User talk:Mathewanderson7232/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mathewanderson7232. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Mathewanderson7232, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mathewanderson7232! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Finalist of the Intel ISEF (May 2)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Finalist of the Intel ISEF 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:Finalist of the Intel ISEF, 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 do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Finalist of the Intel ISEF (May 2)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by John from Idegon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You need more secondary sources for the event. The addition of a notables section is nice but sourcing it does not speak to the notability of the event. Just an aside "Notable alumni" is probably not an appropriate title for that section. Notable participants would be better. Has this event not been written up in magazines or newspapers?

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:Finalist of the Intel ISEF 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:Finalist of the Intel ISEF, 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 do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

John from Idegon (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Finalist of the Intel ISEF (May 2)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by John from Idegon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Thank you for adding secondary sources. However, it is quite clear that the secondary sources you've added from Arizona were written from a press release and the LA Times story is an interview with people connected to the event. These are not independent. Have you read WP:My first article? The article should be based primarily on secondary sources. It isn't. For an article to be accepted, the following needs to happen:

Rewrite it so it is based primarily in material paraphrased from reliable secondary sources, totally independent of the event.
You must have multiple (at least three, but it varies dependent on the depth and quality of the sources) secondary sources, all meeting our standard for reliability, all discussing the subject in detail, and all completely independent of the subject, its participants and its sponsor.
The title seems incorrect. A finalist is a person. The article is about an event.

Further, it seems like you have some connection to this. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate declarations.

Lastly, do not resubmit this draft until you've made significant improvements. There is no deadline. Take a week or two and get it right. Everyone who works on Wikipedia is a volunteer and repeatedly resubmitting a draft is an unfair burden on their time. It is considered disruptive.

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:Finalist of the Intel ISEF 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:Finalist of the Intel ISEF, 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 do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

John from Idegon (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Mathewanderson7232! You created a thread called Help Me Review An Article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Mercury Precision Components for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mercury Precision Components is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercury Precision Components until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just a note about how communication at an AfD (and on talk pages in general) works. If you are responding to me, you should indent your posts (see WP:INDENT for instructions on this) - this will make it clear, when others have commented, who is responding to whom. I've done it for you at the AfD, so no action required from you there. Also, please don't use another user's signature to address them - just use their username. If you want to send them a notification that you've replied to them, type their username like this: [[user:Girth Summit|]]. You can read more about this at WP:PING. Finally, I commented on your latest addition to the page on the AfD discussion - I'm afraid the new source you added is another mention in a business directory - please do take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH, it's worth reading. For any article about a business, we need independent, secondary references, in reliable sources, giving significant coverage - I genuinely did try to find some before nominating your article for deletion, but I wasn't able to. By all means keep looking, but please understand that nothing that is written by the company themselves, or is just a short mention in a business directory, would be acceptable. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)