Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 October 14

= October 14 =

05:15:35, 14 October 2015 review of submission by Ita140188
I would like to understand why the article was tagged for advertisement. There is only one primary source (to the official website) which is only for the foundation year. The other sources are all third party "reliable" sources, such as il Sole 24 Ore, Il Messaggero etc. I don't feel the article is non NPOV either. About the notability, I think it complies with the guidelines given the coverage on national and international sources. Ita140188 (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a conversation best held with the reviewer who gave you that verdict, . However, I would have also looked hard at it because of WP:CITEKILL, which is well worth read. Multiple citations for a single fact, especially in a very sparse draft imply advertising or the attempt to create notability where none exists. Fiddle   Faddle  09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a case of WP:CITEKILL. The four references on the first paragraph refer to 4 different articles describing collaborations with different companies, it is therefore useful in supporting what the paragraph says. The other statements have either one or two references. I tried to write to Onel5969 but I received no response. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To me those references add little value in establishing notability. We are unconcerned about the parties it collaborates with except as facts. The references do substantiate those facts but do not verify notability. The collaborations do not show notability in a Wikipedia sense, and it cannot inherit any notability form even the biggest name as a partner.
 * In addition you have at least one press release or item of regurgitated PR material as a reference, something that might just about qualify under WP:SELFPUB or perhaps WP:PRIMARY, but offers you no help in establishing notability. PR Newswire (etc) are generally deprecated as sources
 * What I suggest you do is to be very critical of your own referencing and run it against WP:42, removing or replacing any that do not qualify. Search for further references and see what they say about the org, and then write what they say, using the reference as a citation. That way you will create an article stronger in breadth and depth, though almost certainly able to be improved as time passes. What you are aiming for is a clear pass at WP:CORP with an article containing sufficient information to pass, even if incomplete.
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I think this one is on the wrong side of the line at present. Others may disagree and I hope they weigh in with their thoughts. Fiddle   Faddle  09:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you wrote to me yesterday morning, and were unwilling to wait for a response, posting here about 24 hours later, prior to my daily responses regarding AfC questions. has given a very comprehensive rationale, which is almost exactly how I evaluated the article. Good luck.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I saw you answered all the other questions so I figured you skipped it. Anyway, thanks all for the explanation! --Ita140188 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)