Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 April 29

= April 29 =

Request on 07:13:08, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Gaidinliu
The reason for article rejection is said to be use of peacock terms and lack of independent verifiable sources. Per my understanding, all the sources are news source and that too, not a single but multiple sources. Also, the time span of coverage in news papers is quite wide i.e. it is not related to single year coverage.

Regarding peacock terms, it would be good if someone can point me what para/lines need to re-written to make it more neutral. All the coverage that I found has been highly appreciative and I tried to make it quite neutral. Gaidinliu (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Gaidinliu (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you considered asking the reviewer who declined it? Fiddle   Faddle  08:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will check with the reviewer. Thanks for pointing this out. Gaidinliu (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I did the review. I declined the draft due to the informal storytelling language and tone of the text. It reads like a "human interest" story in a magazine "Poor blind guy makes good" - in places it seems to be trying to win the sympathy of the reader. The language needs to tighten up and be more formal.
 * Disclaimer: As a disabled person myself I may be a bit too sensitive about what I perceive to be a "sob story" or "inspiration porn" so I welcome a second opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To some extent, I agree with Roger (Dodger67). Per my understanding, the best way to update this article would be by going through example. Roger (Dodger67): can you help me with an example article in Wikipedia that you think can best represent your criteria ? In the meantime, I am trying to get an idea from Stephen Hawking with disadvantage that in my case detailed information is not available and I have to rely on news sources which are more appreciative in nature.
 * Also, about inspiration part, very few of whole population(irrespective of disability or not) get mentioned in wiki/news etc because there is something outstanding about them. If story of a normal achiever is considered an 'achiever's story' then keeping on par, this story should be an 'achiever's story' and not a 'sob story'.   Gaidinliu (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The question I have for as reviewer and  as contributing editor is the same. Ignoring the gentleman's disability is he notable? I then have a supplementary question if the answer is 'no'. In this case, does his blindness turn him into a person with inherent notability? If it does, why does it? I am also a despiser of inspiration porn. I can see that a disability might turn a disabled person who achieves it into a notable person when the same achievement by an able bodied person might be run of the mill.  Fiddle   Faddle  12:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Timtrent Notability is dependent on the existence of independent reliable sources, not our opinions of the subject. The fact that a blind person with very few resources has managed to create a fairly substantial company in the face of hostile economic and social conditions might have been sufficient motivation for the mainstream media to report about it, now it's up to Gaidinliu to find and use those sources if they exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And that is absolutely the correct answer. The gentleman is admirable. Notability is different. Fiddle   Faddle  14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Mainstream media has coverage about that and I will definitely try to put more references. Till now the draft article has 10 different independent news/media sources. Also, my effort is to make it more factual and neutral. Thanks for giving your honest feedback. Gaidinliu (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please remember that simple media coverage alone is insufficient. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. Be aware that all media is not equal. Some printed media, for example, is never viewed as a Reliable Source because of its inherent nature. Fiddle   Faddle  08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have updated Draft:Bhavesh_Bhatia. I will need your advise on the current status of the draft. The news sources are independent and by known media players like hundustantimes, midday,rediff, gulfnews, moneylife. There are few other sources which look reliable to me but second opinion would be good for these: nextbigwhat, nextbigwhat,andhrawishes.

Request on 11:20:52, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Meltingwatch
Hi there, I'd like to have another go at an article that has been rejected, but am really busy and won't be able to get to it for a while, as the changes suggested are quite complex. How long will the draft stay up so i can come back to it and add to it as advised by the reviewer? It was rejected in late February, and I won't time to get to it until at least June. (Sorry). Thanks so much.

Meltingwatch (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You will get notified when the time comes for you to take some action. Even fi it is deleted you will be told how to get it refunded. Go about your life without a care. Fiddle   Faddle  15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:58:11, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Datablue12
I am trying to create a bio page for Peter Aiken and was recently informed that the information submitted is not notable. Can you please tell me what actually qualifies as notable? He is known worldwide in his field for data re-engineering and data management. Thank you.

Datablue12 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've left you a couple of comments on the draft. He is probably notable, but you need to show and verify it. Fiddle   Faddle  15:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Page problem - This page
This diff shows a very odd edit. I think, but am not sure, that I have rescued the page. Wiser heads than mine need to check. Fiddle  Faddle  15:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:28:44, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Royalavenuemedia
The article about Bukkehave was declined and deemed too much like an advertisement. I contend that it is no different that a wikipedia page for DHL, FedEx and other like those. Additonally, this is a company with a 90 year international history history that was one of the first Ford dealerships in Europe and then grew to a multinational company working with governments providing support to third world countries. This is not a company that sells to the public. Please let me know where we can make corrections.

Royalavenuemedia (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Your job is to listen to the review and to act upon it to make your draft suitable for acceptance. Your tone is magazine advertorial. Once you've edited yours, why not improve the others?
 * Your user name makes me think of a PR agency. You will need to disclose any conflict of interest on the talk page of the draft, ideally using Connected contributor Fiddle   Faddle  17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed my username as it reflected an unintentional conflict of interest. Does this help or do you suggest any further improvements to the page?Ravin9976 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Ravin9976 your COI does not simply dissapear just because you change your username. The fact that you work for a media company and edit articles about clients is the COI, there's nothing "unintentional" about it. You are still required to declare your COI on your user page and also on the talk pages of all the articles about clients that you edit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you advise on the wording to use for COI and where it should be placed on the talk page? I am unclear on this. Thanks. Ravin9976 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

17:35:30, 29 April 2015 review of submission by Phyllis Rosser
I am hoping you can help me with suggestions on how to make my article more notable or I fear it will be declined again. Thanks! Phyllis Rosser (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You may need to face up to the fact that the organisation fails WP:CORP and has no place here. Fiddle   Faddle  17:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - oooh, miaow! - a news search for the Ceres Gallery certainly shows that it has been mentioned in the press. You can't "make" something more notable other than by the world at large noticing you (that's where the word comes from - worthy of notice) and writing about it. There's this source in the Boston Globe, and this one from BCTV, and both talk a bit about the Ceres. The real trouble is I can't easily find a good in-depth source that is directly about Ceres, and those sort of sources are the easiest way to show notability. In short - I don't know if the gallery's notable yet, I'll need to do more work, I'm afraid. However, I really hope it is as art and feminine culture are areas we're lacking in on Wikipedia and any new articles in that area are always welcome, provided they meet the inclusion criteria. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  15:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)