User talk:R.D. Landing

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Correa (February 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [.
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

About your draft...
Hey, RDL, I'm really sorry, but things don't seem to be cooperating with me, so I'll just write my thing here instead. I don't know how much you already know (or may have already been told), but I'll just go through it all; this might get a little long, so I'll nutshell it at the end, just in case. Anyway, the issue with your draft is, as the reviewer said, that there just isn't enough evidence of notability. Y'see, Wikipedia strives to only have articles on subjects (whether it be people, companies, buildings, or anything else) that it considers notable; in other words, notability is the threshold that new Wikipedia articles must meet. Notability, in the Wikipedia sense, means different things depending on the kind of article (the criteria for a species of insect won't be the same as the criteria for a musician), but generally speaking, the lowest common denominator is what we call the general notability guideline: that is, an article must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other and the subject itself. We have this guideline to make sure that we actually have things that we can say. A cornerstone of Wikipedia is that everything we say in an article should be verifiable in a reliable source; that is, one should be able to verify for themselves any fact they find on Wikipedia by looking it up in a source that is reliable. (Of course, Wikipedia being what it is, we don't always live up to that, but that's at least the goal.) Our notability guidelines help us to make sure that, when we're writing an article, there's enough material in the sources for us to make a reasonable article out of it, while not having to flesh it out with anything that's not verifiable. So, what does it actually mean to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and how does it relate to what's in your draft? Well, first of all, the sources we use have to contain significant coverage of the subject. By this, we mean that there must be more than a passing mention of the subject in the source. A mere mention of the name of the subject in a single sentence of a newspaper article won't cut it; the source has to go into some kind of detail about the subject to qualify, so that the source will provide useful information that we can incorporate into the article. So, for example, in your article you have this as one of your sources. That's fine; it would be perfectly all right to use it to cite the fact that David Correa did win that award. But it doesn't go into any detail about him, so it just doesn't have the significant coverage when it comes to the GNG. You also need this significant coverage to occur in multiple sources; one just isn't enough, both from a reliability perspective (having two sources support a fact is of course better than one), and an available material perspective, as more sources will usually provide more information. These sources need to be reliable, too, and this is a big sticking point. This page goes into more depth about what is or isn't reliable, but generally speaking, it's a source that has some kind of fact-checking or editorial control imposed on it; the gold standard of reliability for sources are articles that are published to peer-reviewed journals (especially in fields like science and medicine), books, and articles in large, reputable newspapers like, say, the New York Times. Generally, sources that don't have editorial control or fact checking (blogs, random websites, self-published material, and interestingly enough, Wikipedia itself) are not considered reliable, and this can take a great deal of editorial judgement. Anyway, the last point is also an important one: that of independence, both from the other sources and the subject. Obviously, if one newspaper article is a reprint of the other, that doesn't count as a new source, since it's the same exact thing, even if it's been published in another paper. But even more important is the independence from the subject. This is because Wikipedia has another cornerstone in neutral point-of-view, and while self-published things are excellent for the plainest of facts about the subject and what their own opinions are, they can't be considered neutral enough for anything else, and so they can't contribute to the GNG. So, in your article, you have a bunch of Amazon sites listed; while they might work as evidence that Correa has indeed released those albums, they can't count for proving his notability. So, that's pretty much what it boils down to; you just need more sources, in things like newspaper articles and the like. Google is always helpful for searches like this; so are newspaper archive sites like HighBeam. Again, you're looking for newspaper articles, maybe magazine articles (but take care that they're not blogs or editorials that happen to be hosted on the newpaper's website!) that discuss Correa in some detail; if you can find a few of those, cite them, and incorporate their information into your draft, that'll go a long way towards getting it accepted. Sorry to drone on like this, but this is a pretty complicated subject. If you have any questions of me, feel free to ask them here or at my talk page (you might have to be a bit patient with me for a response though!); an excellent place to get many people to look at and answer your question is the Teahouse, as noted above. I hope this helps (and isn't too long to read!); thanks for working on Wikipedia! :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Correa concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Correa, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Correa


Hello R.D. Landing. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "David Correa".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)