User talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2016/December

Knowledge tree training
I recently created a new article for a training company called knowledge tree training. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_tree_training

Seems as though it is set to no index though. So it isn't in the search engine results. Why is that and how do I fix it?

I recently created a page for the knowledge academy and it is indexed fine...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Knowledge_Academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjackclayton (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * New articles created on Wikipedia now do not show up in search results until a new page reviewer has looked them over to make sure they are compliant with Wikipedia's content policies or, in case a reviewer misses one, they have been unreviewed for 90 days. The  is something that was implemented several years ago but was non-functional until a month or so ago due to a software bug. The new article you mentioned, based on a brief read, does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for businesses and organizations. The sources are press releases, which are not independent reliable sources. The notability guideline I linked previously has more details about they types and depth of coverage that is required.The article also contains considerable amounts of copyvio text, which I have removed. If you have some better sources for the article please consider adding them. I will also see if I can dig up anything. Without better sources the article will very likely be deleted.  J bh  Talk  16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article and searched for adequate source material and did not find anything of note. Wikipedia exists to document what others say about topics and not as a promotional vehicle for new companies that do not have significant coverage elsewhere. If I missed the needed coverage please add the new sources to the article and leave a note in the deletion discussion. If the article then, in my opinion, passes Wikipedia's notability criteria I will Withdraw my deletion nomination. My opinion, however, counts no more nor less than any other editor's does and the opinions of many editors will be weighed in the discussion, yours included so please comment at the deletion discussion. J bh  Talk  17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

NPP next steps
Hi Jbh. We're pretty much in a holding pattern until the current RfC is formally closed, but would you like to start talking about what direction to go with that new bit of text about disruptive patrolling? I'm still struggling to figure out where exactly it should go. It seems too specific to be inserted directly into WP:DE. It would certainly fit in WP:NPP, but that isn't a guideline. Perhaps we should just seek consensus for that statement in general, include the text at NPP, and provide a link to the RfC affirming it? That would be functionally similar to it being in a guideline. I'd be happy to hear better alternatives. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me think on it a bit and read through the comments at the RfC. I'm pretty busy in RL right now, holidays are not a break for me - they are actually busier because of the nature of what I do, this year in particular, likely until mid/late January. J bh  Talk  22:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)