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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Xpress Radio 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomatkins2601! 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! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tomatkins2601. 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:Tomatkins2601. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tomatkins2601|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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the original members of the station featured in the article - no longer affiliated. The station, by it's very nature, is a non-profit organisation and therefore I could not be receiving any financial or material gain. Tomatkins2601 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no financial stake in this article. It is a non-for-profit organisation and therefore gains no financial advantage from my edits. Tomatkins2601 (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profit status is irrelevant, you have a direct COI and you need to disclose it as per WP:COI. Thanks. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for clearing this up, I was unsure. I will disclose this. Catonkey2022 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Xpress Radio, 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Although the message originally posted above by Praxidicae mainly emphasised the issue of paid editing, in fact, as she later pointed out, that is not the only point, and indeed in my opinion it is not the main point, as the conflict of interest guideline applies equally whether editing is paid or not. JBW (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not made clear whatsoever by Praxidicae's original message. I have since corrected this on my User page. I therefore am unsure why the draft has been deleted? Catonkey2022 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It actually was very clear, written in simple English. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'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.'

'if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation' for your edits, broadly construed

'you are not being directly or indirectly compensated' for your edits

All mentions of COI in your first message regard payment and compensation. It wasn't until my reply that you made it clear that payment wasn't the main issue in cases of COI - a point that JBW acknowledges, 'she later pointed out'. Upon reading that message, I have updated my user page and therefore ask that my draft is reinstated. Catonkey2022 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you'd like to pick apart every word, you missed the linked conflict of interest in the middle, which you denied having despite a clear connection, which I've also emailed to arbcom in light of your initial denial. Your draft was deleted for being promotional, the fact that you've disclosed doesn't mean you get to advertise, it just means you won't be blocked immediately for a terms of use violation. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]