User talk:AgentMagnusKhan

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Shadowowl was:

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 the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

15:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Classified Freaks


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Classified Freaks, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kleuske (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Classified Freaks
You moved the talk-page to article main space. I think I don't have to spell out this is an error. The draft itself isn't ready for publication in main article space for several reasons: Kleuske (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is mostly unreferenced. There's one reference to HuffPo. References to the shows YouTube own page or other YouTube video's are not usually acceped as reliable sources.
 * 2) Notability has not been shown by "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources."

Hi Kleuske, thank you for your response. Apologies for this error as i am still new to the process of creating an article on wikipedia, please can you allow me to continue to edit the draft and build up the credible references i need to eventually get it to a stage where yourself or someone else can review it and decide whether it can be published. I would be very grateful if the page is not deleted as i have spent considerable amount of time writing it up and want to ensure the article is given a chance for publication when it is ready, thank you.
 * You're welcome to work on that page as long as you want, but please read the links I provided above. Also, for some reason I suspect you are closely connected to that show, so i'll add our policy on conflicts of interest for you to read. Kleuske (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can see that you have put a lot of work into writing the draft, and it must have taken you a lot of time. It must therefore be very disheartening to be told it may be deleted. The good news is that the deletion nomination was just for the talk page which you moved by mistake, and I have declined the nomination, so you don't have to worry that all your work may be deleted soon. However, I'm afraid the bad news is that a quick look at the article suggests that its subject probably doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if not then any article on the subject is likely to be deleted, no matter how well it may be written. My impression is based only on a quick look, so I may be wrong, but I think it only fair to warn you. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional reading
WP:ELNO, which explains why I keep removing links to Twitter, Instagram and other social media. Kleuske (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Can i understand why this policy is not implemented consistently to other articles? I found one article which has social media links so what is the difference to that article compared to the one i am working on?

I won't name the article or the numerous articles i have found containing social media external links. But if this policy or regulation is not applied consistently then you can understand my frustration.