User talk:UU184177

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * 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!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! - Happysailor  (Talk) 21:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Kate Snell (August 28)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * 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!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kate Snell (October 3)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Kate&.
 * 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!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kate Snell
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * 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!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! UU184177 (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with your analysis (see your comments). You use the Mail as evidence to reject this submission, while the Mail has regularly got its facts wrong in relation to the film and book. In the feature film itself, Kate Snell's book is credited with having 'inspired' the film (at the top of the end credits). However this in itself seems to point to a fundamental flaw in the Wikipedia model, since you are obviously more persuaded to quote an inaccurate newspaper report than to go to the first hand source (the film) which I have quoted accurately in this article. There are countless references to this book by Kate Snell on the internet; those references included in the WP draft article are merely the tip of the iceberg and my goal has been only to include those which are largely accurate. Seriously factually incorrect references have not been included. However, despite whether you personally do not believe the film was based on the book (even though that is clearly claimed by the film's producers and actors), surely this point is irrelevant anyway: This one book is only a small part of Kate Snell's long and respected contribution to the world of journalism, television and biography. So I would be grateful if you could give some clue about how one can persuade you of the veracity of this article, when you are getting stuck on one small fact which is suitably verified if one knows the difference between what is accurate and what is not. As it is, this article has been rejected several times in terms of Kate Snell's 'notoriety' having not been proven with enough references. I have to say that there are many many other articles in WP with far fewer references, and far more WP articles about people who are clearly less 'notorious'. To have been consistently rejected means it is now already out of date in certain respects. My intention, once accepted, is to bring it immediately up to date and to add further reliable references, since Kate is being discussed regularly in print around the world. UU184177 (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your intention, of bringing it up to date and to add further reliable references, is the best way forward. If the Daily Mail article is incorrect, why add it? I looked in particular at whether Snell's book "has been the subject of a... feature-length film" because this is one very obvious way for an author to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for creative professionals. On the other hand, if Snell has been substantially written about, or her book has been widely reviewed, in sources that are independent and reliable, then she will easily meet the basic notability criteria. I can see little evidence of this in your article at the moment. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kate Snell
Hi - I just reviewed your Kate Snell article, and it's clear that she's notable, but the references need to be reformatted - can you make changes so that it's easier for a reader to understand where the information came from via direct footnotes? Hit me back - glad to re-review.JSFarman (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again - I just did an edit on the Kate Snell article, and removed some of the language - it isn't necessary to go into the details of the production of Diana given that you've substantiated that the film was inspired by the book. But - the references need to correspond to the information stated, and they don't as it stands.  Sorry to run you around again, but can you make the changes?  Let me know if you have questions.  Let's get this article published.JSFarman (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kate Snell (November 9)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * 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!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 22:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)