User talk:Joselenpena

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Joselenpena, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Doctor^G (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xenia de la Ossa (September 28)[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 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 for academics, 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:

No current claims to suggest WP:PROF#Criteria is satisfied to accept.

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:Xenia de la Ossa 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 05:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xenia de la Ossa (November 11)[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 Sulfurboy 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 for academics, 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:

Still fails WP:PROF, what would probably help is to see reviews of her work.

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:Xenia de la Ossa 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xenia de la Ossa has been accepted[edit]

Xenia de la Ossa, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Anamaria Font[edit]

Hello Joselenpena,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged User:Anamaria Font for deletion, because it seems to be a page for an account that does not exist.

If don't want User:Anamaria Font to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anamaría Font has been accepted[edit]

Anamaría Font, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References on Anamaría Font[edit]

Hello Joselenpena, inline citations need to point to a website where the reader can verify that the information in the preceding sentence is correct and verifiable. There are a few sentences in Anamaría Font that have a citation but where the information is not verified in the cited source. Could you maybe fix those? If the information has not been published in a reliable secondary source or by the subject herself then the information should be removed. If you have any questions, feel free to write on my talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]