Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 May 9

= May 9 =

06:35:09, 9 May 2016 review of submission by Shanta R Yapa
I have written about Innovation Tautogram, a novel innovation tool I developed. It is published in www.innovationmanagement.sw and innovationexcellence.com. I am the creator of this tool. However, I have not mentioned my name (Shanta Rajapaksha Yapa) in the draft assuming that you will consider same as a violation of your rules. How would the readers know who introduced this tool to the world? Is mentioning my name (name only) a violation of wikipedia rules?

Thank You!

Shanta Rajapaksha Yapa

Shanta R Yapa (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The draft cannot be approved whether it mentions your name or not, because it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about it should be included in Wikipedia. It is not clear that the product has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.


 * Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn. Products are not entitled to an encyclopedia article. Only those that have been written about at length in arms-length, reliable, secondary sources, are included. Articles must be based primarily on such sources. The draft cites no sources independent of the creator of the product.


 * Based on these sources the subject does not appear to be a suitable topic for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:47:04, 9 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ArchitectureZMJ
Hi,

I have been working on a submission since few months now. I really tried to follow the wikipedia rules especially regarding the reliable sources. The article that I wrote is full of sources from national newspaper such as the Guardian, the Evening Standard, The Financial Times... Even though I have been told that it was not enough... So I feel a bit lost. Is anyone could help me? Thanks

ArchitectureZMJ (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've replied at length on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your input and please see my reaction below. --ArchitectureZMJ (talk) 12: 59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply. I had a look at the article you mentioned. It's quite hard to compare as BuckleyGrayYeoman obviously doesn't have the same historical background as those practices. I also looked at all the current practices that are active on the UK market and most of them have been allowed to have their own article on Wikipedia. Some of them even have long lists instead of a proper text, without any national references (Stanton Williams, Allies and Morrison, Squire and Partners, Assael...). So I don t really get the consistency of Wikipedia rules. Also, BuckleyGrayYeoman has been ranked as No48 in the AJ 100 best architectural practices. Being part of the top 50 should allowed the studio to have his own page. The two books that you mentioned are published by the practice itself. So I am not sure it could be a selling point,m


 * Thank you for bringing substandard articles to our attention. If Allies and Morrison cannot be improved, it probably will be deleted. 1000 pages are deleted every day. Stanton Williams also needs improvement, but the fact that one of their buildings won a Sterling Prize suggests that sufficient suitable sources to demonstrate notability exist, even if they haven't been added to the article yet. It would help your case if BuckleyGrayYeoman has won a Sterling Prize.


 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The existence of content that does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines doesn't mean that some authority has allowed an author to violated them, it simply means that no volunteer has gotten around to cleaning up the mess. Don't use the existence of poor content as an excuse for creating more of the same.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has articles about notable companies, but is not a directory of companies (or companies in the top N positions on any list). You say that it's hard to compare BGY to BuroHappold Engineering and Sharpe, Paley and Austin because it "obviously doesn't have the same historical background." What an editor more concerned with the quality of the encyclopedia than with a particular company is apt to hear is "obviously doesn't belong in Wikipedia." Also understand that this is not Facebook or LinkedIn, no company has its own article on Wikipedia. No one owns an article. Once created, it is edited mercilessly.


 * Two essays, "Other stuff exists" and "FAQ/Organizations", explain these issues in greater detail.


 * It's possible that in-depth sources about BGY exist, but haven't been found. You can try visiting a good research library and searching their collection and the databases they have access to. You could also ask for help from WikiProject Architecture. With their subject knowledge they may be able to suggest possible sources that haven't been considered yet. Otherwise I suggest waiting a few years to see if in-depth coverage gets published. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:32:59, 9 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Anonjourna
Hello and thank you. I'm inquiring about what additional third-party verification I would need for a submission for the film producer Dasle Armin Johnson. My submission was rejected on the grounds that the subject wasn't notable. I had linked to Mr. Johnson's film credits for Executive Producer and Producer at IMDb, which is the entertainment standard database for the who's-who in the world of entertainment. I'm confused how this subject could be deemed not notable enough for inclusion. And I'm curious what further reference I would need to support the citations already made to IMDb. –Thank you so much.

Anonjourna (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * IMDB is user-generated. Therefore it is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference. See External links/Perennial websites for further explanation. Significant coverage across multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources is required to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

19:14:13, 9 May 2016 review of submission by FranceOTBP
I thought I wrote this very neutrally, was trying to only provide a "definition" ...what am I missing and how can I correct it?? FranceOTBP (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to write neutrally about your own company, which is one of the reasons why our conflict of interest policy discourages it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)