User talk:TheoNovel

Welcome!
Hello, TheoNovel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below 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!  CatcherStorm    talk   19:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Your submission at Articles for creation: Seneca Learning (February 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

The comment the reviewer left 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:Seneca Learning and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Seneca Learning, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * 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=Draft:Seneca_Learning Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Seneca_Learning reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

COI
You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:   . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article
 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.


 * you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me?  20:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. You will appreciate that many articles about companies or products are posted by the company, which is not allowed by our T&Cs so it's a question that is bound to be asked. I'm happy to accept your assurances.
 * There is nothing to stop you trying again, but if you can't show that it meets our notability criteria, you will be wasting your time. You gave three refs (incidentally, shouldn't be left as bare urls), but two seemed to be review sites (in one case including testimonials) and the other was an article written by company employees, so none are acceptable independent third-party sources. In any case, how good the product is isn't a criterion. Even if you had proper sources, I can't see anything in what you wrote that showed that the company met Notability (organizations and companies) or that the product met Notability (software). Even your own text said There is still minimal information on Seneca Learning that is reliable and unbiased. A site in beta isn't likely to meet our notability criteria, at best WP:Too soon
 * Your text was promotional: Help Students Learn 2x Faster... The gaps in information are likely to be minimal and may be fixed... issues with content are resolved quickly &mdash; the fact that they or others claim these thing doesn't make them true, just spammy.
 * If you nevertheless decide that you can find WP:RS sources and show notability as I've described, follow WP:YFA. Your draft had multiple deviations from our article guidance, eg random bolding, heading on the lead section, bare urls, no wikilinks
 * Personally, Ii think this is a dead end, but if you wish to try again, I'd be happy to look at any future draft
 * Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)