User talk:LendingExpert

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

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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Everyday Loans 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.

bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, LendingExpert! 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! bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh I thought I'd made it pretty neutral!! I was following the format of other company pages in the space. I'll try and update it, include better sources etc. If there is any specific guidance on what you didn't like please do let me know so I know what I should be looking at improving. LendingExpert (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea,

I've now made a number of edits to this with a focus on the verfiability and notability policy which I hope should make it compliant with those rules. Let me know if I've missed anything or can add/remove anythign to further assist. LendingExpert (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit you removed a reference to this report. You're correct that the link has been redirected, but that's not a good reason to remove the reference! In the future, either remove the URL or, even better, search and see if the resource is now hosted elsewhere. Further, if you're using the Cite web template, you can also set |url-status=usurped (and optionally add an |archive-url e.g. on the Internet Archive).

I will also mention that you removed references to the organization Public Concern at Work, which is fine, but FYI they appear to have just renamed to Protect (in 2013).

Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah thank you for this advice! I only intended to remove the rogue link but may have misunderstood the syntax I was modifying. I'll be sure to account for this in future. LendingExpert (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)