Your submission at Articles for creation: Hellenic Malt Whisky Society (HMWS) (January 28)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt 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.
Dan arndt (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, LaddieJohn! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hellenic Malt Whisky Society (HMWS) (January 29)

edit
 
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Dan arndt was: undefined
Dan arndt (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hellenic Malt Whisky Society (HMWS) Reply

edit

Just because an organization or society exists it does not mean that it is automatically notable and therefore able to have its own Wikipedia page. There are certain criteria that an article is required to satisfy before it is considered acceptable. The basic principle for all articles is that it should have significant coverage in multiple independent verifiable secondary sources. In respect to your draft the only references provided are primary sources (i.e. sources produced by the organisation itself) because they are not independent they are not acceptable or reliable. Similarly social media websites and blogs are not acceptable as they are user generated without any independent editorial oversight (i.e. just because someone posts it doesn't necessarily make it true or accurate). It may be that there just aren’t the secondary sources in respect to the HMWS which would mean that the society is just not notable. Dan arndt (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply