User talk:JeanneLee19

Your submission at Articles for creation: How to Tell What Things Are Really Worth (November 9)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask 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=Draft:How_to_Tell_What_Things_Are_Really_Worth Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Hoary was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Flagrantly promotional.

Hoary (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:How to Tell What Things Are Really Worth


A tag has been placed on Draft:How to Tell What Things Are Really Worth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank You @Among Us for POTUS for the reminder and information provided in the notification! The article is already deleted (after about a month) I would have contested the speedy deletion, if I have noticed this message earlier.
 * I understand that the article "need[s] to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic", however, I did not have the time yet to do so. Help was offered earlier at Teahouse, Articles for creation help desk, however, I just did not get there yet!
 * Please tell me how to contact the ? [Or anyone else on Wikipedia] 
 * When I click User:Iridescent I get redirected to User talk:Iridescent. Is this the right place to contact the and ask for the deleted material?
 * Yes, I do "wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement", since I worked a lot on its editing, and I believe that the article can be improved for good. This is/was/would be my first "attempt" to create a new Wikipedia article instead of improving existing ones. It definitely needs more preparation on my side in order to achieve the required quality. Most of the text in the article was taken from the book Blurb and that is why it "sounds like unambiguous advertising". (Since most book blurbs tell the world that the actual publication is the greatest ever in the whole world) The article structure is still okay and could be used by me for the given article as a template.
 * I would like to talk in the Teahouse and ask for guidance from the Articles for creation help desk
 * Yes, the article needs to be reworked. How to do that in practice? What are the steps? (Assuming No. 0 would be to retrieve the deleted material)
 * Regards, JeanneLee19 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd undelete it without question, but in this case I'm reluctant. As you say yourself, most of the text appears to be taken from the book blurb (either directly or with minimal paraphrasing), and for legal reasons we host that since to do so is a breach of copyright, and thus I legally can't restore the article.
 * Other than the copyright issue, the problem with the article is that it was sourced pretty much exclusively from the author's website, from the book's publicity, or from the book itself, none of which are useable sources for Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a webhost in its own right but is an aggregation service documenting what sources say about topics; an article on a book should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about that book. If the independent sources don't exist for any given topic, than that topic isn't notable by Wikipedia's specific definition of the term as "appropriate topic for a stand-alone Wikipedia article".
 * If you have any quesries, you're correct that User talk:Iridescent is the best place to get hold of me. &#8209; Iridescent 07:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)