Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 April 16

= April 16 =

03:44:23, 16 April 2017 review of submission by The Brook Shelf
Hello, my article has been rejected several times now always for the same reason. I have taken the steps suggested in seeking assistance in how I should edit my page in order for it to be accepted including going to the Tearoom and the help desk. I updated the article with the suggested edits, but the most recent comment left by the article reviewer states " for all the same reasons as before". If someone would be able to point out specifically which part of the article is not compliant it would be very helpful. Thank you for you time and patience helping with this article. The Brook Shelf (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The Brook Shelf (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, The Brook. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  It is oftentimes helpful to contact the individual reviewers to ask for more explanation as to why they declined your article.  You can find their names and Talk page buttons in each of the "decline boxes" that appear near the top of your draft.  Before posting here, I took a look at your submission and found that I too would have declined it, because you haven't demonstrated that the subject is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word.  We generally require that "notability" be demonstrated by showing that the subject has received substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  And what I saw in your draft were a few magazine articles that were not about the subject, but that merely included a brief quote or two from him.  Another reference was largely an interview (and these count very little when demonstrating notability, because an interview is largely a person talking about himself).  You need to show that this particular hedge fund manager is somehow worthy of encyclopedic interest, and you have not yet succeeded in doing that.  On less substantive notes, you should not be including your Wiki-signature or time stamps in the drafts (as currently appear in two locations).  Also, you probably want to read our guidance on referencing, WP:REFB, for information on how to present your references in a standard format.  And I see that another editor has already removed the ridiculously long listing of directorships that appeared in the infobox, but that's just a start.  There is still far too much data in there, and none of it is sourced.  And some of it appears to be patently false.  Are you really telling the reader that the subject is known for developing exchange traded funds?  Isn't it much closer to the truth to say that he makes a living by running one?  And is the subject really a Director of the American Bar Association?  Perhaps he is but, if so, it needs to be referenced with a reliable source.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)