User talk:Chamberlin1952

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kristen DiAngelo (January 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

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:Kristen DiAngelo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Chamberlin1952 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Chamberlin1952 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Kristen DiAngelo page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=642035569 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F642035569%7CDraft:Kristen DiAngelo%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kristen DiAngelo (February 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG 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 Draft:Kristen DiAngelo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Chamberlin1952 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Chamberlin1952 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kristen DiAngelo


Hello, Chamberlin1952. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Kristen DiAngelo".

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 and remove the  or  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. JMHamo (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Chamberlin1952/sandbox
I moved your draft on Sex Workers Outreach Project- Sacramento to User:Chamberlin1952/sandbox. Please see Notability for guidelines on appropriate topics, and WP:ORG for notability for companies and organizations. See especially WP:BRANCH: which states in part: As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. Articles not sufficiently demonstrating notability, or unduly promotional, are likely be deleted. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Should I link it to the HQ chapter page? I could also add some of the things they have accomplished to make the chapter notable. Let me know which if either would more likely be successful.
 * If you want the information to remain in this encyclopedia, either as its own article or an addition to to national chapter article, you should demonstrate that multiple reliable, third-party sources have covered it in detail (not simply in passing), to ensure neutrality. As currently written, the paragraph appears similar to a a press release (a neutral encyclopedia records what an agency has done, not simply what it aims to do), and Wikipedia is not the place to generate free publicity, no matter how worthy the cause. Since Sex Workers Outreach Project USA appears to have many chapters in many states, I would say it is unlikely that any one of those chapters merits an individual article, and it would be undue and biased to arbitrarily highlight one or two regional chapters on a national organization article (that national article itself is a long way from a good, properly-sourced, encyclopedic article). While I am not familiar with the Sacramento chapter, I would imagine a regional branch established in 2014 is likely not suitable for a stand-alone article, and probably does not warrant anymore than brief mention of existence on the parent article. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again I understand your point. There are several additional details I'm adding in hopes they will add sufficient weight to save the article.