Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 November 30

= November 30 =

13:31:56, 30 November 2016 review of submission by Mark Stuart Betts
Hi, I have completed a draft for The Association for Psychological Therapies, but I have been advised that it 'reads promotionally, like an advertisement'. Can you recommend any changes that I could make in order to get it approved (is there is anything I need to add/delete etc.). Any help would be appreciated. Regards, Mark

Mark Stuart Betts (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mark. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  I took a look at your draft and found that I agree with the reviewer.  Your draft is little more than a description of the various courses offered by the association.  Drafts such as this typically do get viewed as "promotional" and as "advertising" for those courses.  I also noted that most of the references in the article don't address the association itself.  Instead, they are cites to websites of clients, who simply announce that they won one of the various awards offered by the association.  As for substantive sourcing, it all seems to come from the association's website itself.  And so, I think that promotion/advertising is not the only difficulty you will face in getting this draft approved.  It also fails to establish that the association is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word.  For that, you will need to find reliable third-party sources (not the association's clients) that discuss the association in depth.  I hope this response was helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

14:14:44, 30 November 2016 review of submission by Biancaharms
I wrote an article for the european media management association and sent it for review. The existing article is referring to the previous name of the association which has been changed in 2014 from european media management education association to european media management association. I tried to solve it by requesting a re-direct. However this was wrong. This new article should become available and the article with the old name should have a redirect to the new one. How can I arrange this?

Biancaharms (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm afraid that is not how we handle name changes. You should add the new information to the existing article (while preserving the history of the subject) and then move it to the new name. We do not completely replace an existing article with a new one from scratch. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've updated the mainspace article and moved it to its new name. I've also declined your submission as (now) being a duplicate of that mainspace article.  The only thing left for you to do is to request a deletion of your submission, by placing the template db-author at the top of it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

20:09:09, 30 November 2016 review of submission by Sbhagwandin
Hey there. I have a question about Draft:Leanplum, which was recently deleted. The article was removed as a speedy deletion, but I don't believe it was unambiguously promotional — the content was actually quite similar to articles like Mixpanel and Appboy, which Wikipedia editors recently voted to keep.

I brought this up with the reviewer but they gave an evasive answer, so I thought I would ask here. I created a new user space draft with the old content for comparison (and I included the noindex template). Based on the reviewer's response, it sounds like the main problem is that the page was rejected several times, but the final content of the page is pretty clearly comparable to other tech startup entries, so I don't think it should have qualified for speedy deletion. Sbhagwandin (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, S. I took a look at the company website included in your user-space draft, and learned that there is a Stefan Bhagwandin who is a Social Media Intern at the company.  Do you have a conflict of interest here?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't, although the most recent draft was written/submitted by my acquaintance User:Adammathias, in any case. I was just following up but I can ask him to weigh in if you're more comfortable with that. — Sbhagwandin (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

23:03:59, 30 November 2016 review of submission by 188.141.10.245
This draft was previously rejected on the basis that it was a Neologism and that "Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability."

It's also not clear to us why the previous references were not considered independent, reliable and published - as they quite clearly are. In any case, the piece has now been expanded in terms of references and re-submitted. We would also suggest reading about the filmmaker himself, corresponding references on his own Wikipedia page and references on the pages of his body of film work.

Thank you very much for your attention - we appreciate this is a difficult area, but repeat that we fully believe this Neologism appears legitimate.

188.141.10.245 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  I took a look at your draft and found that I agree with the reviewer.  The neologism appears to be used only in connection with Jones himself or with his Nola film.  If I missed a reference that discusses it independently of Jones, please let me know.  But if not, a stand-alone article on the neologism is not only inappropriate, but also strikes me as promotional (of Jones and his film).  I also think a stand-alone article is unnecessary because much of the material in your draft could easily find a home in the article on Jones.  At best, I can see having the term used as a "re-direct" to Jones's article.  If that's acceptable to you, I'll be happy to do it (providing other reviewers don't voice any concerns about that approach).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC) with slight amendment by NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)