User talk:Haryanatourisim

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sumita Misra (October 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 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:Sumita Misra 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Haryanatourisim, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sumita Misra (November 18)

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:Sumita Misra 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 00:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Sumita Misra has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sumita Misra. Thanks! — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sumita Misra

Please feel free to revert the modifications I make to the draft. However, I am working on it with the aim of getting it to mainspace. I will work on it episodically. Please be aware that I am not sure that this prospective article will actually be something that can get to mainspace. Please also be completely aware that even if the article does get advanced to mainspace, it may later be subject to deletion due to borderline notability (although I think I see enough to maybe squeek above the threshold). That said, I will push it along it the right direction. To get it there, my mode of work is to tear it apart and rebuild it, so the Draft will go through episodes of looking very messy. It may look like that for several days between edits but I will put it all back together eventually. I do wish to politely emphasize again that the article appears to be of borderline notability, doing so because I do not want your expectations to run unduly high. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a first pass clean up. I addressed the AfC input to convert to a paragraph based format. I will come back in a few days or so and start a second look. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done with what I set out to do. The AfC advice to rewrite the article in paragraph style is completed. I will resubmit on your behalf. There are a "lot" of references, but frankly, in my opinion, each individual citation does not unequivocally qualify as an encyclopedically notable event, at least as that is rather technically defined here. Many of the sources are affiliated with the subject, but those that are not are not encyclopedic analyses or treatments of the subject or their contributions. They are mostly reports of what I would think of as good general news interest, rather than encyclopedic interest. At least that's how it seems to me at the moment. I dislike giving you an undesirable opinion, but for what it's worth I am not at all sure this article meets notability. I do wish I could help more. Anyway, you can see how it plays out. Good luck. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2016 (U

Not acceptable

I'm not going to use the template for this, in the hope of making it clearer:

I cannot imagine that the current version would be likely to be passed at AfD. The administrative career shows zero evidene of notability. The literary career has for references mostly outright press releases, and only the sort of newspaper articles that are really press releases, and give no confidence in their objectivity. I can see no purpose writing this except as a promotion for the subject.

Please do not resubmit again unless there are substantially better references for the literary career, and the non notable parts of the career are removed altogether, along with references to youtube and similarly unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]