Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 December 29

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.

December 29

02:46:32, 29 December 2014 review of submission by Jettte

• Jettte (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jettte/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, my submission on Arria NLG was declined because the "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I'm not sure if that's just the boilerplate text that comes with a rejection for low notability or whether I really need more independent sources. The reviewer notes "Existing isn't enough, we also need a reason as to why it is notable, and the article needs to make this clear (preferably in the lead)", which makes me wonder whether I'm simply meant to make it explicit in the lead what Arria is notable for. I've done that now, but it's hard to do without making it sound like advertising. The only other thing I could imagine is that my sources aren't "important" enough, because I've got at least one reference on pretty much every sentence already. I've had a look at existing Wikipedia articles about the other few companies in the same area and they all seem very similar to mine (Narrative Science, Yseop, Automated Insights).

I'd be very grateful for any additional feedback on how I could improve my article and get it accepted.

Jettte (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jettte. This is a tricky one, but I will try to give you some ideas that may help. One problem is that the Forbes piece that you are using to support the statement "the only one whose technology is based on scientific research into Natural Language Generation (NLG)", does not appear to support that statement. In fact, I would argue the Forbes piece only contains a passing mention of Arria NLG (one item in a list of four companies involved in the field), and is therefore of no use in proving the notability of the organisation. When considering the extent to which sources help to prove the notability of a topic, we don't look at how "important" the sources are; we look at whether they are reliable, whether they are independent, and whether they have significant coverage of the topic.

The Interactive Investor piece falls down on either independence or reliability ... probably the former ... it appears to be nothing more than a recycled press release. The various references to other Wikipedia articles ("Computational Linguistics (journal)" and the like) fall down on reliability ... you should never cite a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, because anyone can edit it. So these should be removed ... it is not a problem if that results in some sentences not having inline citations supporting them, as only statements that are likely to be challenged must have inline citations.

The first Herald Scotland piece is an example of a source that is both reliable, and independent, and in my view has significant coverage of the organisation. I think there are a few other sources like this already in your draft, so if you trim out the non-reliable and passing mention sources and resubmit it, I think it ought to be accepted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, it's possible that the reviewer's request for a statement in the lead as to why the company is notable, is to ensure that the resulting article does not fall under speedy deletion criterion Wikipedia:A7, "An article about a real ... organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". This is a relatively low standard to meet, and in this instance it could in my opinion be met by mentioning, with an inline citation, the expected £100m valuation of the company. Such a valuation does not suffice to prove notability ... which is a higher standard ... but does suffice as a claim that the company is significant. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

16:51:50, 29 December 2014 review of submission by Jagannaath

• Jagannaath (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jagannaath/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jagannaath (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jagannaath:  Declined We're not interested in your test edits. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)