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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Specifically needs all available major independent news and reviews.

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:Javier Rebollo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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.

SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Javier Rebollo. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ SwisterTwister: Hello again,
As per your 2nd comment "I see, however considering there's no limit in significant news and reviews, it will especially help adding all existing others.", I have
added 9 more external reference, most notably from MUBI, American Film Institute & The Hollywood Reporter along with 2 other citations.
These are pretty much all the news articles covered by the IMDB and most others (if any) are about his movies and not so much about the person himself.
Thanks.
TopCipher 08:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Google Springboard, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ SwisterTwister: Thanks for reviewing my work and helping with your approval. Will further work on making the same better and expanding it with more meaningful information.
Sorry, did not realize that I could've created an article myself; was of the assumption that only admins were allowed that privilege. I do plan on creating a few more of Google articles from the 'WantedPages'.
Hope that would be alright if I reach out for assistance towards them.
Thanks, again!
TopCipher 02:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 13:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 13:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Hello, thanks for reviewing. I've made a note of these and ensure that no violations occur.
Also, do please be assured that my intentions were never to share any "promotional content" or add unnecessary details;
however, certain aspects such as writing about criminals or adding information about outdated softwares does not have much to be written in any uniquely creative statements/manner or require any promotion within themselves.
In any case, appreciate your efforts and will ensure to abide by all rules. Thanks.
TopCipher 13:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi. Regarding the two edits you link to above: both are copyright violations, and the passage re: Sands is a promotional book blurb that is unacceptable prose for an encyclopedia. Prose need not be creative, but it can't be copied and it must be WP:NEUTRAL in tone. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: I see (also, all points noted) and so in that case, I think the appropriate action would be to request assistance with someone who could help with changing the literature of the prose so as to not reflect the materials to be in any form of copyright violation as opposed to having it deleted altogether on grounds of them being promotional - Just a thought! Thanks.
TopCipher 05:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Javier Rebollo. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ SwisterTwister: Thanks, again. As per your current comment Now, in this case, please add the best of the external links into the other formatted sources so it's better to gauge and it also fills the article itself., I have:
moved 4 external links to refer within the article as citations/references itself, as I found all others to be relevant but couldn't relate them to the content provided within the article.
Hope this works. Thanks.
TopCipher 05:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Topcipher. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Patrick Marcelino, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Adam9007 ( talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Adam9007: Truly appreciate your effort in adding the content. However, there are no references/citations that directly specify or provide confirmation of THIS player having played in the aforementioned competitions. Please also refer to WP:NFOOTBALL for further inquiry.
Thanks.
TopCipher 12:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Really appreciate the "Speedy Delete" tag on an article I spent a ton of time researching. How about a note to fix the offending portions on what is otherwise an original article and a better start than 99% of the ones created on Wikipedia. Don't drop the hammer on content creators. Looper5920 ( talk) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Looper5920: Truly appreciate your effort in adding the researched content and regret the confusion - the tag was NOT placed because of any 'offending sentence'. The tag was placed because of copyright violations. Since I'm not an admin, I wasn't sure if it were to be treated in a manner other than required - my apologies on that. I do think that the article should remain, provided there are no copy-pasted material from other potentially IP sources.
Thanks.
TopCipher 12:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know - if you see an article written in a foreign language which isn't obviously unsuitable then the usual procedure is to list it at WP:PNT for a week or two to see if anyone can translate it, rather than proposing for deletion immediately. If nobody translates it or a speaker of the relevant language confirms it isn't worth translating then it will be nominated for deletion or moved to a foreign language Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Hut 8.5: Oh! Noted. Will ensure to do the same. Just that in this case I did try translating it in English but after reading through the content, it was clear that it did not meet the criteria to be Encyclopedic and so tagged for deletion (however, I'm not a native speaker and so should've tagged it otherwise instead).
Thank you for having me notified, will follow through the same going forward.
TopCipher 05:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think it's encyclopedic before translation then you don't have to list it for translation - just nominate it for deletion with a rationale explaining why it isn't encyclopedic, rather than just because it isn't in English. Hut 8.5 11:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Please stop linking commonly-known city names, such as London, and country names. Please read WP:OVERLINK for more information. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Ssilvers: Oops! My bad. Will ensure not to going forward. Thanks for having me notified.
TopCipher 09:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply