User talk:LaMona//Archives/2015/November

Rejection of Draft Page for John Keeble
Thank you La Mona for your suggestions on the page. Some questions -- (1) You would like to have all the reviews deleted? But a brief plot summary could remain? can reviews or links to journal articles be put in the further reading area?

(2) I understand the tone and can easily change that to fit a more encyclopedic entry.

(3) Can the author's own personal site be used as a source for biography or must I find a source in books and Who Who type entries?

(4) I'm not clear on the comment about "reliable" sources--I used a variety of newspaper, internet, and published sources to link to the awards, reviews, and even biography... are their some in particular you find objectionable?

(5) I asked the author to submit an email to Wikipedia (using the form wikipedia uses) for the picture and give rights for its use -- but I haven't received anything that indicates that was received from Dannae.

Overall, the entry should be biographical, non-interpretative, encyclopedic... How does one introduce themes and styles that academics and reviewers are mentioning?

Finally, I do want to make a title change from John Keeble (writer) to John R. Keeble (writer) to make the distinction between John Keeble (musician) that comes up and because in several internet searches that I've conducted for getting references to awards, etc., it comes up as John R. Keeble. Should this title change be done before resubmission or after? Thank you,

--Newberryr 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)newberryr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newberryr (talk • contribs)


 * Newberryr - Good questions, all. Reviews become cites to mentions of the books in your article. The author's site is not considered a reliable source of biographical information (the author is NOT a neutral party). Some indisputable facts, like place of birth, may come from there, but it is best to get those facts from third-parties like newspaper articles. Your sources are basically ok - that comment was added by the boilerplate that comes with the decline, unfortunately. The reviews are used as links to the names of the books, and information from the reviews, except for perhaps a brief mention of some absolutely necessary factual information (e.g. "Author was compared to James Joyce by reviewers") is not included. (The praises of reviewers is generally avoided as being promotional, unless criticisms are also included, but this is generally limited to great works of literature, classics.) So, the first sentence of Crab Canyon should stay, the rest should go. All of the books could be covered in a single paragraph, with a sentence for each. Here's what I would keep: "Co-written with Ransom Jeffery, Keeble's second novel was Mine (1974). The two protagonists for this novel are Rag, a young man from Florida, and St. James, a third-generation Iowan who in 1974 are in and out of counter-culture of America. " "Keeble's third novel,Yellowfish(1980; rpt 2008), was a May 1980 Alternate Selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club, and a June, 1980 Main Selection of the Book Club of Canada." "His novel, Broken Ground (1987; rpt 2010), reveals the moral dilemma of a protagonist involved in the construction of a prison for profit in Eastern Oregon." ... etc. Obviously, your exact wording can vary. As for changing the title, I can try to do that. If I cannot, we can request it from an admin. LaMona (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

RE: Comments on Rejection Clarification John R Keeble. Thank you very much for the comments. I will make edits and re-submit. If you could change the name of the article to John R Keeble for me that would be fantastic. --Newberryr 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)newberryr

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iriebeatz (talk • contribs) 04:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, I have resubmitted the John Keeble article after following your suggestions above after its rejection. I have an email that shows we have met the copyright concerns for the picture if you need it. also, I still need to have the page title changed from John Keeble, Writer to John R. Keeble, Writer, which you mentioned you might be able to do for me once this is accepted. Thank you again for your assistance. Sorry it took so long to get back to this project!

--Newberryr 01:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)newberryr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newberryr (talk • contribs)


 * Iriebeatz - a couple of things. First, sign your messages by putting 4 tildes in a row at the end of your message. Second, one of the basic tenets of Wp is be civil. Making accusations, etc. are not appreciated, and could even get you blocked from editing. Third, please understand the AfC process. Nothing has been blocked. AfC is a process, and in each step of the process you get the advice of an editor. You make the changes suggested by the editor, and you re-submit. In particular, my advice to you is that you may not use sales sites (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) as references, which is why I advised that you read through the policy on reliable sources. By reading that, you will understand what references are preferred, and what references should definitely be avoided. In terms of the neutrality of language, please read Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. Some examples of non-encyclopedic style in your article are: "Leroy has a natural love for old rhythms..." and "Loving the production business so much...". These need to be reworded, as you'll read about in the style guide, so that they are factual in nature. Another fairly strict Wikipedia rule is that all statements must be referenced. You have entire sections that have no references. If your article goes into main space with these unreferenced sections, other editors can summarily delete them, since unreferenced material in articles about living people are strongly discouraged. So by making these changes, your article will avoid problems when it is moved into the main WP space. LaMona (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok LaMona thanks then. Peace.

Request on 19:44:53, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DJDog
Hi LaMona, Thank you for your review. As this album won a major award in dutch record industry, (edison jazz award) wich is shown in the references from major newspapers, I do not understand why "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" ? What am I missing here ? Could you please help me out on this ?

DJDog (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:51:39, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DJDog
Hi LaMona, I thought that this article in one of the most known Dutch newspapers NRC (http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/2002/12/9/banabila-vloeimans-7617661) and this article with the announcement of winning the award for this album, in one of the other major newspapers (http://krant.telegraaf.nl/nieuwslink/teksten/nws.jazz.ging.gala.edison.html) would be a sign of notability ? These are independent newspapers. Why are those not accepted ?

DJDog (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * DJDog, you could perhaps put it forth as a stub, but if there is no more to say about it than this it would be best to leave the information on the pages for the musicians. There's not much use to having a page that will never be more than 4 sentences. (And one of those sentences, where the awards ceremony was held, is really superfluous.) The list of tracks is not encyclopedic, especially if there is no more to be said about them. So either expand or incorporate into articles for musicians. That's my !vote. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, Thank you, Could you please help me than how I can put it forth as a stub, how do I do that ? The sentence where the ceremony was held was followed by the fact that this album won the most important price in category jazz of that year. And the review in the biggest newspaper is not to be considered as independent ? And the fact that it was nominated for a golden calf on the dutch filmfestival 1 year later ? With the reference of this film mentioned too ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJDog (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:18:35, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DJDog
It is confusing ... if the most prestigious price in dutch record industry for this category plus a review in the biggest newspaper is not a sign of notablility...than what is ? Is there any way this can be solved or is there somebody at wikipedia that can be requested to finish this article ?

DJDog (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:DJDog - The Guidelines for notability for albums says: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Why isn't that good enough? You seem awfully anxious to get this into Wikipedia. and I note that this article and one about one of the musicians are the only pages you have really worked on. If you have a connection with the musicians, let me say that WP is not a venue for promotion of products, but is an encyclopedia. Please address the need for more content in the article. No, WP does not have staff that finishes articles. We are all volunteers. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

20:33:25, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog
Hi LaMona, might this video on national television about the album help for notability ? = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soa2daBlm7w My argument was that if an album is not notable, it usually wont be played on national tv and win an award ?
 * PLEASE LISTEN! "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." NOTABILITY ASIDE! You have to have something to say about the album. Look at some pages for albums, like Category:2014_debut_albums. You cannot change the facts by sending me more messages. You have to improve the article. LaMona (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

20:59:37, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog
by the way if I click on your link 2004 debut albums I get a link about 2004 films ? = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2014_films

or maybe I misunderstood..


 * No, I got the wrong link. It's . LaMona (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

21:10:22, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog
Hi LaMona ok I understand your last comment and I extended the article. please let me know if this is better ?


 * if you think you've improved it you can resubmit for review. But you've only added sentence 5. LaMona (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

21:49:40, 1 November 2015 review of submission by DJDog
Hi LaMona, thank you. I extended the article the way you asked, I wanted to merge it in a discography as you suggested, but then this page should be accepted first right ? otherwise I wouldnt know how to merge it. Anyway I will try a resubmit now.
 * No, merge means that you add the content to the artist's page, instead of this one. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Nicholson page
LaMona-

Hello. All of your required revisions have been completed and I have resubmitted the page. If you have time, please look it over if at all possible. Thanks for your time and feedback.

VanceJordan (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I added some stuff -- bibliography, some new refs. Fixed some style issues. I'll let others review it since now I'm involved. Let's hope. One other thing - Any idea where this Austin English interview comes from? If we could find the original, it's a good source. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

rejection of revised entry on the Langport Leveller
Dear Mona I'm frustrated at your rejection and don't understand it, since it is modelled on an entry in the same field for a similar title: "The Western Gazette is a regional newspaper, published every Thursday in Yeovil, Somerset, England. Before February 2009 there were eleven local sub-editions, but these were then rationalised into six: North Dorset, Sherborne, West Dorset, Crewkerne & Chard, Yeovil & District, and South Somerset.[1] However as of 2012 there are only 5 editions: Yeovil; Sherborne; Somerton & Langport; Wincanton, Castle Cary, Bruton & Gillingham and Crewkerne, Chard & Illminster. In 2012, Local World acquired owner Northcliffe Media from Daily Mail and General Trust.[2]"

The references are basically to a bibliographical index, just as I used and the sale of the paper to the Local World - only notable because it sold. So why is one accepted and the other rejected? JBSeatrobe JB Seatrobe (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First, see wp:otherstuffexists. Not all articles in WP meet the guidelines, and every day about 100 articles are deleted. It's a constant process. Next, if we can find a guideline that says that all newspapers are inherently notable, then your article can pass. What I do find, in WP:NNEWSPAPER is this:
 * The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education
 * The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level.
 * The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).
 * The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works.[notes 1]
 * This seems quite strict, and doesn't exactly address newspapers. I'll ask if there's a more specific about local newspapers. Note that nearly all of the papers in the category are considered to be stubs. This tells me that newspaper articles are being created that do not meet the general notability guidelines. I'll get back to you with an answer, hopefully soon. LaMona (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep an eye on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help and we'll see what answer we get. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:14:24, 2 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.161.126.98
Hi LaMona, The notability issue - which you gave as your reason for rejecting the last page submission - has already answered and accepted in the first round of requested edits for Nadine Robbins' page. A previous Wiki editor agreed that given that the Huffington Post Art Critic (and Professor) John Seed named Robbins' portrait 'Mrs. MacDonald' on of the top ten most notable paintings of 2013, and that two of her paintings have been accepted into The Royal Society of Portrait painters (2010 & 2011) and that her work is contained in one of the most prestigious private/public collections in Chicago (Tullman Collection). I don't know what else is needed? She has received national and international recognition in press, open competitions and galleries at a high level. Including the front covers of Art Journals and Magazine's that I didn't include in the page text as I felt it would have appeared to be too promotional. To me this meets Wiki criteria for notability. We have made every edit requested and were told at the last go round that the submission would be accepted. What has happened in the interim? Could you please let me know. Many thanks, -Helen Seslowsky

24.161.126.98 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing has happened - different editors see things differently. And no one promised that it would pass - in fact, each reviewer has had some doubts. Huff post, being a blog, is judged on an article-by-article basis. Seed does not appear elsewhere as a major art critic. (He's virtually invisible as a scholar.) I suspect that reviewer looked at the list of sources but did not look at the sources themselves. (Folks are often judging in a hurry here.) Sources #2 12-15 are not about her, and therefore detract from the article. Source #21 doesn't even mention her, so it doesn't verify anything. #6 has a photo with her in it, but it isn't about her. The Observer has a few sentences about her - not terribly significant. Namaro graphics, being her own site, should be in "external links" not a reference. Can you see what the issues are? For general notability you need significant and reliable sources that are ABOUT her. It's possible that the area where you say: Her work has been featured in.... could yield more information about her. Just listing sources like that doesn't provide any information in the article itself. For example, Roll Magazine says quite a bit about her, but you don't include any of it in the article. For example, it provides this info: "In 1984—while still in college—she got a grant that allowed her to attend a special graphic design conference in Aspen" -- that's information. It also gives some biographical information (she married). It talks about her technique: "Selected couples—many of whom are friends and/or acquaintances—then have a short interview with Nadine, where she gets to know them a little better, while taking notes and making observations, using her graphic design skills to get good concept ideas going. “After there’s some sort of idea or direction—we like each other, there’s a good vibe—we set up the photo shoot.” Nadine prefers to use a neutral backdrop for the photos, keeping the focus on the subjects and their interaction, allowing for the shadow play with the lighting, which helps make the 3-D elements pop out more. Few props, but interesting (and no doubt resonant to the subjects) apparel is encouraged. “I’ll take 200 to 300 pictures, always looking for the one that all of a sudden, the people forget that I’m photographing them, and something really natural comes out.” Several shots are selected, with the subjects’ approval, and the photo is projected onto a canvas, where Nadine can start the basic outlines" All of that is exactly what you want in an encyclopedia article. Who is she? Why is her work important? How does she work? What can we learn from her? It's not just about listing shows and awards; an encyclopedia is information. Dig into those articles and make her come alive for the reader (but without making anything up!). LaMona (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Page for Colin R. Singer
You mentioned that "You may not use social media sites (IMDB)". However, I've sourced the following factual statement using IMDB:

"Singer was Executive Co-Producer of the short film "In Faustian Fashion" starring Zombie Boy which appeared at the 2014 Fantasia International World Film Festival. [10]"

With respect, IMDB is the definitive authority of notability and credit in the entertainment industry. It is not a social media site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Movie_Database — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emadhn (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, IMDB is not an authority and is not to be used. Like Wikipedia, IMDB is crowd-sourced and there is no fact-checking on the information. See WP:USERGENERATED which explicitly excludes IMDB. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Page for SI Group
Can you please provide more guidance on why you have rejected SI Group's draft page? You mentioned Comment: Nothing encyclopedic here, just a company "brochure" in article form. LaMona (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC) The article is written in a neutral point of view, every piece of information is third party sourced from reliable and independent published sources. This page was written closely mirroring format and content types of existing approved Wikipedia pages such as Nike, Dow, and BASF. Could you please provide me with some more specific feedback about what language in the article does not comply with Wikipedia standards. What can we improve to make this article Wikipedia-approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ce12bana (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically, what I said is what I meant. A company is not notable for just being a company. Normal business is not encyclopedic. Your sources are nearly all local, not national, which is quite different from Nike, Dow and BASF. The wp:corp guidelines specificially state: "attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability". LaMona (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Leadin (company)
LaMona many thanks for your constructive comments, I have made some minor edits and will continue over the coming days to add citations, it is however difficult to add citations for the company client list as often the only publicly published materials exist on the named company website, but I will add where available. Liaison Technology is a client and not connected with the named company - external website links have been added as suggested. I will re-submit once additional citations have been sourced and added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASarfas (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are no third-party sources for the client list, you should not include it in the article. In fact, client lists are generally not appropriate for 2 reasons 1) they change 2) they do not confer notability. Instead of thinking about what the company would say about itself, you need to focus on what others have said about the company. Only that latter info should be in the WP article. LaMona (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:15:37, 3 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Marshrory
Hello LaMona! I have just seen that the Thales Electron Devices article has not been accepted. You left a comment explaining that the sources cited were about the science rather than the company so were not appropriate. It is true that they are scientific journal pieces about specific scientific theory and its applications such as space communications, particle accelerators, nuclear fusion etc. However, they all include sections about Thales Electron Devices's participation in those fields and make reference to Thales Electon Devices's innovation and products.

Does this definitely not count as a notable source?

Thanks, I appreciate your help!

Marshrory (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mentions are indeed sources, but they are sources of little significance. They can be included if they provide a reference for a specific fact that is not found elsewhere. But to show notability you need more than mentions - you need sources are that entirely or primarily about the subject of the article you are writing. Those sources must be independent of the subject and considered reliable. If such sources do not exist, then the topic does not meet the criteria for a WP article. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

04:01:25, 3 November 2015 review of submission by 50.108.21.242
Hi LaMona! Thank you for your feedback on this.

I read the page on notability, specifically notability for organizations (non-commercial). I know that this charity has an international scale, but the problem is with coverage in multiple third party sources, as you might have seen. I followed all of the WP prompts for finding good sources and didn't have much luck. Many of the charity's organizers (and efforts) are Iranian, so I suspect that is why I am having trouble finding information. I will likely contact the charity to obtain more information.

I did find some web pages where it mentions board members and their connection to the charity, as well as a listing on NonprofitLocator.org, but understand that these are not examples of notability.

I wanted to ask your opinion on this source as a starting point: An upcoming event put on by the charity (with background information) at the Iranian-American Community Center

Beyond that, if I am able to dig up any other sources to prove notability and add them, will any of the citations that direct back to the organization's own web page be accepted? I'm just wondering if I'll be able to include the Board of Directors and affiliated organizations using their own website as information once I have established notability and added more sources, or if the website as a source is never allowed for any piece of information at any point.

Thank you for your time.

50.108.21.242 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Information about events aren't usually good sources -- since the organization is being celebrated, the information there will not be independent and neutral. If you can't find independent, neutral sources then the article will just have to wait until those arise. Not all organizations can find a place in Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft Page for Friday Brown
Dear LaMona

Thank you for your comments on this page, which I repeat below for your convenience:

"I was going through removing references that are not acceptable (crowd-sourced sites, etc.). I looked up the article referenced as "Billboard, 13 July 1968, page 73" -- and it does not contain the information in your article. You cannot include information that does not come from 3rd party, reliable sources. I can't take the time to check every reference here, but I'm not happy to have found this discrepancy. Since you had cited a personal communication from the subject in your references, I presume that you know this person. You cannot use what you have been told, only what can be verified in sources."

Your rejection of 3 November is based on inadequate notability, although your earlier declining of 13 October said that the article was 'getting close', but did not mention notability. I would contend the notability issue under the following Wikipedia guidance, the starred information being contained within my draft:

A. Criteria for musicians and ensembles

9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
 * Brown received first prize at the 10th European Song Cup, as seen by 85 million TV viewers on Eurovision. OK, a long time ago, but still significant.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable
 * Brown performed on numerous UK TV shows. Nothing in the USA, I'm afraid.

B. Criteria for composers and lyricists

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
 * Brown wrote "Once I was a Sailing Ship", popularised by the (notable) singer Val Doonican on two albums.

4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
 * Brown wrote the lyrics for the song "Be With Me", with which she won the "Polish Day" contest at the 10th Sopot International Song Festival, Poland, on August 28, 1970.

As for the problem of references, the Billboard reference of 13 July 1968 is there, but I’ve now added a web link. I appreciate that it's a lot of work going through all the references, but I agree they should be checked for correctness.

I have removed the reference to any direct communication between me and Brown. The fact that I know her has no relevance as far as I'm concerned. She was, in the distant days of the sixties, a significant performer and I think I have provided enough references to show that, even if sometimes flawed.

I you think I should abandon the submission entirely then I will do so, although I think Wikipedia will be all the less for it.

Many thanks,

Ray White Rtwhite (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The difference in review replies that one gets often have to do with the fact that we can only click on one review "reason" per review, even if there is more than one thing we want to say. It's awkward and confusing, for all of us, and I'd much rather be able to give a more thorough review. Also note that we are reviewing hundreds of articles (as volunteers) so can't spend as much time as we'd like on them.


 * Now, to your specific questions: What you need are sources that verify these facts. And those sources preferably should be third-party, not primary. So it doesn't work to cite the BBC program listings for the fact that she appeared on the BBC. The problem with the Billboard reference that I checked is that it did not support the facts in the article. You say "was the first winner asked to do two songs at the end of the Final instead of one" and the article cited does not say that. Maybe one of the others does, but you've piled on references that do not support the statements. What we want is the VERY reference that supports that so that anyone wishing to verify the fact can go directly there, not have to wade through irrelevant material. Do not add extra references that merely list her name as a participant or member of a team unless those are the only references you have to support the fact.


 * "Popularised" is subjective. Did the song chart? Are there reviews of it? Everything has to be sourced to third-parties who themselves say that the song was popular. Where are those sources? All you show is that the song was on the album. That's not enough. You can't say "popularised" unless that can be verified - for that song. As for the Spolot festival, you say she won the "Polish Day" prize -- but she doesn't appear on the list of all Sopot performers at, so I'm guessing that her prize was not considered a major one. Statements like "as the 'most outstanding artiste of the 30 competing nations;" come across as promotional. Stick to the facts. "Popularised" and quoting phrases like this are actually a detriment to the article because they do not follow the required neutral point of view that an encyclopedia article should have. You will get further being more factual and less promotional, avoiding over-linking. The article reads like you are desperately trying to convince us that she is notable. If she is notable, the facts will speak for themselves.


 * If I had access to the materials you cite I could do a first pass on removing the cites that I think are problematic. Unfortunately, I do not have access to most of this material. You seem to be working from hard copies, and that means that you have to do the culling. I could make a pass through to remove promotional language, but that would also remove some references that you would like to keep, since when a sentence goes, the reference also has to go. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:05:19, 4 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lori1986
Hi LaMona,

I'm keen to get a bit of advice on the page I drafted for Jonathan Manns. I was worried before that I went a little over the top with the referencing by comparison to some of the other attempts I made at the same sort of time, but I was still a little uncertain on what to do and so tried to get a good variety and type of links from what I could find online (books, papers, magazines, websites, etc). Admittedly, some sections and references were also copied from other Wikipedia pages that make reference to his work. I put quite a lot of work into the drafting of this one though, so I'm keen to keep working on it, if you could give me some pointers?

Any help appreciated, if it's not too much trouble.

Lori <-- End of message -->Lori1986 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said, you cannot cite his own works, which is what you mainly have. Everything you cite must be ABOUT him, not BY him. Also, ABOUT does not mean that he is quoted in an article about something else. Those are his own words, and they cannot be used to support the article. Those are what are called primary sources and WP requires third party reliable sources. A sales show, like Grand Designs Live, is not going to be a neutral source - they aren't going to say anything bad about their exhibitors. You need news articles or journal articles that are independent of him and can be trusted to be neutral. I obviously haven't checked all of the sources, but so far I don't find one that is appropriate. You probably want to take a step back, find neutral sources, and try writing a new article based solely on the information in those sources. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

16:09:51, 4 November 2015 review of submission by Judith.Lewis
Hi, Just wanted to ask a question (well 2). You mention not mentioning the work but I copied this from other agencies. I thought it helped prove notworthyness as it was also referenced in places like the FT article "His group helped develop Google’s cultural institute, an effort to put photos, videos and documents online in a searchable archive." I was also having trouble with understanding where I went wrong with verifiable sources. I have checked the articles and they seemed OK based on the criteria. I thought perhaps the awards entries but those were post-judging so have already been vetted offline by a panel. Please could you help (I have edited the document and removed some links as suggested and some content). Thank you in advance!


 * I don't know how else to explain it. You cannot cite articles that are not about Beyond, even if they are about campaigns that Beyond developed. The cites have to be about the subject of the article. Otherwise, you are doing original research -- that is, you are researching an article about the company, not creating a WP article based on things people have said about the company. WP articles are solely based on previously published information about the topic at hand --ABOUT is the key here. So if someone wrote this very article and published it, you could cite it in WP. But you can't write this article in Wp since WP is not a venue for research. LaMona (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ocean Finance
Hi LaMona

Thank you for your feedback on the page I drafted about Ocean Finance. I have made a few tweaks to the page to support its entry as notable. My reasons for notability is that it is a market leader in a large market (£14bn per year) and was sold for in excess of £200m. I have multiple independent sources that have written directly about the business - including the BBC, Daily Telegraph and numerous trade papers. Obviously I can add further citations but as they tend to be similar in content I am not sure that it useful for users. I also believe that the advertising has cultural significance (not in a good way, which is why some of the coverage is negative) - it was widely parodied for example. The Ocean Finance wiki page did actually existing until very recently but was deleted when I pointed out that the firm was no longer part of AIG.

I've left the page in draft for now but would be grateful for your feedback before I submit it again.

Thanks for your help and advice.

Ian

Iwill41 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

17:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read wp:corp? That is the most important document for you, although you should also be familiar with wp:gng and wp:rs. Those explain what defines notability (and therefore entry into Wikipedia) and what sources can be used to verify notability. After reading those you will understand that you must delete the Youtube cite (and you cannot say "widely" about one video). You will also understand that the majority of your sources do not meet the requirements for corporations, in particular these two:
 * simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
 * brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
 * When you remove those, I don't think you have anything left. The amount of money a company makes, whether it trades on the stock market, etc. does not make a company notable, it just makes it a big company. Big company is not one of the criteria. LaMona (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:21:21, 4 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kamishiro
Regarding my submission of Steve Sinnicks for inclusion. I have read and re-read the "notability guidelines" - as well as referencing several Musicians who are listed in Wikipedia who are less notable than Sinnicks (for example, no charted recordings, no awards, from the same City...). As for "Major Label" recordings, this is the 21st century - when most savvy musicians are self-releasing or releasing through indie labels because they make more money that way. The Major Labels do very little for anyone these days other than distribute for profit; 1 Million recordings "shipped" does not account for how many are returned. I have also tried to keep the language "factual and not flowery". A prime example of the opposite that is asked for in both of those cases is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_Shivers - he's been an "extra" in a couple films, no awards, less notable career, fewer recordings...yet he is listed without issue. This is very frustrating, especially when someone who has been presented with three major awards for their musical contibutions is being told their awards "aren't major", nor their airplay across the nation "valid". In Canada this is a big deal, we don't have a major Chart publication anymore - and the ione we did have was "Industry only" not funded by advertising like Billboard is (I happen to know the difference personally as I did the Charts & many reviews)...any Radio airplay in Canada is considered a big deal - many musicians never achieve this. As for the Awards, the Hamilton Music Awards are substantial; probably the most notable awards outside the Juno awards (and respected on an equal level - if not more - by the Industry) - Steve has won two of these as well as a Hamilton Arts Award for "Established Musician" - nominated by the public and judged by his peers.

If there is any specific fixes you might suggest, I would be happy to hear. I have referenced everything possible to "outside reliable sources".

Cheers.

Kamishiro (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You can argue all you want but I cannot change the criteria. I agree with you about self-releasing, but WP does not. You can resubmit your article after making changes, but the criteria in the WP policies remain the same. I would expect folks to start a discussion about changing the criteria for musicians. The group to do this would probably be WikiProject Musicians. The Articles for Creation project does not make changes to policies.
 * Also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument. That article that you cite has been marked as not meeting criteria, and will probably eventually get slated for deletion. See the big box at the top of the article. At least 100 articles are deleted every day. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)