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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Republic Stamping and Enameling 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:Republic Stamping and Enameling, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, 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.

Akevsharma (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sponhour! 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! Akevsharma (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sponhour, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Akevsharma (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that you had an upsetting experience with your first draft. You mentioned the delay in being reviewed, and the long drawn-out process. All reviewers are volunteers who work at this in their spare time, and there are often about 2,000 new drafts waiting to be reviewed, so it can be a long wait.

You also commented about obscure references not being seen as important as online ones. I've published about 20 Wikipedia articles, and most have been on rather obscure topics, such as 19th century children's magazines, and actors connected with the DuMont Television Network. My references tend by be obscure as well – actual issues of the magazine I'm writing about, and information from my small collection of reference books. I also try to include one or two online references that readers can click on.

Since I'm not a reviewer I'm not knowledgable about that process, but I read over your draft, and it seems promising. There should be more headings, and it might be best to just mention the upcoming exhibit, and not add that there is a search for former employees, for that might appear to be asking for help in locating the retired workers.

The line that begins "The company was an immediate success and several real estate developments were launched ..." might not be considered encyclopedic, and you may want to delete it. (Though it is an interesting sentence.) The same with "Labor relations were generally congenial..." When writing for Wikipedia I'm careful to remain neutral, even when that means I sometimes consider my articles to be a bit dull.

Since you state you are helping with the exhibit you should read up on having a Conflict of Interest.

You may want to take a break before editing your declined (but not rejected) draft, and then read numerous other manufacturing articles, so get a feel for how they are written. After that I hope you will try again to edit and resubmit your Republic Stamping and Enameling draft. As an amateur historian I am aware that many libraries are severely reducing their number of reference books, so online help is the way most people find out about history. Having those with an interest in preserving history writing for Wikipedia is important. Please don't give up on this online encyclopedia because of your unfortunate rough start. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sponhour, if you submitted the draft as it is now, I think most reviewers would accept it. (Certainly I would.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sponhour (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Than you very much for your help and advice. Hoary Karenthewriter

Republic Stamping and Enameling, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for creating the article! S0091 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sponhour

I'm glad to see that the article Republic Stamping and Enameling has now been accepted into the encyclopaedia. Are you aware of the Did you know system that places interesting facts from new articles onto the Main Page of Wikipedia, hence raising the profile of topics that few people would otherwise know about? On the rare occasions that I create a new article, I finish with a DYK for it if I can. Take a read of the page I linked to for instructions on creating a nomination for Republic Stamping and Enameling: it is usual for the creator of articles to do that, although others are also allowed to do so. If you run into any difficulties or need help with a suggested "hook", just comment back here in this thread and I'll help. Note that under the DYK rules, you have just one week to make the nomination. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sponhour (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info - I will check that out.

Hi Sponhour! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, New Submitter, Article Rejected, No Clear Reason Why that I can see, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Columbia Record has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Newspaper is not notable and article lacks sources

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Eric Schucht (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply