Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 8 << Mar | April | May >> April 10 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


April 9[edit]

04:23:34, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani[edit]

What necessary changes am I suppose to make in my article? Krutika Samnani (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:40, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Teemaction[edit]

Hi all, I submitted my draft a couple months ago and wanted to make sure I was patient with the review process but now that it's been put in the "Very Old" category I wanted to check in to see if there is anything I could do to help it along. Much appreciated!

—T–MACTION (TALK) 04:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teemaction. Look at the newspapers section of Wikipedia:Notability (media). Which, if any, of those criteria do you believe The Mugdown satisfies? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce— thanks for getting back with me and apologies if this is not the correct place to respond. Although the sourcing shows the publication to have been referenced in other reliable sources, I think the most likely criterion would be the final point for "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets." In my mind at least, being a well-established publication at the second-largest university in United States would classify it as "non-trivial," in the likes of peer publications such as The Michigan Every Three Weekly or The Zamboni. Thanks again for your time and assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemaction (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teemaction: If you want to argue that they're a significant publication in a non-trivial niche market, beef up the lead to convey that.
Understand, though, that criterion 5 is usually understood to mean a market whose views are underrepresented in mainstream media. Newspapers found notable under that criterion are typically those run by and for the Black community, the Latino community, the LGBT community, etc. A Bengali-language paper published in New York City or a Mennonite paper in Indiana would have a decent chance, but a satirical student paper will have an uphill battle.
Both of the peer publications you mention were nominated for deletion. The first was kept by a narrow margin (one editor recommended delete, two recommended keep) and using arguments that would be considered weak under today's standards. The second was kept only because participants couldn't agree on how to get rid of it (one editor recommended delete, four recommended redirect, but without consensus on where to redirect it to). If you can't persuade a reviewer that The Mugdown is notable, add a sentence about it to Texas A&M University#Media and create a redirect from The Mugdown to there. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:16, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani[edit]


I can see a side box consisting of details of company. How can I make it? Also, I've given a draft for review, when will I get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate question - responded below Nosebagbear (talk)

07:32:44, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani[edit]


I have submitted an article for re-review, when will I get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Krutika Samnani#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:13, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Liff182[edit]


Hello, I believe this article should be published. You have flagged it due to 'notability' criteria.

The basic criteria states:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This is the case for John Roberts in this article.

He has had significant coverage in multiple published sources including:

The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/11/10/private-schools-now-taking-legal-insurance-teachers-amid-rise/ Schools Week: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/profile-john-roberts-chief-executive-edapt/ The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/hundreds-of-teachers-sign-up-for-no-strike-service-offering-alternative-to-trade-unions-9093603.html

Could you please clearly outline what needs to be done so it can be published? Thanks, Andrew

Liff182 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Liff182#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your declaration. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:15, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Liff182[edit]


Hello, I believe this article should be published. It has been flagged due to 'notability' criteria.

It states, "An organisation is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

That is true of this Edapt article.

The organisation has had significant media coverage and meets all of the criteria which are sourced accurately in the article.

This includes news articles in national newspapers such as The Independent, The Telegraph and education sector publications such as Schools Week and LKMco.

Could you clearly outline what needs to be done so this article can be published?

Thanks, Andrew Liff182 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Liff182#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your declaration. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:32, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani[edit]


I have given a draft to rereview, when will i get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Krutika Samnani: - please stop making duplicate messages, they won't lead to a quicker response.
Currently we are awaiting a response to the question on your talk page with regard to paid editing disclosure. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:08, 9 April 2019 review of submission by WomenInPhys[edit]

The draft was rejected because of a "lack of reliable sources". However, all information given is taken directly from the pages referenced and can be found there (I just double checked). The sources should be reliable, as this information was taken directly from the online presence of the program and does not contain any subjective opinions about it, just facts given by the funding body itself. In fact, the (published) German wikipedia article has a very similar information content and references almost the same sources. The sources are non-English in parts, but according to the guidelines that should be allowed. Perhaps I am missing some finer detail, but in that case it would be nice to elaborate on the reason for this admittedly quite vague rejection. WomenInPhys (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:15, 9 April 2019 review of submission by WomenInPhys[edit]

Thank you for the comment on the draft in reply to my question above. The draft was rejected because the DFG was not a reliable source for an article about a program financed by the DFG. I would like to refer the reviewers to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz_Prize, which is a prize awarded by the DFG and an article supported by references exclusively coming from the DFG webpage. My point is, that while in general I certainly agree that it is not interesting what "they have said about themselves on their own website", the DFG as a government body is the most reliable source for knowledge about a government-funded program. For many similar programs, like the Fulbright Program or the Clarendon Scholarship, which are all published articles, the official body that provides the funding is indeed a reliable and in fact probably the only source available - just as it is here. I thus would argue that this rejection was perhaps a bit rash and not entirely in line with previous policy for such cases.

P.S.: I hope this is the right place for making this kind of argument, I don't know if I am supposed to leave comments on the article and/or if anyone reads those. WomenInPhys (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WomenInPhys. There are several flaws in the "article X exists, therefore my draft Y should be accepted" argument. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not static. What was okay thirteen years ago may not be okay today. Wikipedia's processes are not static. The Articles for Creation process you are participating in did not exist thirteen years ago. Articles are not static. The current version of an article may, because of misguided editing, no longer meet criteria that it once met. More generally, the existence of an article does not necessarily mean it has been "accepted" or is welcome. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why among experienced Wikipedians your argument will provoke only eye rolling.
Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa.
You write that "all information given is taken directly from the pages referenced and can be found there (I just double checked)." Please provide a quote from cited reference https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/programme/einzelfoerderung/emmy_noether/ that supports your assertion in the first sentence that the program was introduced in 1997. Please provide a quote from cited reference https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/programme/einzelfoerderung/emmy_noether/ that supports your statement in the second sentence that the program is named after German mathematician Emmy Noether (as opposed to some other Emmy Noether). The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.
You write that "this information was taken directly from the online presence of the program and does not contain any subjective opinions about it". Examples of opinions in the draft are "the program aims to ..." and "the program is very competitive". Often a program's publicly stated aims are different from what a dispassionate observer would describe as their aims. Statement's like these must be attributed in-line, they may not be made in Wikipedia's voice.
An organization can be a reliable source about itself, but Wikipedia is not a mirror of their PR or communications department. Articles should be based mainly on independent secondary sources. Moreover, the fundamental criterion for including a topic in Wikipedia is whether they have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by independent reliable sources. Rewrite the draft using mainly several independent reliable sources, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=oGuADAAAQBAJ&pg=PA46. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:25, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Royaler123[edit]


I believe I have added a lot of new information and have a lot of sources now that the first round of games has been completed.

Royaler123 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted The annual articles for this championship have historically been created in April or May with a similar degree of sourcing, and have not been taken to AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:00, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Nallegood[edit]


This article is about a real sport created recently and is the only article about it. Nathaniel Tucker Allegood 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nallegood: Which is precisely why it is an inappropriate topic for Wikipedia, which aims to cover only subjects that have already attracted significant attention from the world at large. An encyclopedia is not the place to publish new information or "get the word out" about anything. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:23:27, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Marcsallis[edit]


Marcsallis (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:23:27, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Marcsallis



I have added the things that were requested - i.e. the company's website and other examples. I have also kept the language fact based with supporting sources. This is a simple entry for a record label that has been releasing music for the last decade and run by a substantial source, Dhani Harrison.

Please let me know what I can do to get this entry approved as it is a very simple entry I'm trying to do.

Thanks! Marcsallis (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcsallis. Even the simplest record label article should demonstrate notability (the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia). The sources cited by the draft come nowhere near showing that the label is notable. Examples of good sourcing include: Discipline Global Mobile, Key Sounds Label, and Mr. Lady Records. A draft need not be that long to be accepted, but it should cite a similar range and quality of sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:03:28, 9 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by CERWriter[edit]


Hello. My draft was just rejected on the grounds that it didn't have enough sources; however, a competitor company with the same number of sources has been published on Wikipedia. I'd like to understand your rules better. Will you kindly explain the difference? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genie_Company

CERWriter (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC) CERWriter (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CERWriter: I can offer some clarification. I declined your draft as it failed to meet WP:NCORP criteria, which requires that subjects have accrued significant, in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in your draft are reliable, but all four contain a significant amount of primary information (one is an outright interview), and two of the sources cited are standard business announcements/press releases; these latter types of sources do not constitute significant coverage (per NCORP), nor fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH. In short, the draft currently has cited only on reliable, quality source (the Dallasnews source [1]), and even this derives much of its content from an interview with a company founder. As for your citing of a competitor's article, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you feel that subject is not notable, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent The Genie Company to AFD. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:46, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Maccabean[edit]


Maccabean (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC) As widely noted, OrbitRemit is a major player in the digital remittance market: https://journalbitcoin.com/global-digital-remittance-market-size-share-and-forecast-2019-2026-moneygram-orbitremit-tng-wallet-transfergo/ The company is also referenced in the Deloitte FAST 500 listed in Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Technology_Fast_500[reply]

If it's still not notable, please advise what I'm missing here.

Hi Maccabean. A company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources.
The points raised in your question do nothing to demonstrate notability. Being widely noted (i.e. mentioned) is not significant coverage (it is not in-depth). Being a major player is not coverage of any kind. Bitcoin Journal is not a reliable source. The Deloitte Technology Fast 500 awards are of dubious notability. That sort of award is usually regarded as insignificant. If the only coverage of an award is from the awarding organization and the recipient, that's a good indicator that it's trivial, meaningless fluff. Finally, Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source.
The draft is better than your question would suggest. It cites three articles from stuff.co.nz, which is a reliable source. If you want to improve the draft's chances, get rid of: press releases (SBWire); Deloitte and its award; interviews that are just the company in the company's words, without independent analysis (Lifehacker); and anything off-topic, which probably includes the last three sources about the CEO, although I haven't read the ones behind paywalls. If the stuff.co.nz articles are genuinely significant coverage, you should be able to cite them multiple times at different points in the draft.
Those actions may not be enough to convince a reviewer of notability, but perhaps you can find a couple more sources as good as stuff.co.nz. Or you can save a copy of the draft on your computer, and revisit the topic in a year or two. By that time more may have been written about the company. In the meanwhile, there are millions of other articles you could improve. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_April_9&oldid=954122861"