User talk:Pjakrsn

Welcome!

Hello, Pjakrsn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Affaire de Coeur Magazine, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MikeWazowski (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Affaire de Coeur Magazine


A tag has been placed on Affaire de Coeur Magazine, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hallows AG (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! None of the links provided in the entry show notability. Half of them don't even mention the company at all, the other half only briefly mention AdC. Reliable sources are considered to be news stories that talk about the company itself. For example, a brief mention of the company in an article about something else or an article where a spokesperson for the company is quoted is not considered to be a reliable source that proves that the book review company is notable. A reliable source would be if someone like "Huffington Post" or "Romantic Times" were to do a story about Affaire de Coeur. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. (For example, I could write a blog about the company but unless I'm a blog along the lines of "Dear Author", it's not considered to be notable.) Also, I'd avoid putting links about fake reviews on the page unless (again) the link discusses AdC at length. All that does is show that the controversy over fake Amazon reviews is notable, not AdC.

I actually recommend that you look into userfying the article and working on providing reliable sources to prove notability as well as trying to tone down the promotional tone. Look up the following things to see what you'd have to pass as far as notability standards go: WP:CORP, WP:GNG, WP:BLOG, WP:RS. Since you do have a written magazine and operate as a company, you technically fall under the notability guidelines for a corporation and not for a blog. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Reliable Sources
Hi! I noticed that you left a comment on the AfC page. I encourage questions and if you have any more, please leave them on my talk page: User talk:tokyogirl79. You asked the following:

"first you say more infor then you say take away then you want me to use someone disreputable like "Dear Author" and also suggest Romantic Times which is the magazines competitor/ why would they write about their competition? You did not wnat me to write about the magazine so I write about the reviews now you want me to write about the magazine. I am confused"

I suggested both of those places as an example of what is considered to be reliable sources. You don't have to use those places. They're just examples. (Although sometimes competitors will cover their rivals. It's not unheard of. Even if it's negative coverage, negative coverage can sometimes show notability. As far as DA goes, we'll agree to disagree on it's reputation.) A good reliable source is considered to be a secondary source that isn't affiliated with the company. For example, if a newspaper were to write an article about the magazine/reviews then that article would be considered a reliable source as long as it wasn't a vanity piece, wasn't written by someone who was a friend/family/coworker/representative of the company, and gave the company more than a brief mention.

Now I do have to warn you that not everything is considered to be notable per Wikipedia guidelines and this might be the case with this magazine. This isn't being said to be harsh, to be cold, or to confuse. There are a good many things that might seem notable to you or I outside of Wikipedia that do not pass the notability guidelines. Goodness knows there's more than a few people, places, and groups that I'd consider notable that don't meet guidelines.

Since the reviews are carried inside of the magazine, the magazine would be the best way to go about posting about this company. I did notice that an article about the company got deleted because it was considered to be advertisement. What that generally means is that the article was not written in a neutral manner, didn't have any reliable sources to show notability, and generally was perceived to have been written as a solicitation for the magazine. What I recommend is that you start working on an article about the magazine via WP:USERFY. This would allow you to build up the article and write it again in a more neutral fashion. It would also allow you time to find reliable sources per WP:RS and make sure that you fit the notability guidelines per WP:GNG. When the article is ready you can submit it to be created. If you need help with this then feel free to ask me any further questions or ask any of the admins or other frequent editors. We're all here to help each other, after all. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I was looking for references and did find an article on Dear Author about the page that hinted at controversy about the magazine. I want to emphasize that when you're composing the article, you will have to include any controversies that might have come about in the history of the company. We can't cherry pick the information that goes into the article and in the spirit of neutrality it would have to be added. On a positive note, this would help prove notability as far as the company goes and help argue for an article to be kept. I also need to ask something- are you affiliated with the company in any way? By affiliated I mean that you either work for the company, have your books reviewed by them, represent them in some format, or know someone in the company (friend/family/etc). If so, I need to direct you to WP:COI. I'm not saying any of this to be an attack. There's no rule against someone with a conflict of interest adding an article, you just have to be open about your relationship with the article subject and try to be as neutral as possible. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I put together a mini-article as a start for the magazine, but there aren't that many sources that are considered to be reliable per Wikipedia. Even with the information about the controversy that might not be enough to give it notability enough for Wikipedia. (See WP:1E) At most this will need to be userfied so you can continue to work on this until it can be perfected. It should still be available at my sandbox if you want to see what I wrote. User:Tokyogirl79/sandbox Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I also wanted to say that none of the current links on your AfC version of Affaire de Coeur belong on the article. None of them appear to have anything to do with the company. A source or link for a page must be about Affaire de Coeur! The only one that even mentions the company is so brief and trivial as a mention that it would not be considered a reliable source or anything as far as the magazine article is concerned. I know that this seems frustrating but we need reliable sources for an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79