Your submission at Articles for creation: Southern Sugar Bakery (January 26)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  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.
AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, E2J3! 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! AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

AfC notification: Draft:Southern Sugar Bakery has a new comment

edit
 
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Southern Sugar Bakery. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Southern Sugar Bakery has been accepted

edit
 
Southern Sugar Bakery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Harshdeep Kaur

edit

You've put a lot of sources recently out of which some are unreliable as per WP:ICTF and WP:RS which I've removed and re added tags. Kindly add only reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know! I'll definitely refer to WP:ICTF for a list of reliable sources on the subject. Thanks again. E2J3 (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

A page you started (Donald S. Long) has been reviewed!

edit

Thanks for creating Donald S. Long.

User:Rosguill while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

It's not clear to me that the cited sources are sufficiently reliable to contribute toward the subject's notability. If possible, please provide additional citations to more clearly reliable sources, preferably sources with a wider-than-local readership.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi {{Re|Rosguill}} - Thank you for reaching out to me directly. I added an additional book citation that I'd found, but didn't include before. It's a book that's available on amazon and you can buy paperback elsewhere. I really feel like Dandy Don had more than a local appeal. I don't live in Louisiana, but knew about him from following college football. Please let me know if this changes your mind about his notability.E2J3 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Course5 Intelligence for deletion

edit
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Course5 Intelligence 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/Course5 Intelligence 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. Hatchens (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply