Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 22

= August 22 =

08:58:05, 22 August 2016 review of submission by 195.59.246.234
Hi, the page failed GNG but not quite sure why.

I can point to equivalent pages for the other leading Spanish football clubs (FC Barcelona Juvenil A, Atlético Madrid (youth), Sevilla FC (youth), Valencia CF (youth), Villarreal CF (youth) and Real Madrid C.F. (youth), Real Madrid Juvenil B, Real Madrid Juvenil C - the last 3 are all for the same club!) as evidence of the sufficient notability of teams in this category. The other clubs also have separate pages for their reserve entities (Athletic Bilbao B, Sevilla Atlético etc) showing a precedent for youth and reserve teams being split in this way on Wikipedia rather than the youth rosters being added to the reserve pages. In terms of interest in the club itself, Athletic Bilbao is obviously less high-profile than Real Madrid and Barcelona but on a similar level to Atletico Madrid, Sevilla and Valencia, and certainly more than Villarreal. Moreover their reliance on players from their youth academy rather than bringing in transfers from other clubs makes theirs one of the most noteworthy in Spain.

I can also link directly to external pages for the competitions entered by the team as sources, but wherever possible I have already linked to the Wiki articles which I would have thought was a preferable method since the information on these existing pages is already verified (presumably?).

Any other suggestions on how this can be improved for acceptance are much appreciated!

PS this is the second tme i have submitted this, it appeared to attach to someone else's request previously so apologies all round for that, hopefully better now...! 195.59.246.234 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is odd. There is clearly a precedent for having Spanish La Liga youth clubs on Wikipedia, which the reviewer might have missed. Perhaps User:CatcherStorm could shed some light on this? jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

09:36:28, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Taronga013
Taronga013 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

SICPA submission
12:24:18, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Iainplunkett

In July, I put together a draft for a company called SICPA. I have been asked to do this by the company and I am paid for my time. I realise that there are very stringent conflict of interest criteria and it was my intention to put the article in sandbox and ask others to comment prior to submission. However, unless I was doing something very wrong (extremely possible) the only way I could save my draft was to automatically submit the piece.

Unsurprisingly it was rejected. The primary reason given was that I had not followed the paid contributor policy properly. This is true but, in my defense, I hadn't actually wanted to submit the article at the point I did. I have since had other comments about the article's suitability which I have tried to incorporate in a rewrite.

I would like to ask exactly what I should do to comply with the paid contributor process before I resubmit. I have stated an interest in my user profile but I know I haven't put the proper templates where they need to go but, to be honest, I got a little confused as to where I was placing things! It says to put the contributor template on the talk page of the draft article but I couldn't see how to do that. Sorry.

Any help and guidance you can given me would be gratefully received. Iainplunkett (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The draft was not submitted when you first saved it, it was submitted when you added the template along with an explicit request for other editors to review it. I am struggling to see how this could be a mistaken submission.
 * In order to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use you must make a paid editing disclosure in at least one of three ways: on your user page (which you have done), on the article's talk page (which User:Worldbruce did for you), and in the edit summary for any edit you make to an affected article (which I don't believe you have done). All this information is at WP:PAID.
 * However, complying with Wikimedia's terms of use (a bare-minimum legal requirement) is not the same as complying with the Wikipedia community's policies and guidelines on paid editing. There is a strong consensus that editors with a COI, especially paid editors, should not be directly involved with editing articles at all. To comply with the community consensus, you should cease editing immediately, go back to this company, give them back their money, and tell them that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle and that they cannot buy their way into an encyclopaedia. Joe Roe (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome, . Like Joe says, Wikipedia very strongly discourages paid editing. I presume one reason that it doesn't forbid it is that if it did, some people would do it anyway without disclosure. Barring significant changes to Wikipedia, it would be difficult to prevent them from doing so. So allowing paid editing, provided that the proper disclosures are made and all policies are observed (especially WP:NPOV and WP:V) is the pragmatic approach. You are in compliance with the disclosure requirements for paid editing. To be sure to remain so, simply briefly mention, in the edit summary of any edit you make to the page, and in any discussion thread you participate in regarding the page, something like "see paid editing dislosure on Draft talk:SICPA Holdings SA."


 * Since my comments on the draft last month, I see you've found additional sources and taken some of my other advice. If the draft is as good as you think you can make it, go ahead and resubmit it. If the new sources pan out, the topic should clear the bar of notability. Volunteers may not rush to help you get it accepted, but the draft will be reviewed (eventually) on its merits, with particular attention to WP:COIRESPONSE. It may be edited mercilessly, just roll with it. Let the community decide what should stay, what should go, and what should be added. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi WorldBruce, many thanks on this. I have trued to follow your guidance as much as I could. I understand, as Joe says, that Wikipedia discourages paid editors which is why I'm am trying to do everything possible to ensure the entry is factual and not a 'promotional vehicle'. One of the reasons that the company wants to create a UK page is that it has pages put up in other countries by people who have used Wikipedia to attack the company and all it wants is a fair representation. I am very happy for others to edit the page as long as the information they add is not false. Again many thanks for your help and patience.Iainplunkett (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

15:18:46, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Nsirrah
Hi all, I'm seeking other opinions on this draft. The reasoning of the reviewer seems circular; "It's [denied] because there's still nothing actually convincing for establishing his own substance and independent notability, there's no inherited notability from other people or groups."

But what more could establish notability for a businessperson? The draft is about an entrepreneur who started a company, and there are both biographies and major independent sources covering the entrepreneur, his actions, and his company independently. These sources imply AND say outright why the subject is very notable in the fashion world. Further, the events, companies, and programming the the subject has co-founded have been covered even more extensively. Major celebrities (like Kanye West, Scott Campbell, and Sarah Jessica Parker) have gone on record saying outright that the subject is notable in the fashion world. Obviously celebrity sources aren't independent, but the press covering these statements are.


 * 1) wikipedia-en-help has already told me that they see no reason for the article to be declined, but that I should add more sources and resubmit. It was immediately declined by the reviewer again -- quicker than the reviewer could have actually looked at and considered all the new sources.

Would love to hear the consensus about this draft and the topic matter. I'm looking to better learn the ropes here; In earnest, thank you!

Nsirrah (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Note Draft has been approved. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

15:51:15, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Tpalum24
I was just wondering on what constitutes independent notability and if someone could point me in the direction of where this draft lacks such notability. I understand that a company profile and press releases do not determine this status. I used those sources to gather information on the topic. However, I thought using the Frost & Sullivan, NASA, and Water Conditioning and Purification Magazine sources would satisfy the conditions for independent notability. If someone could aid me in explaining where these sources lack in satisfying the primary criteria for notability it would be appreciated as I am a new user.

Tpalum24 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

23:50:04, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Njnorland
I have submitted this page 2 times and have been declined because they say the person is not notable. When I look at the guidelines for Musicians and Ensembles, she fits these 2 criteria: (2)Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. (She was listed on Billboard). (10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (She was on several major television shows including Johnny Carson and Mike Douglas)

I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer to convince the reviewers that this is not notable. Thank you, Njnorland (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I've accepted the draft, apologies for the oversight. Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)