Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 September 17

= September 17 =

03:27:07, 17 September 2015 review of submission by Econohammer
This is my first article submission. I believe I am close. My reviewer, Sulfurboy, has declined the submission with the comment External links should also be removed from the article. I removed the external links. However, in the heading box, I get the following message: ''The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.'' I am happy to edit, but I don't any way to enhance the article text with more citations. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks! Econohammer (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Econohammer. I'm afraid you misunderstood which external links the reviewer was referring to, his comment was not clear. External links embedded within the prose of an article are not permitted. I have removed the offending links with this edit and restored the listed external links which you mistakenly removed. Perhaps some of the listed links could actually be used as references? I have also tagged two sections that have no references. The rules are particularly strict about referencing in articles about living people, "extraordinary" claims such as achievements, awards and honors must be specifically referenced, you need a reference for each such claim. Two of the references you have used do not support the claims they are appended to, so I have also tagged them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 10:30:27, 17 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by CiaraOsborne064
Would you have any Templates I could see that would ensure a more acceptable article?

CiaraOsborne064 (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you seeking to pattern the draft on good examples of articles about venture capital firms? Evidently no one has written a good one yet. The closest I can suggest are: Apollo Global Management, The Blackstone Group, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. They aren't ideal articles, they don't follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, but the community has judged them good. A draft need not be that long or good to be approved, but it's something to aspire to. Worldbruce (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

13:10:03, 17 September 2015 review of draft by Furdepazzi
I can't work out how to put the references already created into the list of references below

Furdepazzi (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several ways. The key is to embed the citation in the body of the article within ref tags: . I've done the first citation for you, in two of the most common ways, without and with cite templates. Pick whichever method you prefer, delete the redundant one, and do the rest of the citations in the same manner. Worldbruce (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

14:45:25, 17 September 2015 review of submission by Vemurione
Vemurione (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There is an English-Telugu dictionary in the Telugu Wikipedia. How does the search engine in English Wikipedia know about the existence of this dictionary in the Wikipedia of another language (here, te)? Would a key phrase "English-Telugu dictionary" typed in the English Wikipedia search box point to the availability of this in wikipedia? If not, how can I facilitate the process to English Wikipedia users? ThanksVemurione (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

14:49:06, 17 September 2015 review of submission by SatishBabusenan
I would like to add the poster of my film The Painted House to the page. But not sure how to do that. The 'add an image' does not show a browse option for me to select the image. Thanks. BTW,I would also like to mention here that I am the co-director of the film. I have, however, tried to be as objective as possible in creating this page, adding a good deal of media citations available in English. Please feel free to advise me on any rectifications I might need to make.

SatishBabusenan (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, the poster cannot be added until the Draft is accepted. So it's best to wait until then. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

15:44:01, 17 September 2015 review of submission by JayRossBJ
How do I add the citations? Where do I put the webpage links? How do I add photos?

JayRossBJ (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi JayRossBJ. Have you read Referencing for beginners? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

21:33:55, 17 September 2015 review of submission by ShakyIsles
I just created Draft:New_Zealand_flag_referendums,_2015/2016. This is quite timely as it is a current event and it would be great if it could be reviewed ASAP. I'd usually just make an article but decided to use the draft function so others could contribute. It was broken out from New_Zealand_flag_debate which now needs to be reduced and appropriate links put to this page. I just can't do that until it is approved and worried people will add new info to the the other article. I'm tempted just to make the article and copy across. ShakyIsles (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

22:24:06, 17 September 2015 review of submission by Garvo13
Hi there - I just wanted to jump on here to see what more I can be doing in terms of editing company profile information. I have had a couple come back to say that they read too much like an advert and I have edited one in particular down to very bear minimum information, copying other examples of companies within the same sector. In terms of this VInci Facilities entry, I felt that it just stuck to the facts and cited a lot of different reference sources in order to establish notability. I am more than happy to edit this back but I would be keen to understand which part of it sounds more like an advert and which part is more suitable as an encyclopedia entry. I feel like the contracts managed by Vinci are relevant to those people who may discover them through Wikipedia - it is not unreasonable that people may want to find out who manages the facilities in specific parks and hospitals and the entry cites relevant newspaper and journals to evidence and further support the entry.

I enjoy creating the content for Wikipedia but would like to get a better understanding of how to move away from 'advertising' language to copy that is more appropriate to an encyclopedia entry.

Any advice would be gratefully received. Garvo13 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see the Draft:Vinci Facilities (UK) decline by Onel5969. Can you clarify what you mean by "had a couple come back"? Have you submitted drafts about other companies that have been declined? Or deleted? Most companies do not have, and should not have, Wikipedia articles written about them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. With fuller information I'll be able to give you a more helpful answer. Worldbruce (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there - many thanks for coming back to me. I guess what I am trying to understand more is why some companies are listed on Wikipedia and others aren't. In terms of the Vinci Facilities entry, they managed the facilities for some big organisations throughout the UK including the Royal Parks which I thought would be of interest as an encyclopedia entry and something that people may be interested to know - it is fascinating that those parks are not managed in-house and there is an external contract to manage the parks. I guess I am just trying to establish what sort of companies Wikipedia considers to be worthy of an encyclopedia entry.


 * Another company who had their entry deleted is Tresor Paris. They are a leading retailer of crystal and diamond jewellery with locations throughout the world. I researched a number of their competitors first and they all seem to have a listing (Beaverbrooks being a prime example). The Beaverbrooks entry doesn't seem to add much value as an encyclopedia entry either so I guess I am just trying to establish what makes one company page acceptable over another.


 * In my entries I have done a lot of research to find notable sources of information around national and international awards and news items of interest.


 * Thanks once again for getting back to me.
 * It is natural to learn by and reason from example, but it's safer to reason from official policies and guidelines. The essay Other stuff exists may help make it clear why that is so. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress that contains both high-quality and low-quality content. If you use an example, be sure to use one from the best content Wikipedia has: Portal:Featured content or Good articles, not just any article.


 * The essential resource for understanding whether a company should have a stand alone article in Wikipedia or not is WP:CORP. To clear the bar of notability, the company must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Such sources are usually easy to find for large public companies. Companies that are private, small, or new can be impossible to find suitable sources for.


 * Because Draft:Tresor Paris was deleted for being blatant advertising, and Draft:Vinci Facilities (UK) was declined for reading like an advertisement, I recommend that you focus on choosing better sources. Reputable mainstream business publications (The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Barrons, and so on) are excellent sources. Major newspapers and magazines (The Times (London), The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc.) are also good. Quickly scanning the draft, I don't see any sources like these.


 * Any coverage based on marketing or public relations does not count towards notability. Self-promotion is never the route to a Wikipedia article. This Reuters piece, for example, is a press release, so it doesn't count towards notability. This goes for press releases from a company's business partners as well, like this and this. Anything that smells like a press release is anathema at AfC. See WP:ORGIND.


 * The more local or niche the media is, the less likely it will be able to prove notability. Trade publications are considered by some to be of too narrow interest and circulation to count towards notability. They may have some editorial oversight, but don't have the armies of fact checkers the mainstream press has and tend to print press releases by and puff pieces about the handful of companies in the industry they cover, sometimes commissioned by the very subject of the article. See WP:AUD.


 * Finally, quality of sources is much more important than quantity of sources. Two excellent sources can be enough, although more (three, four, six, eight, there's no magic number) are usually needed to craft a complete and balanced article. Piling on too many sources can look like bombardment. Reviewers may hesitate to review the draft, may form an opinion about it based on a smaller subset of the sources, or may assume the author has something to hide. Worldbruce (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)