikipedia has. Pointing to other articles may not be helpful as some of those will also be, strictly speaking, going against the guidelines, but new pages are very thoroughly checked. I see someone advised you to place your article directly into main-space, but did they take a look at it before it went live in order to determine whether it would meet these criteria? LouiseS1979 (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

LouiseS quite frankly, I do not even know, technically, how to respond to last last comment. So I must make a new post on your talk page. To state summarily that it is in creating it there is an obvious conflict of interest is simply wrong-headed. There certainly is the potential for self-promotion, but not necessarily a conflict of interest. Whether or not I am notable as a topic is always debatable, but I will not try to justify that to you, it would be self-promotion. Like I said, do as you please. Again, I am not going to engage in this sort of discussion. It is silly and a waste of both our time. If you do not think there is anything notable. Just delete it. And, nothing of mine is self published. But, then, that's another matter. sk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krolickinaltai (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest is that you are trying to write something about yourself, and you may not be able to get sufficiently detached from the subject to be neutral about it. I don't mind if you want it deleted, it's just that Wikipedia has some quite strict policies on this that means new pages go through quite significant scrutiny. Of course, justifying it to me wouldn't be self-promotion, but it's generally not advised to try to write about yourself, or try to use self-published sources to support your notability. LouiseS1979 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Fylbecatulous. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vanilla Dome, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 15:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Arienne Dwyer page

I added more sources to Arienne Dwyer. She is cited on a number of existing Wikipedia pages. Doesn't that help indicate that her work is notable? Thanks! Linguist8 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Linguist8 - thank you for adding some more sources - the article has stuck around, so there's no immediate danger, but it's generally a good idea to have articles be well-sourced. To fulfill notability requirements for an academic, you need to have a look at WP:ACADEMIC. Go through the checklist under 'Criteria' on that page and see whether Ms Dwyer meets any of those points, and that this can be justified by sources (e.g. you may think she's made a huge contribution to her field but I think there needs to be evidence of that in e.g. a large number of citations in other papers on something like Google Scholar). Merely being cited a lot on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily indicate notability (the editor who edited after you, Cmr08, has explained that in their edit summary). The notability criteria basically depend on her career, her position and so on. If the Guggenheim Foundation is a big thing in the linguistic works, she meets that criteria.

By the way, ideally, with sourcing, you need neutrality. You've used a citation from one of her own papers - that's not really a good source, because it's self-published. A better source would be a paper discussing her work as an academic or her contribution to the field as a neutral, third party. Cmr08 explained about not using another Wikipedia link as a source; generally speaking, pointing to Wikipedia is self-referential and not inherently reliable, because of the open nature of the project. Our roots need to be in external sources. Meanwhile, the self-published source you've used points only really to having published on the subject of the Uyghur language, so that's fine as far as verification goes, but generally speaking, we're more interested in actual achievements as listed in the Criteria section of WP:ACADEMIC. Many non-notable scholars publish work in their subject, many non-notable artists paint pictures, many non-notable authors (including myself) publish books...so try to steer clear of referencing using the subject's own work in future.

However, I hope this has been useful information. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia :). Good luck with your next article. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your assistance but please note this page will continue to be edited until it meets all requirements so please remove deletion proposal as it is completely unnecessary.

Hi, PD8599. It would be a good idea to have an article go live with some sources already inserted, since new page patrollers are usually looking closely at what goes live. I'm re-constructing it for further editing to provide a structure and to copy-edit for Wikipedia style and how an article should look (with proper headings and so on), but it's a good idea to draft something with some sources included first to prevent this in the future. A quick google brings up very few actual sources about Ultan Guilfoyle - please take a look at notability guidelines for individuals and how to find good sources.

Next time, you can always use your sandbox to draft an article before it's ready - properly formatted and reasonably well-sourced - before you either transfer it to the main space or submit it as a draft for further feedback. Simply dropping it into main space before you have your sources ready and waiting is going to be an issue for a lot of new page patrollers. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 20:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear stanley

i am very new to wikipedia. who do people delete my article very soon as i have given all ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsefinder (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Pulsefinder - welcome to Wikipedia. When adding articles, you need reliable sources. Your subject, Lewis Hilsenteger, wasn't particularly notable - that is, he's not really widely discussed by mainstream sources, and he's only really been discussed in respect of one particular video. Facebook and YouTube are not good references - they are largely ephemeral and user-created, and can't be used on Wikipedia. You'd need a widely-circulated, national or major provincial newspaper discussing the video; one of the sources looked better than the other and if you could have found some more sources like that Hilsenteger might have been proved notable, but I think the other editor will have thought it wasn't enough.

Next time, what I suggest doing is creating a sandbox and drafting your article there, then submitting it to Articles for Creation. You can get some feedback and possibly even some help creating the article there. Have a look at some of the links I left on your talk page and think about what else you might write about or contribute (particularly to any article relating to the iPhone 6 'bendgate' situation).

Also please remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), so I can see clearly who has messaged me. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 20:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Coda by Thea Astley

Thanks for the note. I've done a bit more digging and added a few new references to Coda by Thea Astley. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff. Thank you for your contributions, Perry :). LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 21:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)