User talk:Greenthumb2016

This is Greenthumb2016's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Well Appointed House (March 5)[edit]

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:

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Well Appointed House 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.

Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Greenthumb2016, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Well-Appointed House[edit]

The problem isn't the presence of those sources, but how they're being used. It's not encyclopedic to just list a bunch of media appearances under "Publications: Magazines", "Publications: Books" or "On-Air Mentions" headers — but the same sources would be perfectly valid if you used them to support substantive statements about the website that were supported by those sources. A lot of the sources in the article are behind paywalls, so I can't read them myself to give you a direct example drawn from the existing sources, but I'll give you a similar example based on another article: if you used this article to support the statement that "Brie Larson was nominated for an Academy Award", then that would be notable and encyclopedic — but if you used the exact same reference to support the statement that "Brie Larson has been covered in The Telegraph" instead, then that's not adding anything notable or valuable to the article. The context of what the article is covering her for is what's encyclopedic and noteworthy, and what the article should be cited to support a statement about — the fact that the article exists is not a noteworthy or useful thing to say in and of itself, if "the article exists" is the only thing you're sourcing to that article. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Well Appointed House (March 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kikichugirl 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Well Appointed House 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.

— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Well Appointed House[edit]

Hello, Greenthumb2016. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Well Appointed House".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]