Sperrins

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glenshane Community Development Limited (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Glenshane Community Development Limited may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide details on this copied text as I am unaware of anything in my article which includes copyrighted work.

~~~~ Sperrins (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sperrins! Having an article draft 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. So far every substantial edit you have made has added a significant amount of text copied from elsewhere. JBW (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Provide evidence of what you allege. Sperrins (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sperrins and welcome to Wikipedia. Your original draft, which has since been deleted, had a significant proportion of text that was identical to or closely paraphrased from https://www.communityni.org/organisation/glenshane-community-development-ltd and http://www.castlesuncovered.com/ireland/dungivencastle.html. As JBW explained, copying text from elsewhere is not permitted other than in specific circumstances (see WP:DONATETEXT for those).

By the way, Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and to earn yourself a welcome, please don't use legal terms like 'evidence' and 'allege' when talking to others, partly as it is against Wikipedia policy but mostly because it just isn't nice. You should always try to WP:assume good faith when dealing with other volunteers, who are all here to help improve the encyclopedia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In my community, everyone is respectful and no one has to "earn a welcome", never mind extend such control as to delete another person's contribution. I had previously requested that you "please provide details on this copied text as I am unaware of anything in my article which includes copyrighted work" and subsequently sought evidence for what was being alleged. There were no legal implications in what I said. Sperrins (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello Sperrins. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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 receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:Sperrins. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sperrins|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my audits.

I am trying to raise awareness of the positive things in our community. Sperrins (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What is your connection to the subject of your edits, such as the organization? Note that raising awareness is considered promotion and not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for raising awareness of any topic, even good ones- Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as the definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows with regards to awareness of a subject- it must already be out there and be known before it can be written about here. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Raising awareness is not promotion. If I am raising awareness of Alzheimer's disease, I am not promoting it. Sperrins (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is, at least on Wikipedia. "Promotion" does not always involve talking up a subject. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information or spreading the word about something. As I said, Wikipedia does not lead, it follows with regards to awareness of a subject- it must already be out there and be known before it can be written about here. You did not answer my question. What is your connection to the organization your edits pertain to? 331dot (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking up a subject. I have written a worthy article on an organisation which is located in the area where I live. Sperrins (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You again did not answer my question. I don't believe you just live in the area. What connection do you have to Glenshane Community Development Limited? Last chance. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

None. What connection do you have to them? Sperrins (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned with your assertion that you "do not believe" me. Sperrins (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't live in Northern Ireland. Never heard of them. So one day you strolled down the street, saw their office, and said "oh, I'll edit Wikipedia about them". You have been evasive with me; Wikipedia depends on open and clear communication between editors. It's fine to create and submit drafts is one is associated with an organization, as long as proper disclosures are made. Certain clues about your editing suggested a deeper connection that you have let on, but if you aren't connected with them in any way, okay, but the issues with your edits remain. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You can look at my edits. I am writing about all the important things in Dungiven - this Organisation, Dungiven Castle, the Environmental Park, Gaelcholaiste Dhoire and the Assembly of the Irish People. Sperrins (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I did look at your edits, and they all have to do with the organization in some way, be it the organization itself or things it is involved with. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• "It is an influential organisation that promotes rural regeneration in the Glenshane area and its environs, an area of social and economic deprivation. It achieves this by creating employment opportunities for the greater Dungiven area and by assisting those in need through education, training, and advice" is the purpose of the organization, not why it is significant or important or influential. Why is it particularly influential or more important than other charitable organizations? Is their data to support the idea that they have had a particular impact that otherwise would not have happened(for example)? 331dot (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glenshane Community Development Limited (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by 331dot 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Glenshane Community Development Limited and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

331dot (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dungiven Castle Environmental Park (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dungiven Castle Environmental Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

331dot (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Glenshane Community Development Limited has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Glenshane Community Development Limited. Thanks! 331dot (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Winding Roe Magazine (May 18)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Winding Roe Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dungiven Castle Environmental Park (May 18)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dungiven Castle Environmental Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Stubs

You asked about allowing a draft to be a stub- stubs are not created via the Article for Creation process. An article, while it does not need to be 100% complete(nothing here is), does need to meet certain miniumum standards to pass the AFC process. You are free to place a stub in article space yourself, but then you roll the dice in that a stub article would potentially be subject to deletion processes. Would you rather work out any issues before your work is in article space, or after it is? The AFC process is voluntary(unless you have a conflict of interest or are a new user) so if you would rather disregard the advice we are giving you and take a chance, you may, though I advise against it. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In this correspondence, you say that you are helping me to work out any issues but all I feel is that you are bullying me through your other replies. Sperrins (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no intention to "bully", apologies, but when one gives evasive answers, yes, I gain suspicions. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing evasive in any answer I have given you. It is bullying. You are responding negatively to my contributions wherever you can. Sperrins (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being "negative", I'm trying to inform you of the needed standards. The drafts as I saw them did not meet standards. It's not positive or negative, just a fact. If you are able to make changes to meet standards, that's a good thing. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glenshane Community Development Limited (May 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Glenshane Community Development Limited and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Some advice on editing

I see that, unfortunately, you have had what must be a discouraging start to your time as a Wikipedia editor, and I offer you the following pieces of advice, in the hope that some or all of them may be helpful to you.

• A number of your edits have been attempts to create new articles, which have been rejected as drafts, or even deleted. Of all tasks on Wikipedia, creating new articles is probably the one which requires the most knowledge and experience of Wikpedia's workings. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.
• In a project in which anyone is allowed to contribute there are bound to be disagreements. Sometimes, when two editors disagree, one of them is right and the other one is wrong, whereas on other occasions there are no objective Right and Wrong, and it is a matter of personal opinion. In either case, one is more likely to get cooperation, or at the very least acquiescence, from another editor if one behaves as though one respects what they say. This is true even when one knows for a definite fact that one is right; even a person who is totally wrong is more likely to listen to what they are told, and perhaps realise their mistake, if the person correcting them appears to respect their view than if they come across as angrily dismissing their mistaken view.
• I have read 331dot's messages to you, and what he says comes across to me as a sincere attempt to help an inexperienced editor to learn about how Wikipedia works. To you, however, he comes across as "bullying". Obviously it is very unfortunate that he has inadvertently given you that impression, and no doubt that has contributed to your evident dissatisfaction with your experience here. However, I suggest you may consider re-reading his messages, to see whether you can in fact see a way of reading them as attempts to be helpful.
• You ask me to provide evidence of what I "allege" regarding copyright. Evidence to support the statements that I made about Wikipedia's copyright terms is available at Wikipedia:Copyrights. (Perhaps it would have been better if I had given you that link originally, but I didn't because experience has taught me that many new editors find it intimidating and confusing to have numerous links to polices and guidelines thrown at them, so I try as far as possible to provide the essential information in a simpler form.) Obviously you can't need evidence for the other part of what I said, namely that edits you have made have added a significant amount of text copied from elsewhere, because you can't have posted several hundred words of text, on several different occasions, word for word identical to text already published elsewhere, without knowingly having copied it. I can't think of anything else about what I wrote for which you may need "evidence", but if I have missed anything then please let me know what it is, and I shall try to clarify things for you.

As I said above, I have written this in the hope that it may be helpful to you. It is just my advice, and, as with all advice, you are free to take it or not. On the other hand, however, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not optional, and you need to comply with them, so please do take notice when other, more experienced, editors inform you about such policies and guidelines; failure to do so could result in your being blocked from editing by an administrator, which I hope won't happen. There is a complete list of them at Wikipedia:policies and guidelines, and you are welcome to look at them there, but in my opinion one of the worst things about Wikipedia is that there are far too many policies and guidelines, and most of them are far too long and complicated, which makes it unrealistic for a new editor to take them all in; for that reason a far more realistic way of learning is to have the relevant policies pointed out by more experienced editors as and when the occasion arises. JBW (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dungiven Castle Environmental Park (June 6)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dungiven Castle Environmental Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Dungiven Castle

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dungiven Castle, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Winding Roe Magazine (June 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Winding Roe Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Seamus Hasson

The article Seamus Hasson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Apart from a couple of announcements of his death, none of the references gi es any significant coverage of him.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JBW (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, and related matters

Hello, Sperrins. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Seamus Hasson, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. JBW (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Seamus Hasson was an esteemed, respectable historian in the Dungiven area who I am not connected to in any way. I linked in newspaper articles to demonstrate his notability. He was born in the 1920s - from an era where there aren't the same records but I know that other people with access to alternative information will add to this stub if you do not keep deleting my submissions. Sperrins (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You say that you are not connected to him in any way, but you uploaded a photograph of him to Wikipedia Commons which you said was your own work. In that photograph he is sitting at a table, looking at the camera. It is clearly a posed photograph, not a photograph taken by a bystander in a public situation. How did you come to take that photograph if you have no connection to him? JBW (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a picture which I took but is a public picture without copyright which has been published publicly in a variety of medium when referring to Seamus Hasson, including two newspapers - Tailor-made to be 'one of a kind': tributes to Seamus Hasson - Derry Now and Brothers told of Francie McCloskey's last hours - The Irish News Sperrins (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You're going to need to prove that that photo was released into the public domain without copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The photo was removed 15 hours ago Sperrins (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

All's good then. Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yip Sperrins (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Winding Roe Magazine (June 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Karnataka were: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Winding Roe Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Karnataka (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Topics you really need to read

You really need to read the following policies surrounding the article Seamus Hasson. WP:CANVAS and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY as you have clearly either posted about this article to some group somewhere or are just outright creating new accounts to try and win what you believe to be a WP:VOTE (it's not.) Additionally you need to read Wp:Notability and reliable sources. 12:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would advise you to be very mindful in your accusations. Sperrins (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify that last comment? Canterbury Tail talk 15:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The topics which you have directed me to read are blatant false accusations against me. I have had to report your friend for bullying me and deleting my content previously which is why he only proposed it for deletion and now he has you referring it for deletion and all of a sudden there's a campaign to save my article so that you can accuse me of canvassing and sockpupperty.

I'm done with the bullying and the harrassment. I'm done with any more content. And I'm done donating to Wikipedia. I'm terminating my monthly subscription immediately.

I hope that you are happy now. Sperrins (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The other editor who prodded the article is not my friend, I don't believe I've ever interacted with them prior to this. I came across your edits when you added an inline external link to the Dungiven article along with a new notable person, which lead me to the article. However yes, it is clear the article and deletion has been posted somewhere, I can WP:AGF, but a sudden influx of people to an article that hasn't established notability has clearly been posted somewhere for people to come to. It's not bad faith and bullying to call out something obvious. All that being said I've even tried to help the people that are coming in by directing them to the appropriate place to get involved properly in the deletion discussion, but no one seems interested in reading anything and following that to save the article and prove its notability. They only seem interested in posting the same copy and paste vote (which means nothing) to the wrong place where it will just be ignored. Canterbury Tail talk 19:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Seamus Hasson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seamus Hasson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Hasson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glenshane Community Development Limited (July 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Voorts 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Glenshane Community Development Limited and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 18:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Assembly of the Irish People (September 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OlifanofmrTennant 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Assembly of the Irish People and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 05:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dungiven Castle Environmental Park (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dungiven Castle Environmental Park and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Winding Roe Magazine

Hello, Sperrins. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Winding Roe Magazine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Winding Roe Magazine

Hello, Sperrins. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Winding Roe Magazine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 14:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Glenshane Community Development Limited

Hello, Sperrins. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Glenshane Community Development Limited".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dungiven Castle Environmental Park

Hello, Sperrins. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dungiven Castle Environmental Park, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dungiven Castle Environmental Park (March 28)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment left by The Herald was: The article has hardly improved after 4 declines. The nominator simply added a line about squirrels and a reference after last decline. The current state of the article warrants an extensive rewrite and more references to establish SIGCOV and GNG.

Furthermore, after a web search, I could hardly find any sources with in depth converage to justify the need for a standalone article. Per the previous decline comment, the draft could be merged to Dungiven Castle.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)