Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 October 5

= October 5 =

09:54:39, 5 October 2015 review of submission by Mystywave18
Hi there!!!! Im New to the Wikipedia world of creating articles, I am requesting assistance to improve my article of the "Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano" so that under the next article reviewing it will be approved and visible to Wikipedia when searched on the search engine. It's been a while now that the article was pending & waiting for re-review. I've already rechecked, improved & fixed all of the suggestions & comments you've sended to me a while ago to my talk page, since it was declined & leave some notes on my draft by the reviewer/s during my first submission. Being a draft, I know it is not perfect however, I am finding difficulty in understanding why it was not approved in the first place. It was written in a neutral tone and informative. Please help me improve the draft. Your help and assistance is highly & greatly appreciated. As soon as possible. I am looking forward to assist me & for your response. Thanks. Mystywave18 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick glance and I see on which is very common and popular by most good-looking & handsome men to do dubsmash - which is definitely not adhering to a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 11:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

11:30:35, 5 October 2015 review of submission by Simontomp
Submission was delined on grounds of notability. However I believe that my subject should be considered notable for a range of different reasons. One of which is that I understand that he developed the "Woolmark" and I am trying to locate evidence on the web that backs this up. Before I spend too long can I have guidance as to whether this would make him "notable"?

Thanks Simontomp (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually the non notable either means there are no claim to notability, or the references are not sufficient. See the golden rule and the general notability guideline -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 11:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

12:14:38, 5 October 2015 review of submission by 71.186.162.95
arlene francis didnt have cancer according to her son peter gabel

71.186.162.95 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is something to bring up on the articles talk page, not here. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 12:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

12:25:27, 5 October 2015 review of submission by Meticulo
Hi. I'd like to request a re-review of an article I've drafted on Amalgamated Holdings Limited. The major source for the article as it currently stands is an Annual Report that was filed with the Australian Stock Exchange. In other words, a document that had to be independently audited before submission to a highly-regulated third party. The article does not rely solely on the company's website. As for notability, a turnover of more than A$1 billion a year must surely go a long way towards meeting requirements for a stub-class article, at the very least. For the record, I'm not associated with Amalgamated Holdings in any way. I drafted this after seeing the company referred to in the Event Cinemas and Australian Theatres articles, and realising it did not have its own page. Thanks - Meticulo (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've resubmitted it per your request. It usually takes a week for an article to be reviewed, but can take up to a month (rarely more). I must note it's unlikely to be accepted due to the lack of independent references. See WP:42. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Annual Reports are good sources, but only a portion of them, the financials, are audited. The front matter that the draft cites, describing the company and its directors, is not audited and not independent. That portion of the annual report is no different from the company website as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's the company line on itself, whereas Wikipedia is interested in the full range of viewpoints about the company. The good news is that, being a public company on the ASX (a fact that belongs in the first sentence of the lead), there are almost certainly in depth profiles of the company (not just trivial mentions or asked-for-comment quotes) in major Australian business publications. All someone has to do is find two or more of them, and base the majority of the draft on them rather than on company sources. Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks both. Meticulo (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

14:14:22, 5 October 2015 review of submission by KKConnect
How do I resubmit an article I have edited for reconsideration?

KKConnect (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding  to the draft will submit/resubmit it for review. --  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:48:05, 5 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dylan22holland
Hi. I've submitted a Wiki page on the American manufacturer Todd Shelton. I used as many supporting references from unbiased publications. I got a second rejection saying it reads too much like an ad. Hmmm. Can I get a little more detail abut what I'm doing wrong since almost all of the content came from a published source? Thanks for any guidance. D

Dylan22holland (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

21:35:57, 5 October 2015 review of submission by Little Panther
I am requesting a re-review because the reviewer pointed out that the article appears to be an advertisement. I do not know to which part of the article he is referring. If he means the article as a whole, I'm inclined to disagree. There is nothing listed that isn't factual and much of the article is backed up by very credible sources. In fact, because the band is in the same genre as The Prodigy, I used their Wiki page as a template guide on how to write a good article that is encyclopeadia worthy. I don't feel that this article is much different. I'd be grateful for feedback and advice as to how to improve the article so it fits in better with guidelines, as the examples I've compared with thus far (eg The Prodigy) don't seem any different.


 * , I left a comment at the top of your draft letting you know what needs cleaning up in your footnoting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)