Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 14

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 14

08:14:26, 14 January 2020 review of submission by 117.211.132.208

• 117.211.132.208 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sachin Gangadhar Lokapure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

117.211.132.208 (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The subject is not notable. Having a patent or a publication is not enough for an article. To have an article, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Please focus on editing something else, such as some existing articles, to understand how Wikipedia works. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

09:17:27, 14 January 2020 review of submission by AlineDerlagen

• AlineDerlagen (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Isaac Butterfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is important to review as this is an up-and-coming comedian in Australia who has already had international tours. Not posting about him at all and having information on him is somewhat strange - especially considering other comedians and youtube celebrities are included on Wikipedia.

Kind regards AlineDerlagen (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AlineDerlagen. Being up-and-coming is not a reason for Wikipedia to have an article about something, so much so that there's an essay about it, Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. You may also find the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability informative. To get someone to take another look at the draft, you would need to make a convincing argument on the basis of guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people). The essay Three best sources outlines a good approach. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

14:41:43, 14 January 2020 review of draft by IOSHjourno

• IOSHjourno (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrew Sharman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IOSHjourno (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Hope you're well?

I created an article on Andrew Sharman.

I was first told that you that a moderator was not allowing this, on the basis that I have an undisclosed financial stake in this, which is untrue. I don't know what this is based on? And I continue to refute this.

The article was then refused publication again some weeks later - this time, on the grounds that the references only have vague mentions of the subject. Despite the fact that two of the references are Scottish national newspapers - with articles specifically based on the subject.

Would it be possible for this to be reviewed again, please?

Thank you.

Edward

Hi IOSHjourno. You understood in this edit on 28 October 2019 that your choice of user name could give the impression that you have a close connection to IOSH, the organization Sharman heads, and therefore a conflict of interest (not necessarily financial) when writing about him. That impression is bolstered by the fact that in your eleven weeks here, instead of improving the encyclopedia broadly, all you've done is push for the creation of an article on this particular topic, despite repeatedly being told that he is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia).

Lack of notability is the reason that draft has been declined twice. You write that two of the references are Scottish national newspapers. Do you mean The Scotsman and Southern Reporter? Multiple articles about the same event that merely restate the same information do not count as multiple sources. There's also the problem that both are based largely on this press release from the organization.

Novice editors are commonly advised to cite three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites, at best, one, and its degree of independence from the subject is weak. Unless you can radically improve the draft, removing nearly all of the sources currently cited and replacing them with several in depth, independent, reliable sources, there's no point in submitting it for another review. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

17:17:22, 14 January 2020 review of submission by JoseRossiUY

• JoseRossiUY (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:OrangeLoops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there,

I'm doing research about the Uruguayan tech industry. This article is just a piece of content that makes notice of an Uruguayan software development company that achieved local and international recognition by releasing a team collaboration software. It is important in order to register the fact that such a small country like Uruguay has an interesting and growing tech industry, and how it developed with the pass of years. In my opinion, that's history, that's an encyclopedic content. There aren't any non-neutral expressions or comments that could sound spammy. I added every source I could find (such as local newspapers, community blogs, company libraries, etc.) yet still getting the article rejected.

Every knowledge and content regarding the technology industry will be very important for future generations. Our world is a tech-fueled one.

JoseRossiUY (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi JoseRossiUY. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. On top of that is the problem that the draft, like all your other contributions here, appear to be the product of undeclared paid editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

18:19:11, 14 January 2020 review of submission by Cappyto

• Cappyto (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:William Strickland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bill Strickland is known widely across the United States and has authored questions for CollegeBoard & national exams. Many have Wikipedia profiles for less. Cappyto (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Cappyto, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

For your article, this guy is just an average person like you or I. Being a high school teacher is laudable, but not notable. To show notability, you need coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. That means newspapers like the New York Times, not a personal blog. LinkedIn is also not a reliable source. I'm afraid this article just won't be published. I know thats hard to hear after working hard on something, but I hope you take this as an oppurtunity to ask for some help at the Teahouse about editing, and edit some existing pages to get a feel for Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

18:19:50, 14 January 2020 review of draft by Aureliojohn

• Aureliojohn (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Phemex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kindly review my draft and let me know if you have any question regarding the draft.

Aureliojohn (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aureliojohn. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 3-4 months, so you can anticipate a review by late April or early May. In light of Wikipedia's general sanctions on cryptocurrency-related articles, I suspect that there's very little chance that it will be accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

18:45:38, 14 January 2020 review of submission by Ajnk1234

• Ajnk1234 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wedding Spot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good afternoon! Just want to follow up on the Wedding Spot submission and add another piece of info to make a case for inclusion: As of May 2019, Wedding Spot had helped nearly 20 million couples find their wedding venue.

The article was rejected due to lack of notability, but it has received coverage from a significant amount of reliable sources over the years, and its competitor, WeddingWire, has a published Wikipedia page. Is there anything else I can add/change to get the Wedding Spot entry published?

Thanks in advance for your consideration!

References

Ajnk1234 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ajnk1234, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The WeddingWire article is quite poor, and I'm not sure if it should exist either.

You say in the article that it has been featured in dozens of publications. If so, then include those as sources in the article. Thats probably the only way to save the article. All the stuff about seed funding and acquisitions is just routine news, which does not contribute to notability. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)