Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 March 9

= March 9 =

00:51:11, 9 March 2015 review of submission by 24.34.11.217
24.34.11.217 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you asking about Draft:Metaverse(verse)? If so, please understand that Wikipedia does not accept original research. Original research is anything that hasn't been published somewhere else before. If you want to talk about a new idea, you should try to get it published in an academic journal, or just write about it on a blog.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:55:56, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Leighann.chow
My Wikipedia article was declined as it said it sounds like an advertisement and I would like to follow up to find out what specifically sounds like an advertisement and what I can change. Saigon Asset Management is an investment fund that has received coverage from numerous third party sources. Links were included to archived third party news source articles from the Saigon Asset Management website because some of these links are no longer active on the third party site.

Also, I followed the format of other investment funds listed on Wikipedia. This Wikipedia entry is no different to other investment fund entries such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Asset_Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Frontier_Capital_Ltd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_Capital

Why are these funds able to have a Wikipedia page?

Leighann.chow (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. It is often better to compare with existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles. You can find a list of Good Articles about companies at Good articles/Social sciences and society. A Draft wouldn't need to be as long or detailed as these to be accepted, but they can still be good examples of how to structure and reference it.


 * To me, the tone of your Draft does not look very problematic. Concern may have been raised by five of your six references being hosted by Saigon Asset Management itself, even though they originate elsewhere. Also, often, interviews are not considered to be the most useful type of sources in proving notability, because they essentially consist of what the company says about itself, not what the independent reliable sources say about them.


 * Pinging in case this is of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for the ping . I already posted a response to your question on my talk page, but I'll put it here as well, in case you missed it there. Articles need to tell us about the subject, not attempt to sell it to us. Individual fund information, talking about what the company is seeking to do, and using terms like "expertise", make the article seem promotional. Granted, I've seen more egregious examples of promotion, but to me this still sounded promotional.  Arthur hits the nail on the head regarding using other articles in comparison (and I'm going to steal his explanation from now on when asked that question in the future).  I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok thank you for your feedback. I will rewrite the article to sound less promotional and use different references that are not connected to the site.  I only did this because the links are no longer active online, is there something else I can do in this situation?  I've see many other fund managers list their funds to describe what they do however I do note that you are saying that just because an article exists doesn't make it a good example.  Before I heard back from either of you I had received some help from the online chat and was told that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong_Capital is a good example of the other wiki listings that I referenced, particularly because it uses the references as citations.  Thank you.

talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, material does not need to be available online in order to cite it as a source. For example:


 * David Carey, John E. Morris (2010). King of Capital: The Remarkable Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Steve Schwarzman and Blackstone. ISBN 978-0307886026. Page 46.


 * or


 * Taub, Stephen (June 28, 2011). Euromoney Institutional Investor, Bridgewater’s Alpha is up 11 Percent This Year. Page 4


 * Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

06:45:28, 9 March 2015 review of submission by LouMycroft
Thank you for the opportunity to do this. I went to a workshop yesterday to learn how to use Wikipedia and I am very new to it all.

I have started to build this entry with notability in mind and on the advice of the workshop facilitators I've sought out books which reference the process. Two of them are by the process creator, but the others are not. It is a process, rather than a product you buy and I think I'm not getting that across. I am also wondering if I should be critiquing it a bit more? Or should I be telling the story of its creation? What I want from the page is that people who come across it can understand what it is and learn how to do it for themselves.

I appreciate why it's been knocked back, but I'm feeling a bit stuck. Can you help?

Thank you.

LouMycroft (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's certainly true that the history of the concept would be a good thing to include in the Draft article. Your objective for the article is perhaps problematic... as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should describe things, not teach people how to do things. Thus "whether you are..." is problematic wording and sounds promotional, because encyclopedia articles use the third person not the second. Finally, the Linda Aspey source is a problem because it is inherently promotional... its purpose is to sell courses and events based on this process or concept. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

08:32:43, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Larsa.Max
Hello editors

can you please tell me what made my article look like advertisement? it has independent sources that i couldn't control.

Thanks in advance

Larsa.Max (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Listing the ordinary partners is probably unnecessary, although that is not a big problem. "a team of investment professionals organized into specific investment areas and sectorial disciplines" sounds promotional and does not really convey any factual information. "works closely with owners-managers of portfolio companies to enhance operations and accelerate growth" sounds rather promotional given that it's not cited to an independent source. "developed a proficiency in accelerating growth and enhancing the value of their investee companies" likewise. Finally, large parts of the "History" section are apparently sourced entirely to press releases. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

08:54:43, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Aruppillai
Which part of the article lack reference? Aruppillai (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

13:29:23, 9 March 2015 review of submission by LegalResourcesFoundation
Hi there, thanks very much Dodger67 for reading my text although it got declined. I am not quite sure why this is the case but I must apologize in advance as this is my first wikipedia article and I struggled a bit with the code to put in the only one reference. I am afraid there are no more sources to add in order to make the article more reliable as I already put in websites from our organization partners and an academical text which is accessable via internet and to be found in the reference section. Thanks a lot - LRF LegalResourcesFoundation (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What about books and news or magazine articles? I have moved the draft to Draft:Legal Resources Foundation so that as soon as your username problem is solved you can continue working on it there. I have found quite a few news articles through Google. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

16:37:28, 9 March 2015 review of submission by EduardJanChlebek
How do I attach a photograph to my submission? EduardJanChlebek (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about adding a picture yet. Your page has been deleted because it was considered advertising. This suggests you are connected to or affiliated with what you were writing about. If that is the case, please read my guide for contributors with close connections before rewriting it.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

17:14:50, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Jakebob1963
I understand this page was rejected and I should ask why here??

Thanks! Jake Jakebob1963 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. The most common way an article comes off as advertising is when it uses "evaluative phrases" without citing them to an outside source.
 * Some of these in your page are "uniquely-crafted", "robust", and "humble". These have to be cited to an outside source, and attributed (for example: XYZ Magazine called its sandwiches "uniquely-crafted".). A good way to find evaluative phrases is to ask yourself Would a person who hates the restaurant and someone who loves it agree on this? If not, then it's evaluative.
 * Also, Wikipedia pages shouldn't include comprehensive lists of products (in this case, menu items). You should talk about the ones that have received the most press coverage.
 * Those are my comments about advertising. After you've addressed them, you may want to go through the editing tutorial to learn about formatting.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:31:28, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Hamptodm
The article for "Billy's Cult" was not accepted due to copyright information. I am seeking specifics so that I may correct these errors and re-submit the article.

Hamptodm (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the Copyvio Detector, the plot is copied directly from Rotten Tomatoes. We can't accept material copied from outside sources (except for short quotations), because we don't have permission to use it. You can use Rotten Tomatoes or another site as a source of information, but you should summarize the plot in your own words.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

20:06:51, 9 March 2015 review of submission by ProfTimMau
ProfTimMau (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi - Why was my article declined? I want to know the detailed reason why, I know that I have cited multiple sources.


 * Hello ProfTimMau. Your draft article includes three sources, but they are not really about Mr. Wigdor, but about the cases for which he is being hired. Please note that words spoken by the subject himself aren't considered independent references, and outside of his own words there are only a couple of sentences about him in the references. The references need to be about him, not about the people he represents.  For a lawyer to be the subject of a Wikipedia page, there needs to be either extensive coverage about him in published sources, such as Louis Bloomfield and/or he needs to have received some kind of distinction above that of an average lawyer, such as Marlys Edwardh. Perhaps there are news reports about the actual trials, where Mr. Wignor's actions, rather than future intentions, were reported by journalists.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)