SecurityFanatic

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:SecurityFanatic/sandbox 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 User:SecurityFanatic/sandbox, 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 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.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SecurityFanatic! 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:SecurityFanatic/sandbox

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 User:SecurityFanatic/sandbox, 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. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:38, 28 September 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 he meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to him or an affiliated 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 he claims or interviewing him. There are no proper references, and even if the in-text external links were treated as references rather than spamlinks, there seem to be few if any independent third-party reference to verify any fact about him. The links you gave mostly were to his own company sites, didn't mention him or reviewed his products rather than giving facts about him. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. I'm not able to view the Colbert report video, so no idea how that helps.
• It's not clear how he meets the notability criteria I've linked above. He doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria, even if what you have posted is assumed to be true. Having patents or owning a company aren't notable, anyone can do that.
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. The editor who nominated this for promotion added "Blatant promotion", and it's difficult to disagree. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: Adrain learned the inner workings of advanced, high-quality products... went on to become an inventor and entrepreneur... known for developing many disruptive/innovative technologies... Adrain's technologies have been used in: Mobile License Plate Recognition, gaming systems, Crash Avoidance Systems, Lane Departure Systems, Smart TV’s, and Video Analytics. — and that's just the lead, the rest is much the same. We have numerous claims like Many of Adrain's inventions have been used by major companies. Some of the companies he has licensed patents to include... followed by a list of supposed companies and a bunch of links that don't confimr that any of these companies uses the product, they are just spam links to the companies' websites
• there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites.
• I note that your only edit is this full biography. If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it.
• If you are him, or work directly or indirectly for hi or his company, or otherwise are acting on his behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:SecurityFanatic. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=SecurityFanatic|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Before attempting to write an 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.

Please read the above carefully. If you can't establish his supposed notability with proper sources, you will be wasting your time. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)