Hello, Editora89119, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jonathan Frantz, 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. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Frantz, 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. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. 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; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Deb (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I added some maintenance templates to indicate which references need to be expanded and where references should be added.

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:Jonathan Frantz 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GoingBatty (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editora89119! 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! GoingBatty (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Written like an advert?

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:Jonathan Frantz 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

qcne (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jonathan Frantz 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am replying here in case I mistakenly posted / replied in the wrong area. In response to your suggestions, I worked to ensure my submission was well-sourced and neutral.

I went over each and every word to try to apply a more encyclopedic and neutral tone. From words like "pioneer" to "notable" to "key researcher," (and more) I have removed any and all language that could even remotely appear promotional.

Other than that, the article is sourced with medical journals, as well as local and national news coverage.

If there is anything I missed, could you point out specific areas where the tone seems promotional so I can address them? Or if this is satisfactory, would you remove the rejection?

Thank you in advance! I've learned quite a bit from editors in this submission and am eager to do more! I hope these revisions maintain a neutral and factual approach while preserving the key info. Editora89119 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_{Courtesy ping @Utopes} qcne (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just a quick follow up to my submission - Draft:Jonathan Frantz. It’s been about two weeks since we last connected.

I worked carefully to ensure the article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone and removed any potentially promotional language. The article is also well-sourced with references from medical journals and reputable news outlets, national and regional. Also, the submission was previously approved by a couple other editors who reviewed the changes.

If there are any remaining concerns that need to be addressed before approval, I’d appreciate any guidance. Otherwise, if the submission meets Wikipedia’s standards, could you confirm whether it can now move forward?

Thank you again for your time and assistance! I appreciate the effort you and other editors put in! Editora89119 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Utopes, who wouldn't be notified of your post otherwise.

@Editora89119 I do still think it's written like an advert, there's a lot of subtle promotional language throughout. qcne (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response!

Totally understand, and I am always willing and able to learn and improve wherever needed!

Could you point out specific areas that still need revision?

I worked to remove any promotional wording and keep it factual and well-sourced, in my multiple revisions.

Any examples would help so I can make the changes and resubmit. Let me know. Thanks again! Editora89119 (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly subtle, so words like.. "advanced" "groundwork" "pivotal" "paved the way" "as a safe and reliable technique" (who says it was safer and more reliable?) "instrumental" "foundational studies" "Legacy" "recognised" < all those words are promotional in tone.

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. qcne (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will revise and definitely take a look at the manual. Thank you for sending. Editora89119 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks again for the suggestions!

I have made further revisions based on your feedback, specifically:

Removed the precise words you flagged: “pivotal,” “groundwork,” “instrumental,” “foundational studies,” “paved the way,” and “as a safe and reliable technique” have been removed or replaced to avoid subjective or promotional language.

I went over the manual you sent me as well, and I replaced what could be perceived as promotional phrases, using more neutral wording such as “participated in research,” “was involved in studies,” or “contributed to clinical trials.”

It now aligns with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style and POV policies.

If there are any remaining areas that need adjustment, please let me know. Otherwise, I’d appreciate your approval. Thanks again for your help in refining this submission! Editora89119 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Editora89119, that does read better. You can re-submit for review now I think, though I'd recommend reading over WP:NACADEMIC to ensure Jonathan meets the criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jonathan Frantz. Thanks! Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as requested, I removed the bullet points and redid the section, keeping the encyclopedic tone. Thank you for your suggestions. If there's nothing else to change, could you please approve? Again, thank you for the help! Editora89119 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Frantz, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]