User talk:LaMona//Archives/2015/October

03:22:45, 17 October 2015 review of submission by Prak nat
This has been a very long process for us. We have been working on this edit for over 8 months now and each revision has brought with it a different reason for being declined. For the writer who knows the non-profit and the work it does, it has been difficult to recognize what comes across as puffery. Would truly appreciate it if you could highlight the lines or the text that do not conform to standards so that the next edit becomes easier.


 * We only get one category option, even if we think that more than one category applies, so you often aren't getting the whole sense of the reviewer. I went through and changed some of the language, but the article still reads like a description of the program from the point of view of the program, not based on available sources. This is why we recommend that people NOT create articles for their own organizations. For a WP article, you are supposed to base the article on available sources, not what you know about the organization. A person unrelated to the organization would not be able to include un-sourced information (e.g. all of the information about the programs, which probably doesn't appear in sources about the organization). So what you've written is the organization's view of itself, not the organization as seen by neutral third parties. This is a general misunderstanding about the role of Wikipedia -- it is not a directory of organizations, but a gathering of encyclopedic (and public) knowledge. Your article has been rejected mainly because it is not encyclopedic. To be so, much of it would have to be deleted (e.g. everything that is not sourced to a third-party neutral source). I could make those edits if you wish. At that point, it would pass notability. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:03:57, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Qkeddy
Hi - I am not sure why this article being proposed for submission keeps getting the "not notable" issue. First off Star Analytics introduced an important technology for the ability to provide proprietary Oracle data in an open standard format for other technology vendors to use and leverage. In the enterprise software world this is very important and IBM recognized this and acquired the company Star Analytics. In 2013, Star Analytics was one of four acquisitions made by IBM. There are other Wikipedia articles about other software companies such as "Hyperion" that were acquired and are no longer in existence and had a major impact on changing the landscape of Enterprise Software. As for references, there are several independent references cited in this article about Star Analytics and the value that Star Analytics' technology brought to the enterprise software landscape. We respectfully request that you please review this again.

Qkeddy (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Qkeddy (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:16:11, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ninskip
Hi,

I think there are a couple of issues here, firstly if I was doing a research project on Reinsurance I would want a sound and unbiased source of information relating to reinsurance companies - that could be now, or in one hundred years time (if it was for historical reseach pruposes). Possibly there may be no reinsurance, but we'd never be around to know. Secondly the comparison to Lloyds is not exactly comparing apples to apples, Lloyds being a collection of different entities operating under the same governance structure. A better comparison is TransRe to Swiss Re, obviously the TransRe group has not been in existance for as long Swiss, but I can't see how that makes them more or less notable or potentailly significant in the furture.

Finally I note there are millions of company profiles on WP (surrounding many different industries), surely many of these could be construed as adverts?

I would appricate some asistance on how we can make our article less like an advert and more like an "WP article" given that TransRe's life span (although 40 or more years) does not seem to be able to provide suffient material to warrant inclusion.

Many thanks,

Neil.

Ninskip (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ninskip, you may need to accept that the company does not meet WP's standards for an article. Right, your company is not Lloyd's, and Lloyd's definitely meets the standard. The topic of reinsurance is covered in WP if people need to know about that. WP is not a company directory. If people want to find reinsurance companies in their locale, there are directories that can help them. Yes, many of the company profiles do read as adverts, and they do come up at Articles for Deletion. WP is a constantly changing resource. But adding more adverts isn't going to make it better. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:21:50, 19 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ilonam23
Hi I see you have rejected my page because you say the references have been generated by the subject. They articles written by journalists about the subject, they've not been written by the subject. Could you please advise how I can improve this?

Thank you

Ilonam23 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ilonam23, if you read the message I left, the problem is that many of the articles are not about the company -- they are about events, with a mention of the company. Mentions are not enough to establish notability, and there need to be articles about the company itself. If those don't exist, then the company does not meet WP's notability standard. LaMona (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * LaMona, OK thank you. I will try to find some other links that are hopefully more suitable. Ilonam23 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

10:06:59, 19 October 2015 review of submission by 27.32.138.183
Hi Lamona, I've made a number of changes to the article that you rejected. I hope that this responds to the issues in a sufficient way. If not, can you specify the particular places that remain insufficient? Thank you.


 * Your article must conform to notability for academics. Please read that carefully. The person must meet one or more of the main criteria listed there. You still have 1) large sections that are not referenced and therefore do not come from third-party sources 2) references to writings BY him, not ABOUT him. You must remove all of the unsourced material. The fact that you have unsourced material probably means that you are too close to the subject of the article and are not taking your information from third-party sources. All information must be neutral and verifiable. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

12:28:56, 19 October 2015 review of submission by PinkBlueGreenPowder
Hi LaMona, the submission has been edited to include more information to demonstrate the notability of Gigamon and includes many more third-party sources. Is this more what you are looking for? Happy to edit further with some more direction if anything remains insufficient. Thanks! PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * PinkBlueGreenPowder, after you make edits, you should resubmit it for another review. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * LaMona, thank you. The draft has been resubmitted. PinkBlueGreenPowder (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Panda Game Manufacturing (possible COI)
I don't think I have a COI with Draft:Panda Game Manufacturing. I don't have any affiliation with, am not paid by, and have no possible gain from Panda but I have used their services.

Thanks in advance for your help sorting out this possible COI issue. I am new to editing on wikipedia but I am really enjoying contributing. In particular I'm really proud of the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company draft and I hope it see the light of day. Would you be so kind as to answer a few questions?

I do have a COI on the page Draft:Cartography_(board_game) and possible on Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps. Ten years ago I worked at Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps but no longer have any ties with them. I have no affiliation with the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company except that Draft:Hume Lake Christian Camps was eventually located on the same property.


 * 1) Does using a services of a company constitute a COI?
 * 2) What else needs to be added to the Draft:Panda Game Manufacturing draft to allow it to be created?
 * 3) What else needs to be added to the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company draft to allow it to be created?
 * 4) Can a page be created in draft form when there is a COI if another editor publishes it?
 * 5) Does previous employment by a company constitute a COI?
 * 6) Does previous employment by a company located on a property later used by a company constitute a COI?

I hope this brings clarity and transparency. Thank you for your time, Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jon.opus, thanks for answering. Past employment generally isn't considered a COI issue, nor does use of a service. If you do have a COI, you can create a draft, but should not edit the page when it goes to main space (with the exceptions you see on the COI page, like vandalism). For any true COI, you need to include a statement on the talk page of the article, as per the COI guidelines.


 * As for the Panda Game article (I haven't looked at the lumber company one), you need stronger references, as I said in my note. Hobbyist sites, blogs, informal sources are not considered reliable. If those do not exist, you might want to find a page (or more than one) on WP where the information can be added, such as on the page for one of the games. More resources may be published later, at which time a stand-alone article would be warranted. LaMona (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * LaMona, Thanks so much for your help! That really clears things up for me. One more question. For the COI draft I have should I include the statement in the talk page now or if/when it goes to the main space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jon.opus, it's always good to include the COI on all of the work, even drafts. It helps reviewers understand the situation. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

19:25:45, 13 October 2015 review of submission by AlonIOD
Thank you for your comments. Hyperconvergence is indeed a new term, but one that is being used more frequently in the IT world. I'm a writer for the cloud computing blog iamondemand.com, and we've lately identified hyperconvergence as a term of growing importance, for instance among CIOs and CTOs.

Check out for instance this article from the Technical University of Athens that describes the evolution of hyperconverged infrastructures: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2802039. Additionally you can view this website devoted to hyperconvergence: http://www.hyperconverged.org/blog/2015/06/02/hyperconvergence-infographic/ I just added both resources to the article.

Please let me know your thoughts, and what changes can be made to make the article more suited for Wikipedia. Thanks, AlonIOD (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * AlonIOD, the question is if it's "new" or has reached the point of being common usage. More reliable sources that use the term as a primary topic will push it onto the side of notability. Blogs don't support notability, so you'll need peer-reviewed or other reliable sources. One question will be whether "hyperconvergence" is a stand-alone concept or if it is mainly an adjective that modifies other topics. You'll need to demonstrate that it is a topic of its own. It could be tricky, but you'll probably become one of the world's hyperconvergence experts in the process! LaMona (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "Hyperconvergence" could be considered an adjective, so I decided to change the title to "Hyper-converged infrastructure" in order to make the matter clearer. This title complements the already existing article Converged infrastructure. Additionally, I added 2 more resources supporting the term from well known analyst firms: IDC and Forrester, along with the essay from the Technical University of Athens. These type of resources seem to me to be similar to the ones existing in the Converged infrastructure article.

Additionally, there are a few existing patents relating to hyperconvergence: These are probably not suitable as resources for the article, but they do show that the term is in regular use within the IT world.
 * Pre-configured hyper-converged computing device
 * Management of a pre-configured hyper-converged computing device
 * Data storage with a distributed virtual array

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! AlonIOD (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * AlonIOD - Yes, the new title makes more sense and ties it to the other titles. You should re-submit, although there is one other change you might want to make first. You have "notes" and "references". Usually, the linked citations are called "references", not "notes". What you have as "notes" -- could that be the same as "Further reading"? If so, you should rename those sections before submitting. LaMona (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LaMona for all your helpful input! I resubmitted the article with your suggestions.

AlonIOD (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

09:33:22, 21 October 2015 review of submission by NataschaEssl
Dear LaMona, I have seen that my draft for the ZeroProject was rejected again. This is the first time that I am creating an article in Wikipedia, so I beg your padon for resubmitting although I haven't changed the sources of the articles. But I can't figure out what I shall change, because the sources are reliable (see United Nations, EASPD, GAATES, DRPI etc.). Could it be the case that I have refereced too often to the "zero Project homepage" itself? I thank you in advance for your advice! Best regads, Natascha


 * It was rejected again because you hadn't changed the sources, even though you were asked to. The problem with the sources is that you have used the site of the organization itself as a reference. This is not allowed (with some rare exceptions). All information has to come from reliable third parties. If you cannot source information from third-party sources, then that information must be removed from the article (it can be added back in if sources appear).


 * All references have to be ABOUT the subject. That means that you do not include a reference for the home page of the Essi foundation, since that page has nothing about the ZeroProject. Do not reference the organization's own publications -- those can be included in a section called "external links". If you remove all of the inappropriate references, you are left with very little. That an organization has a "successful" conference is not encyclopedic. You need to find other sources, such as newspaper or journal articles, that give information about the organization. LaMona (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Wesleyan Assurance Society page
Hello. I notice that my draft page created for Wesleyan Assurance Society was rejected yesterday to to 'notability'. I have added an additional info box to the draft and looked at the pages of many smaller financial companies that seem to have been accepted. My WP has far more citations and I was hoping recent additions would make it clear of the society's reach and size? As the society has more than 100,000 members and assets of £6 billion pounds, I was wondering what I need to do to make it deemed notable? Any additional help or feeddback would be welcomed. Especially around citations etc. The society does a lot of work for the children's hospital, hence me wanting to create this page. I also have several doctor friends who can't believe that they don't have a page. Thank you for taking the time to view my draft and for any feedback. Inquasionable (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Inquasionable most companies, and most doctors, do not meet WP's criteria for notability. That you see articles in WP that look like yours does not mean that they are correct. See other stuff exists. Read wp:corp carefully. Doing business, creating partnerships, changing management, or having the CEO receive a prize does not confer notability on the company. It may be that this company is notable, but it would be hard to dig through the references to find that. You need to reduce the article to those things that make it notable. Among the things you should not include (from the wp:corp page) are: "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Once you remove all of those, then we can see what the article looks like. Also do not include references to other companies (e.g. Pinsent Masons) in this article. Those references do not create notability for the subject of the article. You also have facts that are not sourced. All information in the article must come from third-party neutral sources. Unsourced information must be removed (although it can be added later if sources appear). LaMona (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply. This was my first attempt at a page and I am trying very hard to get it right. Apologies if there is a lot wrong with it. I know that it is notable but I am struggling to get that across so will keep trying and amending. I thought the Pinsent Masons bit may be of interest but will take that out. Do you think I have perhaps been too eager and added too many things? And does my recent additions of the infobox (I'll add citations) and NASUWT approval etc improve its chances of being accepted? Thank you for the speedy reply!! Inquasionable (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Inquasionable it is not the quality of the article that determines notability, although a good-looking article that is fairly complete is going to get a more favorable review. Notability is determined entirely by meeting the criteria set out for notability in Wikipedia's policies. Either the organization is notable or it isn't -- your job is to find the sources that support notability. LaMona (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

14:57:58, 22 October 2015 review of submission by 173.61.14.26
Hi, thanks to the editor for the helpful pointers about how to improve the entry. Detailed elaboration and plenty of citations have been added this article. Is it in good shape now? Thanks very much for any feedback.


 * Read through wp:rs, the policies on reliable sources. You shouldn't be summarizing her writings -- that is considered original research -- and you can't use her own writings as references. References need to be from neutral third parties. That means that you probably will not give much detail about her academic work in the article unless others have written about her. If you look at what is needed for notability of academics you see that you need to emphasize career accomplishments (awards, key academic positions, etc.). Rather than saying: "Discussions of her work have appeared in The New York Times, Wired Magazine, Humanity+, Big Think, 3 Quarks Daily, Discover Magazine, Science Magazine, Motherboard, Slate (France), Popular Mechanics, and more.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" the article should use information from those discussions, not from her own writings. Also, I looked at some of those links. In one Humanist article, she is mentioned in a comment -- that is not a suitable reference. To be a reference, the article has to be primarily or significantly about her. Don't cite minor or inappropriate sources. Unfortunately, her book, Language of Thought, shows only 34 cites on Google Scholar, which is not very strong. Perhaps you can find other indications of academic status? (Just being a full professor is not enough.) LaMona (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:56:23, 22 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mjwill46
Thank you for the feedback. I'll make the suggested changes and resubmit. That's reason I'm trying to be very careful to go this route as sometimes blind spots come up in the language and things veer into unintended directions. Thanks again.

Mjwill46 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:08:38, 22 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tigerbeat20
Dear LaMona,

Please be more specific regarding your comments in rejecting my page on Nick Gromicko. The facts about him and the organization he founded--InterNACHI--are found primarily on that site (www.NACHI.org). What else are you looking for so that this page will be approved? It stood for many years without interference until recently, so I rewrote it to delete any potentially objectionable content, and now I can't get it approved, despite his being quoted in several well-known newspapers, publications and websites, as noted. So, I need more specific guidance about your objections so that I can rectify what seem to be new issues that were not a problem earlier.

Thank you. Tigerbeat20 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

22:30:38, 22 October 2015 review of submission by Tigerbeat20
LaMona has not provided any clarity as to her reasons for rejecting this article. The links she cited offer no help. "Each and every fact must be verified" is non-specific. Her remark that being quoted in notable publications (which this person has been, in many such publications, including the NYT) does not confer notability actually makes no sense. (Why would he be regularly sought out for a quote if he's not a notable person?)

I need more specific guidance from LaMona, or I would like another editor to review the page and provide specific feedback. Thank you.


 * Rather than me being more specific, you need to do the reading that I gave you: wp:rs, wp:cite and wp:mos. That he founded an organization does not meet the notability standards, much less wp:blp. Being quoted does not confer notability. It's all spelled out in the policies, but you have to read them. No one is going to do your work for you. You have homework to do. LaMona (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

18:33:41, 23 October 2015 review of submission by Palacenewmedia
Thank you for reviewing the article. 5 of the 10 references cited are completely third party, while the other five substantiate information given. When I look at a page such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ice which has almost no information, citations or references (besides a long bibliography), I am left scratching my head. How is this Thomas Ice person "notable" and how is this article following the "golden rule" and yet is was approved? I can certainly find a lot more info, but I would hate to go through all of that work only to have it declined again. Any clarification would be helpful. So far there seems to be an inconsistency when I look at other "people" pages (such as the example I gave you above). And yet mine keeps getting declined. (And here I thought I had this all figured out on my last edit. Haa!!!)


 * See wp:otherstuffexists. That there are articles that seem to be less notable does not mean that they meet the requirements. Every day about 100 articles are deleted from WP for not meeting the guidelines. As for your article, the only references that are about him are not third-party or are not reliable sources. #1 is not a third-party source, it's the site of his church #2 is Amazon, not usable because a sales site #3 is a blog (not usable, not a reliable source) #4 him speaking, not about him #5 doesn't mention him #6 his own site #7 references a self-published book, not a reliable source #8 doesn't mention him #9 a quote and a mention (not enough for notability) #10 Schimmel talking about Bieber, but not about Schimmel. The conclusion is: not one reliable reference that can support notability. LaMona (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

16:56:47, 24 October 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor
Thanks for reviewing my article. I've focused on the 2013 canoe journey, but meant to show it not just as a single event, also as a beginning to ongoing efforts that it has inspired. The article in the Atlantic Monthly ("The Iroquois are Not Giving Up") describes how the journey was intended to begin a grassroots movement. The messages from the UN session, the Onondaga Nation's new legal appeal to the OAU, and the Canadian campaign next summer are good examples of its influence. I plan to edit the article to show how the journey's goal was to  revive the Two Row treaty and start to apply it as the basis for new campaigns. Would that address the concerns expressed? Thanks again for your helpful comments and insight.


 * It's going to be hard to turn the event into a WP article. It would be more encyclopedic to focus on the outcomes and not the event itself, and for that it may be too soon. If a grassroots movement does grow, then that movement might merit an article, and the event could be described in the history section. If, some years from now, this event is seen as the beginning of something important, then the event might merit an article of its own. As of today, it's a news story and perhaps a beginning, but to be in WP it needs to have made it into history. You might look for current articles where this event could be included as an example of activism. LaMona (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Colin Howie
Thank you for reviewing this draft. Would you please delete it?--Mehlauge (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm told that if you blank the page it will be deleted. If that doesn't work, you can place this at the top of the page in edit mode: requested by creator . LaMona (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Super-5

 * Don't Delete It is really strange for me while reading your comments which says that real references while reference already shared. Who are part of Super-5 team have mentioned their comments. Its really feel bad when legends talk like this. Promotion of any program requires money investment. Neither Super-5 team is taking any money from candidates nor they are investing money on promotions. They are just spreading this using words of mouth. I am using Wiki since my childhood and for any kind of new or advance info I referred and believe on Wikipedia. Tell me whether everyone should know about this that there is a program in this world for those jobless candidates who are fighting with their selves to live properly without any money. I am in touch with Super-5 Mentors team, I have seen their efforts and hard work without having any personal benefits with this program. They are burning their lives for jobless candidates so that they can get a job and candidates lives can be saved. Is it bad to save lives? Is it bad to give or provide money support to jobless? Is it bad to help students to grab a job without taking any fees? We respect Wiki Rules and Regulation and really do not want to break Wiki rules, just we all are asking a favor and help from Wiki teams to support us so that this program can be reached to everyone who is jobless and out of money. Exceptions exist everywhere and we are requesting to Wiki Team to please give a chance to Super-5 team to be on WIKI. Below is the link of Super-5 program in IeQue. http://www.ieque.com/super-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachans9 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

23:01:52, 25 October 2015 review of submission by Alessandraronemus
Hi, I've done the citations in an extensive fashion, and a lot of elaboration has been added, in light of your helpful suggestions. Do things look good now? Pardon any duplicate notes. Some computer gitches occurred. Thank you very much.


 * That's better. Now you need to remove the original research from the article. OR is when you use primary sources for information in the article, in this case writings by the subject of the article. So when you say: "Schneider has framed a new version of the language of thought (“LOT”) approach.[14]" and you cite her work, you are the one making that decision about her work. Instead, in Wikipedia, all facts must come from secondary sources -- that is, you have to find a reliable news article or journal article by someone other than the subject that gives that analysis or makes that statement; and that needs to be a source that has undergone editorial or peer review. Otherwise, anyone could say anything about anyone on WP, which would not be encyclopedic. See reliable sources. If there are not reliable sources for certain statements, then those statements must be removed from the article. LaMona (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:53:50, 26 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by EtudeInE
Joseph A. Yanny is notable for his precedent setting cases on notable issues. The proposed entry was roughly based on the format of the Howard Weitzman and David Boies Wikipedia entries. Since the proposed Yanny article takes the same format as these two entries, what specific changes are you suggesting to make the article acceptable? For example these two articles list notable clients and cases as well. Also, the published cases used as references refer to Yanny as the attorney in the notable case. Thank you

EtudeInE (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

EtudeInE (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Notability on WP must be shown by independent, third-party, reliable sources ABOUT the person that provide the information for the article. Cites in legal cases are not ABOUT the person. You need to find articles ABOUT him that provide info you can use to create an article. What you have here is called original research -- you are using primary sources to support notability. The secondary sources that are here mention him but are not ABOUT him. They are about the legal cases, and would support an article on those legal cases, but not on the person. Quotes from a person (e.g. the Press Telegram) do not support notability. See reliable sources and notability and biographies of living persons. The TMZ article does not mention him and MUST be removed as inappropriate. Look through the David Boies article and you will see that there are references about him, e.g. #s 4, 6, 16, 23. Being profiled in Time Magazine, NY Times and Businessweek is what supports notability for Boies. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on review of the Parables TV article
LaMona, thank you for reviewing the article submission for Parables TV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TV) I will edit the article per your recommendations, but first can you please clarify if you want me to add new sources to the ones I already have vs. deleting any of them. A few of the sources are published works from BeliefNet and Charisma which are well known in Christian media circles, while others are published by lesser known but well read industry sources in the same genre. Can you please clarify why these sources are not considered reliable so that I can correct or improve this article? If these are not considered reliable, I am somewhat confused by which kind of sources I need to find. Thank you for your directionLG Brichetto (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * LG Brichetto, whether or not Beliefnet and OneNewsNow are reliable sources is something we would need to take up at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard although it may just be best to analyze the articles individually rather than making a blanket decision. The one you point to has a byline of "Posted by..." which sounds more like a blog than a news organization. The criteria we use for similar sites, e.g. Huffington Post, is to evaluate articles individually. This one is no more than a product announcement, with no analysis, so it's low on the scale. Charisma news has an editorial board of 2, which makes it an iffy source. The BusinessWire article has no byline and reads like a press release, giving the company contact at the end (typical of press releases). So your sources are weak. Also, the mere fact of being a streaming service is not enough to Wikipedia notability. There has to be some inherent encyclopedic value, which I do not see. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

LaMona. I have resubmitted the article draft for Parables TV. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TV). I added 12 new sources, several of which should meet Wikipedia's criteria for 'reliable sources'. I also added some new data gleaned from the new sources. Please advise if these improvements meet Wikipedia standards. Thank you.LG Brichetto (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:54:43, 26 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by TCVCJ
I have already left one message about this - maybe on the wrong page. I've never been this frustrated in my life - perhaps I'm just not up to today's standard of navigating certain systems! It seems to me that disorginization is a part of our problem - I realize you are all volunteers, but I assume you enjoy what you do! Are you ever called upon to understand the fustration of new users of Wikipedia and consent to stay with one customer until he or she can get an article done, even if it takes a long time? I do not understand your system of just anyone who comes by being able to review at random! I'm sure my age has something to do with all this - I was a bookkeeper, secretary, researcher, and clerk long before computers came on the scene - however I have navigated that road for "nigh on to" 50 years now and have been able to get to my destination eventually. I'm not convinced that will be the case this time! You will note that you have accepted 3 or 4 articles from me - after a great deal of editing and adding and desk fist pounding on my part and I'm sure on yours. When my boss said, "I'd like to get articles on these six entities on Wikipedia, please," I said I would try. That was more than 4 months ago and I still have 3 on the list! Am I asking for help on the right page? What else can I do? Thank you again, whoever is reading this, for your help!TCVCJ (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

TCVCJ (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * TCVCJ, In fact you are getting help that you should appreciate, and you will get less by showing your lack of appreciation for those helping. Nearly all of the links on the article are broken. For example, the link for the Arts Magazine should be http://artsmagazine.info/articles.php?view=detail&id=2010101119561674739. For anyone to review the article the links must be correct. Please check each one and provide the correct link. Next, you say that your boss asked you to create these articles. Who do you work for, and are you doing this as part of your job? If so, please read carefully policies on conflict of interest and take the appropriate steps. LaMona (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

09:23:03, 28 October 2015 review of submission by 41.242.137.2
Hi La Mona, hello from Ghana. Does that mean I have to erase all the wikipedia/you tube references? (as well as adding third party ones?)


 * Yes, it would be good to remove those references and replace them with third-party ones. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:12:29, 28 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Writerlauren
Hi there,

Can you specifically tell me which parts need to be worked on to read less like an advertisement? I will work on adding wiki sources to this page, as well as the links already existing. Thanks for your help! Writerlauren (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Writerlauren (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The entire section on childhood obesity is not about the Camp. That could, instead, be a sentence in the section on the creation of the camp. Statements like "Tony Sparber can directly relate to the kids he hopes to help" and "Tony Sparber created Camp Pocono Trails to make combating childhood obesity fun, safe, and effective" read like a brochure or advertisement, not as a factual encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Nicholson page
LaMona- Thank you for the detailed feedback, your suggestions make sense. I am beginning a rewrite and will revise the page according to specifications. Once it is completed, can I notify you for review to accept/reject? I would like to have you edit the rewrite if at all possible as I'm going by your suggestions. Thanks for you time!

VanceJordan (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You can ping me here when you re-submit for review, but I cannot guarantee that I'll have the time at that moment to review it. I will try. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Bernoulli Center
Hello,

You declined the draft on Benoulli Center. As far as I can tell, the Center (and its notability) are very parallel to its "twin" in the sister institution ETHZ, namely the Institute for Mathematical Research.

For reference, some more institutions that are very comparable are, for instance, the Mittag-Leffler Institute and the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics.

The draft that you declined seems to be equally as well sourced as all of the the bona fide articles linked to above.

I don't have the available time to do more on this, I was just hoping to fill an obvious gap in the articles on this kind of institutes. It is a pity if you decline it in contradiction with the acceptance of the above articles.

Over and out from me :-) 128.178.14.87 (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: added a section. As a matter of fact, the other articles linked to above seem to contain less references, not more.128.178.14.87 (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every day hundreds of WP articles are slated for deletion because they do not meet the standards. So that an article exists today may mean that it has not been noticed. LaMona (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I knew WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; my point was different: I believe that the sourcing is sufficient, and illustrate this belief by the other examples given. You may want to check those, or perhaps most of the Category:Mathematical_institutes before forming your opinion on the specific case of the Bernoulli Center.

If indeed you come to the conclusion that all these research institutions should not be in this encyclopedia, it would be far more coherent to slate them all for deletion. Would you like to do that? are you suggesting I do it? would that be for the common good?


 * No, the sourcing is not sufficient by Wikipedia guidelines. The point is that better sourcing is needed. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

...the answer to my question being? 128.178.14.87 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Find more sources and add them to the article. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That was not my question...

Anyway, I give up on this draft. Also, I won't suggest the others for deletion (to answer my own question) since obviously these institutes all have more than enough notability and it would be a disservice to the community to apply to them the same mistaken standards ...

Hope someone else take up the work. Enjoy.

128.178.14.87 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

128.178.14.87 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:00:11, 23 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kacey3
I am obviously having a hard time determining how to show notability. The help text says to try using more citations, which I did. I nearly tripled the number citations from my first submission to the second. I have looked at similar individuals in the field and found examples with far fewer citations who have been approved, so I am not sure what to look for as an example of a successful article.

I have worked to find third party reputable sources - local and national news and media - to illustrate the notability of this up and coming critic. He has been flagged as "someone to watch" by several news outlets and is a member of several prestigious critic commissions.

Any assistance on improving my article would be greatly appreciated.

Kacey3 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The number of citations isn't the answer, it's the quality of citations that matter. "Someone to watch" means that this is someone who has not yet "made it." One is eligible for Wikipedia only after "making it," as evidenced by sources. LaMona (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That helps. I will see if I can dig up some more relevant and concrete resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kacey3 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

22:06:52, 28 October 2015 review of submission by Npa2230
Thank you so much for reviewing it! I really strongly appreciate your opinion, but i think would need a little bit of a help here. As a new person i just would like to understand exactly which part in this article sounds like an advertising, so i can edit it. Can you please point that parts out? The problem is that her success and notability is in the work of her life, which is her company. One inspiring story of one very successful woman, that actually became someone, whos brand (that is her last name) today people know from USA to Australia, all due to her hard work. I can't really separate her from her company. Isn't it inspiring for any woman, just to know that it is possible? Please help me to redo it in acceptable for wikipedia way. The links i provided 1 is her official site, another is her official blog, the rest is all independent and i hope credible enough sources (inc500's website...or Smartfem's Magazine website, or Alice Cooper's website, or the rest... aren't they independent or credible enough for wikipedia?).


 * First, please read about reliable sources to understand what type of sources you need to support the article. For example, you cannot cite Wikipedia articles (although you can wp:wikilink to them), nor her own site, nor her bio on sites for places she works (Alice Cooper's personal site). Every fact in the article must be supported by a link to a reliable source. Then, as for advertising, you say things like "She is known for her view that skin care, cosmetics and also products for babies should be based on clean and natural ingredients that work together and made with the love to the earth and animals." and "Recently Cherylanne developed the Absolute Minerals™ mineral makeup and Oh My DeVita Baby, a selection of vegan all natural products for babies." Those statements sound like a PR brochure. If you do include statements like that, they must come from a third-party, independent source, NOT her promotional site. LaMona (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 04:53:26, 29 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jogi don
Thanks, I am asking for assistance because I have not found any lead story about Hidaya Foundation yet, might be it can be find someone other users, might be published in USA and else where, so I need their assistance in this regard to find citations, references of books, news, newspaper for Hidaya Foundation , and also expand this article so it can be soon shifted from draft to a full fledge article. .........Jogi 007 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you ask this at the Teahouse. I did a quick look and didn't find much, but others may be more skilled. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Inequality on approving content on Wikipedia
I have taken reference from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahindra_Lifespace_Developers to create a similar page from the same industry and same business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indiabulls_Real_Estate_Limited_%28IBREL%29. How can the page be live for them with just 1 citation link? How is my topic not notable in comparison them? I am ready to find and add more citations (secondary as well). Would appreciate if you could clear my this doubt here.Chints247 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see wp:otherstuffexists. Pages that do not meet the criteria can come up for deletion, and about 100 pages per day are deleted for this reason. That a page exists on WP that does not meet the criteria does not change the criteria, it means it hasn't come to the attention of scrutinizing editors. That article may not have gone through articles for creation because some editors create articles directly in main space. This means a lot of cleanup for others. Please read wp:corp to see the criteria for businesses on WP. With that you may be able to seek specific types of references. Also look at what does not meet notability, such as directory-type listings (Money control, Economic times). These merely confirm that a company exists. You can cite them and take information from them for the article, but they don't support notability. Mentions, rather than articles about the company, also do not support notability. (Business standard) What you need to show is that your company has been the subject of an article in a major source. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:40:27, 29 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LMJones81
Hi LaMona, I'm slightly confused as to why you considered the sources in my submitted Wikipedia entry 'Centre for Justice' as being unreliable - is it that these particular articles would be considered opinion orientated? Or is it that I have cited these incorrectly in some way? Any further explanation you could provide me and assistance in getting this right, would be very much appreciated. Many thanks,

LMJones81 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the page on reliable sources. That should explain it LaMona (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now that I typed my comment badly on the AfC - that should say "As a founder of the center" -- you must use only independent sources, and the founder of the center cannot be considered a neutral, independent source. LaMona (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

15:35:16, 29 October 2015 review of submission by 71.227.168.23
Hi. I am Martha Brockenbrough, the subject of the potential page. My creation, National Grammar Day, has a page. I am cited by Wikipedia in several articles as a source.

My most recent YA novel was a finalist for one of the largest prizes in all of literature.

Why is this not notable? Do you have a bias against children's literature? Are you aware that it is the most robust segment in publishing?

Further, I have spoken as an expert at national conferences for writers, educators, and librarians. I have been interviewed by The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and more. My writing has been in The New York Times and other publications. Perhaps someone should add those references as well. I can, if you'd like. It's all factual, though this sort of information seems of less interest to the kids on Wikipedia trying to look me up for their book reports.

Men in my field with fewer books and/or less critical acclaim have them. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Beaudoin; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Emerson; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Berk

I have questions for you. You identify as a librarian. What sort of librarian? Where? Can you please prove your credentials? Which pages have you approved--not just created? What is the ratio of men to women in pages you have approved and declined?

The continued pushback screams of sexism. I'd love to give you the opportunity to prove otherwise.

71.227.168.23 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First, read wp:autobiography. You should not be creating a WP page for yourself. Note that I am a librarian and very much in support of reading, so accusing me of biases is quite inappropriate, and what you say above violates one of the main tenets of Wikipedia, which is assume good faith. Your accusations here could result in your account being blocked. We take this good faith assumption very seriously. The criteria for Wikipedia articles are spelled out in a series of policy statements. The primary ones for you (after you find someone with a neutral point of view to create a page for you) reliable sources and general notability. That you write for journals or have been interviewed does not confer notability. Notability is determined by what others have said about you. So you need to find book reviews or articles about the subject that show that the subject of the WP article has achieved a certain amount of attention from reliable sources. Reliable sources must be independent of the subject, therefore no self-sites, not the person's own writings. Note that articles about National Grammar Day are not articles about you; they are articles about National Grammar Day. Your article has been rejected 8 times by 6 different editors. Clearly you are frustrated. However, rather than lash out, you might begin to understand that there is indeed a problem with your article meeting WP criteria. I actually think that if the article focused more on the YA writing, dropped the unsourced info (where "citation needed" is written), and followed WP policies on autobiographies, then it could well pass. It would be good, however, to find book reviews in YA sources, Kirkus, Booklist, PW, etc. to back up the claims. The awards should be separated out into their own section to emphasize them. LaMona (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, talking about killing the goose that lays the golden egg, some time back I had actually done research for you and added a half dozen good references on the talk page that you could use. You haven't used them. As the reviewer who took the time to help you with your research, your accusations above now look even more unwarranted. You are not doing yourself any favors here. Use those references, and the article might pass. Sheesh! LaMona (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

70.89.120.57 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is Martha Brockenbrough again. I did not create the page. I did add to it. I understand the policy, and only did this out of exasperation. The policy is also beside the point of an encyclopedia. Factuality should be the goal, and original sources with independent verification are defensible in academic situations. The original author could have added those links you provided. Thank you for those, sincerely.

This page has been rejected many times by people who are not experts in the field, most of whom appear to be men; determining credentials and potential blind spots is difficult with Wikipedia's editor profile pages.

I am glad you hear my frustration on this topic, but do not think the issue of bias has been addressed, and it's certainly one that is getting negative media attention for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter to me if I'm banned for not being sufficiently "nice," or for failing to assume sufficient good intentions; at this point I'm making my judgment on facts and not assumptions.

The central fact: Men in my field with less critical acclaim and/or fewer books have Wikipedia pages that are similarly sourced. I do not.

Also, I am compelled to question the logic that the articles are about National Grammar Day and not me. National Grammar Day is my work as much as a football game is the work of a professional athlete. Feats on the field would be part of an athlete's page. 70.89.120.57 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There still need to be good sources about the subject of the article. I will add in the references that I found, since no other editor has done so. Also, there is a male bias on Wikipedia in general (cf. the heavy emphasis on sports and porn). But there are many men who are very good about championing women on these pages. You may have been unfortunate that the person who created the page was not more skilled, but you also need to be less critical of those who are trying to make sure that the quality of WP remains high. LaMona (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Martha Brockenbrough again:

I appreciate the continued dialogue and the acknowledgement that Wikipedia has a male bias. I believe this is why some similarly accomplished men in my field have pages and I do not, despite comparable levels of attribution. Part might be due to inexperience on the part of the page creator--but it hasn't generally been the attribution that's been challenged, but the notability of my work. This is a vital distinction to keep in mind.

I disagree that challenging these decisions and their underlying causes is problematic. I will never be less critical of a power structure with a known bias because I might get banned or will be viewed as ungrateful. That said, I appreciate your willingness to be an editor. Critical discussion is part of the package.

Along these lines: Wikipedia has anonymous editors. Why? And I know this is not your decision, but it's something editors should worry about. What purpose does anonymity serve? Yes, people can drill down for information about some editors, but it is fundamentally lopsided to have one standard of accountability for articles and less accountability and transparency for the editors and authors. It would also show more dramatically the gender imbalance of the editorial network, both of contributors and reviewers.

At any rate, what I offer here, instead of an adorable baby animal picture, is sincere gratitude for your work and expertise, and your forbearance for no-holds-barred discussion. To me that is the spirit of learning, libraries, and Wikipedia.

20:30:37, 29 October 2015 review of submission by Simonbean101
Hi! Martha Brockenbrough is a famous author, she's published by Scholastic (and other major publishing houses), and she has been nominated for well-respected national book awards. I've updated her article to reflect this. I will continue to add more information, but I believe the public has a right to learn more about her. She was a guest speaker on PBS with Nancy Pearl, and so I looked her up to learn more... and saw she doesn't have an article. So I've been working to help update this!


 * User:Simonbean101 (Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tilde's (there's a link at the bottom of the edit box).) For the article, I added links to reviews of the books. It would be good to have a few more articles about the author, but I wasn't able to find any. (I checked the indexes of the Nancy Pearl books, but Brockenbrough didn't appear there.) You can see that the general notability guidelines emphasize independent, third-party sources. Also see wp:rs about reliable sources. Decisions on keeping articles are not based on how famous the person is, but on the availability of sources that are evidence of that fame. That way, we aren't deciding ourselves who is or isn't famous, but have a set of criteria that we can use. LaMona (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

30 October 2015 review of submission by Simonbean101
Hi again, it's me in support of a Martha Brockenbrough page. How is being nominated for a Kirkus Award not evidence of being noteworthy? By DEFINITITION it makes her noteworthy. That plus being a published author with a major publishing house. This seems incredibly biased against her for some reason, as it's uterly subjective on your part. I subjectively feel she IS worthy of an article, so why doesn't that trump your opposition since I have national awards to offer as proof? https://www.kirkusreviews.com/prize/2015/finalists/young-readers/

Why is Martha not worthy, but Sharon Maeda is? Isn't that equally subjective? Here she is with Nancy Pearl: http://www.seattlechannel.org/BookLust?videoid=x56548

Thanks again for your help.

Simonbean101 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please PLEASE read the WP guidelines on notability. That will answer your question. It is not subjective, there are guidelines that must be followed. I didn't make them up. But if you are going to create WP articles, you have to read and understand them. There's no use arguing with me about them - I can't change them. Here are the specific guidelines for "creative professionals" including authors:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The reason I added the book reviews to the article is that being the subject of reviews is one of the criteria. With those in the article it may pass - and I offered those months ago but they hadn't been added to the article. It is clear that you didn't read the guidelines. If you had, it would have saved us all a lot of time. You may want to resubmit now for review, but only after reading all of the guidelines that have been pointed out to you and determining for yourself if the article meets the guidelines. LaMona (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)