User talk:Hackermangrs

Your submission at Articles for creation: Groestlcoin (January 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 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:Groestlcoin 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:Groestlcoin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 04:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Hackermangrs, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! David.moreno72 04:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Groestlcoin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Groestlcoin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. David.moreno72 04:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That seems a bit too speedy to me. In less than 7 hours, the article was nominated for deletion and then deleted, without giving the author a chance to contest the deletion or make amendments to the article to make it unnecessary to delete. {{u|Rey_grschel}} {Talk} 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Rey_grschel, as the speedy notice says, there is no requirement to wait for speedy notice to be contested; the whole point of a G11 speedy is that an article is bad enough to be deleted on sight. In this case, the page was spam for a product by a COI editor, who, to his/her cedit has admitted the COI, but needs to read WP:YFA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

• it did not 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 an organisation or company, 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. Most of your text is unreferenced and it's unclear to me why some of the sources like hacked.com are to be considered independent verifiable sources
• it's not clear to me why this software meets the notability criteria I've linked above. The only referenced facts in your text are that it exists, it was launched in 2014 and was the first to activate SEGWIT. None of this makes it notable, and as far as I can see it was founded by a single anonymous person, and there are no real facts to show that it's not just another of the hundreds of bits of software that are produced every day. If you think it is notable as defined above, you need to explain why, with verifiable facts, not just tell us what it's supposed to do.
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: fast, secure, and ASIC resistant...fast, and secure... re-dedicated to “the people”... easy for any ordinary person to get a hold of... To this day, it has maintained this vision, as any consumer grade computer, can be used to mine and generate Groestlcoin’s [sic]...—and so on. Lots of claims, with not a shred of independent evidence to support them. Not as bad as the first attempt, but still nowhere close to an encyclopaedia article.
• there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, which you have correctly declared, thank you for that. You are still strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. However, editing with a COI is permitted as long as it has been declared.

Before attempting to write this 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, as suggested above. Also relevant may be WP:Own and WP:Copy.

If I didn't think you were genuinely making an effort to write a proper article, I would have protected the article title from recreation, but you do need to read our policies carefully before you try again

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Oh thanks for giving me course to reply 👍 awesome work keep it up Hackermangrs (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)