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

= March 22 =

03:56:48, 22 March 2016 review of submission by 2605:E000:84D9:F300:39FD:B32D:9D67:2319
i just wanted to ask if it's normal to wait a month for draft review. Thanks!

2605:E000:84D9:F300:39FD:B32D:9D67:2319 (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is at the high end of what has been normal recently, but historically it is not unusual. The draft is correctly submitted and will be reviewed in due course. While you're waiting, check out the numerous ways to help out. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

04:02:31, 22 March 2016 review of submission by 174.110.4.191
Hello.

I'm interested in having a Wikipedia page created and published for an artist. Please let me know how this is possible. Thank you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:El%C3%ADz_Camacho#Elizabeth_Marie_Camacho
 * Hi - this ip also queried me on my talk page, where I responded.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

05:19:18, 22 March 2016 review of submission by 76.113.134.205
I was hoping to get more information as to why this was denied and possibly what I could do to improve the article so that it would be accepted. Are more factual references needed? This is my first Wikipedia page so I would love some guidance. 76.113.134.205 (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Orlando Sentinel article is a good start. If the draft had a couple more like that, it likely would be accepted. IMDB and TV.com are user-generated and thus not reliable sources. In many cases the cited references make no mention of the subject (such as those cited for Lucky). In other cases they merely mention the subject in a credits list, such as the Amazon links. The draft doesn't show that the subject has had significant roles in multiple notable productions, which is the most common way for an actor to meet the notability criteria. The subject may become notable as their career progresses, but based on the draft's references does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article at this time. Worldbruce (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

13:52:35, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Theafricaneditor
Hello, I am wondering why this draft was declined. My colleagues and I have read through it several times to make sure that things are correct and that there are no grammatical errors. Please let me know why the article was declined. Thank you. Theafricaneditor (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you clarify what you mean by my colleagues and I? Are you employees of African Film Festival, or is it a client of yours? Or something else? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No I am not an employee of African Film Festival. I run a NYC cultural blog with a few other people who I asked to help me check for errors. We have all been to the organization's event and wondered why they didn't have a page as other NYC festivals do. They are not paying us, we asked them if we could make the page though via email because we were sure that they would want to be properly represented. We took info from their site because as it turns out, some published articles written about them had inaccurate information. Thank you for your response.Theafricaneditor (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Theafricaneditor, your draft was rejected because it read like a blatant advertisement and was devoid of sources independent of the subject. The reviewer, Onel5969, left detailed comments to that effect and links to guidance pages on the draft. Did you bother to read them? I have left further comments to the effect that I removed large chunks from the draft because they were copyright violations, pasted in from various pages of the official website and affiliated sites. Do not restore them. Draft talk:African Film Festival, Inc. has further information on this issue. What remains of the draft is still blatantly promotional to any neutral observer, e.g.
 * In an ongoing effort to provide the public with important knowledge about African arts and culture, AFF’s website contains a wealth of information about year-round events and also features an extensive database of film synopses, directors’ biographies, film reviews, tutorials, scholarly articles and filmmaker interviews.


 * One of the reasons why editing with a conflict of interest (and it's quite obvious here), is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia is that it is virtually impossible for such editors to see how promotional their writing is and to write in a neutral, objective way about the subject. The organization is reasonably notable. I have left 6 independent sources in the References section, which will help you source the article properly. If you intend to continue with this draft, I suggest you remove everything from it and start again. Write a brief matter-of-fact description of the organization and its history, with no buzz-words, no adjectives, no paraphrasing from your website—just the facts. Source it to independent publications and don't try to "sell" this organization to the reader and tell us how wonderful it is. If you do that, it will simply be rejected again. Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Voceditenore Hello, thank you for your response. I did not see Onel5969's comments before posting my question because I was looking at at mobile version of the site. The first thing that appeared to me from Onel5969 was "Hello! Theafricaneditor, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk." I now see why the page was declined. I gather information about various cultural organizations around New York City and realized that this notable organization did not have a Wikipedia page. This is also my first Wikipedia article and I was basing it off of the pages of related organizations that have been posted. I have made changes and will be re-submitting the article soon. Thank you again. Theafricaneditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

14:49:45, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Canbya
Canbya (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I don't understand my rejection notice about the North American Rock Garden Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Canbya#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_North_American_Rock_Garden_Society_.28March_22.29 Sure I understand I need to relink the ones contained within. But I do not understand the comment about self promotion. I was emulating the Alpine Garden Society page, the British counterpart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_Garden_Society

All of their external links with information about them are supported of their own material. How is that different than an About Us? Is it because they link to their own journal?


 * Hi . I don't entirely understand your question. I don't see a comment on the draft about self promotion, and it isn't clear to me what you're talking about in the second paragraph. If I answer the wrong question, I hope it will still be more helpful than no answer at all.


 * It is natural to reason from and imitate existing articles, but there's a problem with doing so. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality and low quality content. If a draft emulates an article that violates certain policies and guidelines, the the draft will not be accepted. It is better to base arguments on policies and guidelines rather than on some other article.


 * MatthewVanitas's second and third bullet points in his review of the draft explain the central problem better than I can, but I'll try to express it differently. Consider the draft's sources:
 * Speaker bios such as the one from AGS are typically supplied by the speaker. They are not normally the result of independent research and analysis by the conference. Boland is described as the chair of a chapter of NARGS, so he is not an independent source for information about NARGS.
 * NARGS is not an independent source.
 * The Google+ link is to a post and blog written by the President of NARGS, so is not independent.
 * Although articles may use sources that are not independent, the bulk of any article should be sourced to independent sources. Wikipedia includes articles on topics only if those topics have been written about at length in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Until such sources are identified, the draft should not be accepted. Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

14:56:43, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Rgenhofer
Rgenhofer (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, My page for GYMGUYZ was declined and I believe it is due to the nature of the sources. There is a very small amount of information available on the business available on the internet, and unfortunately the majority of the information is interviews and information about the opening of new franchises, which doesn't strengthen the content of this page very much. Please let me know what I can do to get this page approved given the sources that are available, that we have already used, if anything. I look forward to hearing from you! Rgenhofer (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . Drafts are not restricted to citing information available on the internet. Offline sources, such as books, academic journals, and newspapers, are perfectly fine. If there is very little information about the company from any independent reliable sources, however, then the company is not a suitable topic for the encyclopedia at this time. Most businesses don't have Wikipedia articles about them and aren't suppose to. See WP:BFAQ for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

16:09:43, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Oriabr
Oriabr (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Hello, I am not sure what is the reason which you are rejecting NIRU Group, but as I said to Robert, you have all of the references from 3rd party websites (which are un-depended), NIRU Group is a notable value as it achieved many accomplishments, it is a well-known brand in its industry, it is a big company with thousands of employees, top vendor.

I saw many Wikipedia values that are less noteworthy and that were approved. If there is something specific I can improve- do let me know, but please don't tell me that the references are not independent. I read Robert's query in the forum, telling the community that he wished that NIRU Group would not be mentioned by magazines from the industry. this doesn't make sense- as this is the relevant industry that makes it notable. If Superman vs. Batman can be a wiki value, so can a rewarded diamond manufacturer and seller. what makes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiverr different? it is 'only' a service provider! The article was written in a non-commercialize form. I saw that Robert was suggesting that I work for NIRU Group. Well, as this being not relevant, I can tell you that I don't - but I am familiar with this company and this is why I thought that they should have their own value (especially because they donate back to the community).

I thank you in advance
 * Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Have you seen the comment that Worlbruce has left on the draft? I think it is a very helpful overview of the problems with the draft.
 * The main issue is that the draft does not show whether the company meets the corporate notability criteria. It's important to note that "notability" does not mean "importance". There are many companies and organizations that do great work all around the world but that are, simply put, not eligible for their own Wikipedia articles. Rather, "notability" refers to the depth of high-quality coverage that a company has received. If a company has been discussed/covered by a good number (say, at least three to five) of reliable sources that are independent of the company, then this is generally a strong indicator that the company is "notable". Ultimately, the test for corporate "notability" isn't whether the company has achieved interesting things or has many employees, it's whether the company has been the subject of substantive coverage from good-quality sources.
 * That's one reason why we have an article about the upcoming Batman v Superman movie, incidentally: because it's been covered in significant detail by a variety of reliable sources that are independent of the movie. And if we compare to the Fiverr article, notice how there are several references to high-quality sources like the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian. Those are generally the types of references that help show that a company or service is "notable".
 * Unfortunately, the specific problem with Draft:NIRU Group is that the references are not independent. I encourage you to read Wikipedia's policies on primary sources and independent sources if you haven't already, as they explain at a higher level why Wikipedia has chosen to require the sources it does. The De Beers reference is written in the first person plural, which suggests that someone from NIRU wrote it themselves. That means it may not be independent coverage, as it likely comes from the company itself. Four of the other five references are press releases (they either explicitly say "Press release" on the byline or are from a "world news service" that functions similarly), which also lack independence from the company. The last reference (from diamonds.net) is an interview, which can be used to verify simple facts but is still a primary source, which must be limited to a restricted role as it too lacks independence. Thanks, /wiae /tlk  13:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)