Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 November 27

= November 27 =

01:19:41, 27 November 2015 review of submission by Mbamfadzley
Mbamfadzley (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Master Builders Association Malaysia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Master_Builders_Association_Malaysia

we have all the certificates and publications from our association proof that we are exist also we added the url link of our references for the article that we submitted to wikipedia.

The link of our brochure for our members and potential members http://mbam.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/membership-brochure-and-registration-form.pdf

A Malaysian newspaper link http://www.theborneopost.com/2015/10/31/budget-2016-sarawak-stand-to-gain/ another newspaper link as a proof http://www.thestar.com.my/Metro/Community/2015/09/29/Building-a-home-for-members-Builders-association-anniversary-dinner-raises-funds-for-new-headquarter/

i don't understand why our article has been declined? maybe you can share how to do it?

09:18:42, 27 November 2015 review of submission by Dat GuyWiki

 * Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk! Do you have a specific question about the draft? It has been declined for notability concerns. You may want to read WP:N and WP:ORG for more information about notability on Wikipedia. Thanks! /wia   /tlk  16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, apparently my comment didn't pass. Anyways, this is what I wrote on the reviewer's talk page. You have declined to me this and you said that there is no significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources to establish WP:notability. Since this is an eSports article and I've already stated that they are an 'all-star' team and that they won a spot on the podium for 5 premier LANs, I don't know how I could change it. Any response is helpful, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look through the referencing. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and other wikis generally aren't considered reliable sources. (See WP:CIRC, WP:USERG and WP:PRIMARY if you're interested in the full policy rationales.) This leaves some references like joindota.com, fnatic, and navi-gaming that don't seem like reliable sources. Some of them don't mention "Team Secret" either, so substantive in-depth coverage is lacking too. Generally, reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline) are a good place to look for references. You can also try using these:.
 * However, given the nature of e-sports, I'm not sure whether such reliable coverage exists. Have a referencing search and see what comes up! Thanks, /wia   /tlk  16:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean Reddit and Youtube to be sources, I could put reddit as 'external link' too, but thought it could go as a source. the joindota.com page references the member, and the other two ones were actions that led up to the making of the team. Anyways, I'll try improving it. Thanks, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

11:12:36, 27 November 2015 review of submission by Creatordavid109
My motherlanguage is dutch so it seems wise to ask advice for my article to somebody who speeks english every day ! Creatordavid109 (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have left you a comment on the draft with some thoughts. Thanks, /wia   /tlk  16:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

22:08:26, 27 November 2015 review of submission by PeaceJelly
My article was rejected because it's not notable enough. I'm a little confused how a NASDAQ certified corporation that publicly trades shares of its ownership isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Seems to me that any company which is offering shares of its stock to the general public would be notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page. People interested in buying stock should have an easily accessible and unbiased place to look into the company that they're interested in, and that's exactly what Wikipedia is good for. That's why I made the page--because I was considering buying stock, only to find that there was very little easily accessible information to be found on the internet.

Aside from all that, LM Funding is the first business ever to have operated with the business model it uses. After LM got big, a ton of Florida finance companies went on to follow their business model. So again, I'm very curious how this company is even remotely lacking in notability. PeaceJelly (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the reviewer's comment below the big pink box on the draft? It explains exactly what the problem is.


 * The company may very well be notable. The draft, however, doesn't show that it is, because the draft relies on the wrong kind of sources. The bulk of an article must be based on arms-length reliable sources, and only such sources can prove notability. Nothing the company writes about itself counts. You mentioned that you found very little easily accessible information on the internet. If very little independent information exists (even behind paywalls or in print), then the company will not get a stand alone article. Searches of EBSCO, HighBeam, InfoTRAC, and ProQuest returned zero results, which is not encouranging. Try searching major business publications (The Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Business Week, ...); regional newspapers (The Miami Herald, The Tampa Tribune, ...); and reports by financial analysts (Credit Suisse, Ford Equity Research, Ned Davis, Standard & Poors, Zacks, ...). Worldbruce (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

23:48:33, 27 November 2015 review of submission by Cjmcgown
I'm struggling with a conflict of interest. The page I'm submitting is from my father's company (he's the founder), and I've worked hard to provide what I feel is a fact-based article, with emotion or judgement stripped out. I certainly fall directly within the definition of CoI, but I'm the person who is best suited to provide accurate information with respect to the facts in the article. I suppose I could refer my father to a dispassionate third party to give background and then have that third party write the article, but it seems like that would just be perpetuating the conflict, only creating some distance. It doesn't seem to solve the problem.

What's the best way to proceed? The material seems to fall within the guidelines of notability, verifiability, and neutrality.

You can see the orginal article as a draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gold_Medal_Squared

Cjmcgown (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)