Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 July 22

= July 22 =

Request on 05:51:38, 22 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by IICA's 1st Batch of CSR
I'm requesting it for the shake of a responsible citizen and a meritorious student who is fooled and cheated by IICA on the name of job and course which is nothing worthy.IICA&#39;s 1st Batch of CSR (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

IICA&#39;s 1st Batch of CSR (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

IICA&#39;s 1st Batch of CSR, Wikipedia already has an article on the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs. Your draft is not the place to air your personal grievances against this organization. Nor is the article itself. You have been directed to read What Wikipedia is not. Please do so. Your draft will never be accepted and in fact will probably be deleted shortly. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

09:27:42, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Rebecca Adlem-Knight
The article I have written has been declined due to not adequately show the subject's notability. I have read the guidelines on this but still not sure what else I can add to this articles references to help with this issue. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Rebecca Adlem-Knight (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to recognise that many things exist without qualifying for an article on Wikipedia. Your job is to prove notability, by the use of good qaulity references. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.
 * If good quality references do not exist then it does not get an article. Fiddle   Faddle  10:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

12:05:55, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Mikefly
I am trying to create a page for the company OneTwoTrade. It was declined recently for lack of notability. A recent reviewer cited that they couldn't find a "single source attesting the subject's notability" although Malta Today is one example of a reliable news source that has discussed the company, thus establishing notability. Wikipedia guidelines state that the majority of sources must be secondary in nature, which is what I have submitted. Although many are not from established editorial websites with a strong reputation for fact checking or accuracy, the information provided by them is factual in nature and does not provide trivial coverage or brief statements.

Furthermore, Wikipedia states that "material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources." The sources I have provided within the article are not affiliated with OneTwoTrade and can be considered independent, third party references. I look forward to your response Mikefly (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Mikefly (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mikefly, the sources you listed are all press releases or press release-based, or simple descriptions on websites specializing in those kinds of businesses. I strongly suggest you read Notability (organizations and companies) and FAQ/Organizations, and while you're at it read WP:Conflict of interest if you have any affiliation whatsoever with that company or any PR/marketing firms which it has hired. The article is currently written as a pure advertisement for this business and its products, something immediately apparent to a neutral outside reader. It will never make it onto Wikipedia in that form, even if you were to find significant in-depth and widespread coverage in major business and financial publications, e.g. Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Business, etc. or the financial sections of the mainstream press. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

13:37:19, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Snagle77
Just got my first rejection and am looking for a little more guidance on how to write the article so it's less of an advertisement. I stripped the fluff from the content and wrote from a neutral point of view but I am still missing something. I think the history might be to long but I wanted to see if there were any suggestions first before I made the edits. Thanks for your help.

Snagle77 (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some ideas.


 * "provides SaaS field sales applications and reporting solutions" - I know what this means, but would an ordinary high school student without a focus on business or IT know what it means? I don't think so. Perhaps a wikilink would help. Also, the word solutions is often considered indicative of marketing-speak or brochure-speak.


 * "The company's mission is to provide innovative ... solutions ..." No, the company's mission is to make money. Also, there's that word solutions again.


 * And is there a similar company out there with a similar mission but which does not aim to be "innovative"?


 * "In 1992, RW3 introduced one of the first..." ... "In 1997 ... RW3 released one of the first..." If they weren't the first, were they the most successful or one of the most significant? If so, provide an inline citation to an independent reliable source which says so.


 * "additionally began evolving their offerings around" ... "allowing them be able to provide solution tailored to their clients unique needs and sales approaches"... "Seeing a perfect opportunity moving forward". These phrases are largely fact-free brochure-speak.


 * "began to move away from a product business model to a custom solution business model" I think I know what this means, but to many it might sound like business gobbledegook.


 * "Readers casted their votes for the consumer good industry’s preferred solution and service providers in 13 categories, reflecting the vast landscape of IT investment opportunities available today" ... "vendors that just don't fit within today's business walls". I think you should be able to see the problem with these now.


 * I have no idea what CPG means, but it's central to some parts of your Draft. Consumer Product Goods? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

14:45:58, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Lerpiniere
Regarding my draft bio for Kristen Vincent, the Wiki author declines it on the basis that she is not famous enough and there is no independent sourcing. Some considerations: Kristen is 10, not 25, and has been acting since she was three. Amongst her string of credits, she has sung on live network television, acted on a Showtime series, and has portrayed Tina Fey's character in a soon to be released comedy "Sisters." I think you need to weigh what she has accomplished at a young age and not process her submission through an adult-expectations filter. Adults like the Wiki-screener may not be impressed, but kids -- her audience -- are fascinated, because for her age, she has accomplished a lot. Also, the Universal film "Sisters" has not been released yet, so i am not yet able to cite reviews etc. However, she is listed at both IMDB and IMDBPRO, and her resume there has been vetted by their screeners, and it includes her various screen credits. I just think you need to consider that the people who who will search her bio are going to be her contemporaries, not yours, and/or agents thinking of booking her for another gig.

Thank you, Scott Vincent

Lerpiniere (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Lerpiniere - I'm afraid you are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. We only have articles about people who are already famous. We have no interest at all in "up and coming" actors and singers - regardless of their age. IMDB is not an acceptable source to establish notability because - like Wikipedia - anyone can add or change the content there. As for IMDBPRO, it's content is written by people who are specifically interested in promoting the subject. Wikipedia is in no way, shape or form interested in agents and booking gigs - we don't do promotion. Sorry, but you're at the wrong place, try Facebook or Linkedin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

15:39:28, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Catriona
Hi, as many others I wonder why this article is not considered to be supported by reliable sources when I cited official army web of MOD of the Czech Republic and official website of the battalion. It is because the sources are not written in English? Or do you want more Czech websites writing about this battalion? I found on wikipedia many websites about US military facilities and there is even one Czech military instalation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/601st_Special_Forces_Group) which was approved on wiki. What to do next to get it approved then? Catriona (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Catriona (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Catriona - Look for articles about the unit in newspapers or magazines, or books about the unit, written and published by people with no connection at all to the Czech military. That's what is meant by independent sources, sources need to be both reliable and independent. Mainstream news media or academic sources are the most preferred. Any language is acceptable. You might also ask for assistance from WT:WikiProject Military history. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Dodger67 - Look what I found, this is just the simple reference to the US bn´s website and it is enough for wikipedia to accept. It is the same reference I used in my article, so why do you use two scopes for the same issue? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Reconnaissance_Battalion_(United_States_Marine_Corps) the same here (that is the Czech one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/601st_Special_Forces_Group. But be as it may, I will suplement my article with as many references from media as required. What is the next procedure? Just submit it again? Catriona (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again Catriona, I have asked WikiProject Military history for advice about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Catriona, thank you for your efforts with your draft so far. In my opinion, all articles should certainly be subject to the same standard of notability, so what is good for one should be good for the other; however, I'm not sure that what we have here is actually a case of different standards. Because of a number of reasons, including popularity of military topics within English speaking countries, US units (and those from other English speaking countries e.g. Britain, Australia, Canada etc.) are more likely to have had a breadth of English language sources written about them, or include information about them, and so they are more likely to meet notability guidelines. But this isn't the case with all such units, even from the US (for instance logistics battalions frequently won't pass this threshold). In the case of the 2nd Recon Battalion article mentioned above, there appear to be a number of sources listed, not just the official website (although the article most certainly needs some work to bring it up to Milhist's referencing standards). For instance, there a couple of books listed also. Also, given its lineage and history, I'd hazard that there are more sources out there than just those cited. For instance, a quick Google book search (by no means exhaustive) brings up quite a few potential sources: . In regards to the Draft:102nd Reconnaissance Battalion of General Karel Palecek, I believe that the article could in fact establish notability, but not in its current format. If the citation system was improved, it would be possible to determine what references are being used for what information, which would help IMO to determine whether it passes the WP:GNG and the WikiProject Military history/Notability guide (which defers to the GNG). If you would like to see what the Military History project aims for, please take a look at some of the articles about military units at Category:B-Class military history articles and Category:A-Class military history articles. Equally, the WP:MILMOS might also help provide some guidance. Take care and good luck with improving your draft. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Catriona - I have found an article about the battalion on a Portuguese defence news website - http://www.operacional.pt/102%C2%BA-batalhao-de-reconhecimento-%E2%80%9Cgeneral-karel-palecek%E2%80%9D/ I used Google translate to skim through the page, the article seems to be quite comprehensive so it is probably a good source to demonstrate notability. (If necessary we can find a Portuguese-speaking editor to assist with the article.) Further, I suspect there may have been some Czech news media coverage when the unit received its honorific title, so concentrating your search around that date might be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I very much appreciate your effort and help with finding sources. I suplemented my article with 15 other sources and I will add this one as well (I was suprised that someone did a great job with translation of our web pages to Portuguese). I hope that this time it will be enough to fullfill the requirements for re-submission. Our guys are soon leaving to Germany for a huge international exercise and I just wanted the others to know that 102nd bn even exists which is hard if there is hardly anything written in English. Once again, thank you very much. Catriona (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

16:31:09, 22 July 2015 review of submission by ExGerman
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear Sirs,

yesterday I wrote an Article "World of Digitals" as user "Virelin" - this finally was declined as this username is the name of my company Virelin Inc. - understandable.

I then opened a new user account "ExGerman" and submitted the same article "World of Digitals" from that account.

Now I see in both accounts the message "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, World of Digitals, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."

What to do now? Could you please eliminate the whole account "Virelin" or at least the there published article "World of Digitals"?

Thanks a lot

Chris

ExGerman (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ExGerman I have fixed it by redirecting your userspace draft to Draft:World of Digitals, please continue working on it there. Your previous account is not a problem as long as you do not log in to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:36:33, 22 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by UTPAL333PATHAK
UTPAL333PATHAK (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there anything we can assist you with? Your submission was plain gibberish. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

18:55:18, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Penguinmud
My article on this energy drink brand was deleted for lack of notability - which is fair, in that it's a fairly new product and isn't nearly as popular in the Western world as it is in more remote locations at this point. I did include citations to distributor sites and branding sites talking about the new product, and in a market as popular as energy drinks, new contenders seem relevant. Would my article be likely to be approved if I simply included more citations, even if they aren't necessarily different from the current ones? The product is discussed on multiple mediums, but they all say basically the same things, so it seemed redundant to include multiple versions of the same thing. If that will help show that this is actually a brand that's becoming popular in some countries, I'll be happy to include and resubmit. I appreciate any suggestions or guidance! Thank you!

Penguinmud (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I reviewed your draft a short while ago. I had not seen your plea here, but it seems churlish not to answer it. More references of the right quality will help your case. A "market need" or a popular market or a new market entrant is not of interest to Wikipedia, though. I've left you a full comment on the draft. Fiddle   Faddle  17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

20:05:25, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Christina.h.chen
1. How to upload the photos I took in for the article I just submitted?

2. How to upload the photos in the public domain for the article?

Christina.h.chen (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For uploading photos, follow steps here. Be aware there are certain requirements for Wikimedia to accept those files. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

21:32:08, 22 July 2015 review of submission by BEDownes
I would like to ask the help of an experienced editor if possible. I'm calling about an important issue of how neutrality tagging is handled and how well the terrific volunteers who makeup the essential backbone of the daily activities in Wikipedia are educated in what care is needed when such a process is initiated. • Yesterday I had written up the following:(prior to reading the excellent advice that is available at such places as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute). "I have encountered a very serious problem with the methodology Wikipedia has setup to handle the issue of tagging of neutrality to articles. I am a highly trained researcher and investigator having two companies I created that have done extensive work during the last 25 years for many major law firms in developing proper documentation for presentation of evidence in courts. I am also a lifetime member of the Writers Guild of America, East and have produced and/or written many television specials. Also have written television scripting for two American Presidents, neither of whom were Democrats, which meant they were on the opposite side of the fence from my political inclinations. Still no conflicts occurred. I have great affection and belief in all that Wikipedia has and will accomplish. That's why it's important I pipe up now."

• By the way, the quickest way to view the two sides in this issue is at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jerome_Myers#Neutrality (I assume you only need the last part of the URL address.)

It begins with a statement (belated by a day or more) by Fdssdf of what issues he believes may challenge the neutrality of the Jerome Myers article. I then answer with with a somewhat longer initial response and add that after careful review of his arguments, I find no evidence of bias in what he has argued.

I then go through the process of responding to each of the issues he makes and why I differ with his observations. I suspect Fdssdf has a watch on the neutrality page he set up, but I was not sure how to send a message to alert him that I had responded.

Bottom line: I don't think, with any normal review of the Myers article, his concerns over neutrality will hold up at all. What I would very much like to see happen is to have that tag pulled immediately from the start of the article (since that should never have been done before a contact had been made with me to discuss his concerns.) The article had been reviewed in general by others at Wikipedia and has been viewed by numerous people including many important individuals in the outside art world and others and had received nothing but praise. So please see that that tag is removed. That it no way means if people at Wikipedia find after their reviews there has been bias or a lack of neutrality on my part, I will of course make whatever changes might be necessary to correct that issues, or take the article down until it is put in proper shape. The only thing I don't want to see again, or on anything else I ever prepare for Wikipedia's audience is that God-awful public notice of a dispute over the objectivity of the writing. It has to be quite confusing for the general public as to whether they should be reading it or not. There are far better solutions to handle this problem and still properly oversee the very important issue of maintaining neutrality.

Since I've spent a good deal of my time on this subject, and now yours, (if you're still hanging in there) I want to turn this annoying incident around to use my expertise (which is considerable) to really be of significant assistance to Wikipedia (which I believe has become one of the great miracles of the Internet that may outlive in usefulness many of the other great ideas that our changing our world. --BEDownes (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BEDownes (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

21:50:07, 22 July 2015 review of submission by BEDownes
My apologees. I just spotted a question at the top of your form I missed when I sent my inquiry about 3 minutes ago. I probably wasn't at the right address when I sent it. But it is an important issue I'm addressing, and perhaps someone could tell me where a contact should be made if it's not something you can deal with. Thank you. --BEDownes (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BEDownes (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello BEDownes. This is definitely not the place for your query. It is solely for people who have questions/problems with their drafts and who are submitting them to the Articles for Creation process. I suggest you contact The Teahouse with a brief post asking if someone could take a look at the conversation at Talk:Jerome Myers and give you some advice on how to proceed. Do not rehearse your lengthy arguments and grievances. Simply ask for someone to have a look and give you some advice. Voceditenore (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)