Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 2

= August 2 =

Request on 03:03:25, 2 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RanjitBimrah
RanjitBimrah (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The first reviewer's off-hand comment about birth date may have distracted you from the main problem. To demonstrate notability, there must be significant coverage of Singh in multiple, independent, reliable sources - think Business Standard, The Economic Times, India Today, and the like. Draft:Ranjit Mangal Singh cites no sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to know the submission problem
Hi, I need to know what is the problem with the article of Farhan Sarwar. I have published once but the article will be removed due to self-promotions and now i rewrite the complete article still i am unable to publish my article in the wiki. I need help what is issue occurring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47hamza (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Examining five random references of Draft:Farhan Sarwar:
 * http://www.hsnds.com/about-us/ceo/ is not independent.
 * http://lahoreworld.com, http://www.b2bpakistan.com, and http://doctorshub.biz have none of the characteristics of reliable sources.
 * http://www.customstoday.com.pk might be reliable, but may fail WP:AUD. In any case it contains nothing about Sarwar.
 * Without significant coverage of Sarwar in multiple, independent, reliable sources, the draft cannot be accepted. Based on a sample of the sources cited, the subject does not appear to be a suitable topic for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising, public relations, or self promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the guidance. I have made changes according to your suggestions and add some verified sources. Kindly review it again. Let me know if i am still on the wrong track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47hamza (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

08:40:23, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Jkerouacesq
Hi there, it has been over a month now, can you please review the entry "Oak Felder" for approval? thanks again so much.

Jkerouacesq (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . It has been 17 days since Draft:Oak Felder's latest review. About 250 drafts have been waiting longer, so expect it to take another two weeks for a reviewer to reach it. While volunteers work through this backlog, feel free to chip in and help improve Wikipedia in other ways. See Community portal for things you can do. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

09:10:55, 2 August 2017 review of draft by Udumalai
I can not in paragraphs and separate lines Udumalai (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I've fixed the formatting. See Manual of Style#Section headings and Manual of Style/Lists for more information. The list of references in Draft:Suresh kumar chandrasekhar is unclear. See Referencing for beginners for how to describe your sources so that readers can locate them. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

14:11:20, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Bennieandthejets
Hello. I have created a draft for the company Applied Systems. As an employee of the company, I have stated my conflict of interest for transparency. I have also attempted to write the article in a factual, nonbiased, non-promotional way. Of the 40 references cited, approximately 10 are from the same company press release about awards our company won back in 2015. My draft was reviewed and has been declined as well as nominated for deletion. The reason provided was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." Without specifics, it is difficult for me to address the concerns. If someone here can provide guidance on how I can get this article added to Wikipedia, it is greatly appreciated. Please note: Three of the private equity firms that have owned or currently own our company have Wikipedia pages about them. Also, our major competitor has an existing page, although it was cited for the same violations the Applied Systems page I drafted. I don't understand why they have been allowed to publish a page with multiple issues and remain on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertafore. Thank you, Bennieandthejets (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Bennieandthejets (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi The other stuff exists argument is unlikely to find any traction with experienced Wikipedians. There's a huge backlog of bad articles that need to be improved or deleted. Their existence is not a good excuse for creating more like them.


 * The list of non-notable and questionably notable awards, if mentioned only by the company or the awarding organization, is likely to be seen as promotional. The company may be very proud of them, but to outsiders they may come across like second-grader Johnny winning the "Most improved hand raising in February" award.


 * The use of trade journals as sources is not prohibited, but they have a limited audience and often a too-cozy relationship with the companies and industry they cover. They, and company press releases, tend to cover things that are not encyclopedic content. Try rewriting using just the highest quality sources: The New York Times, Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, Austin Business Journal, and any similar sources you can find. The problems with the draft are not something that can be fixed in a few hours. It can take years of work to improve a draft to the point where it can be accepted (and, of course, 80% never are accepted). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

15:36:30, 2 August 2017 review of draft by Macinn.es
I'm just looking for general comments at this stage. If the remaining sections are filled out to a similar standard as the current content, will it be likely to be accepted?

And about referencing, I'm concerned I've used a few too many references from the same sources (lots of THE), and a few primary sources. I do hope to be able to change some of them for more diverse sources, but should I make sure I do before submitting it for review, or is it passable as-is?

Macinn.es 15:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Macinn. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.  I don't see anything obviously wrong with the draft so far, although I didn't read through it to check for neutrality and the like.  And we generally do find major legislation to be notable, especially if its effect (or potential effect) on the real world is documented in the article.  As for the diversity of sourcing, I presume some of that will come in when you do the "Reception" section because, of course, that can't be sourced to the legislation itself.  I expect that, given the nature of the subject, it shouldn't be too difficult to find discussion of the law in the general press.  One last point -- in the United States, there are several well-established publishers of legal commentary (e.g., BNA, Prentice-Hall).  These can be useful when describing the provisions of the law, because using them will insulate you from any allegation that you are giving your own interpretation of what the law says.  I assume that similar publishers exist in the U.K. and, if I'm right about that, it will be worth the effort to track them down.  And finally, in case you didn't already know, we have a WikiProject on Law that maintains a fairly active Talk page (here).  The folks there will be able to provide specialised assistance.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I have now filled in all the headings and submitted the draft for approval. As you said, in filling out the Reception section has helped to diversify my sources, and I'll keep checking back for fresh commentary. I've also asked for advice on the WikiProject Law talk page as you suggest. Macinn.es 14:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've placed your draft "under review" and will take a closer look at it later today. I don't foresee any major problems but, if any do arise, I'll get in touch with you.  By the way, you posted your request for assistance in the wrong place -- you posted at Portal talk:Law, which is not the same place as the Talk page for the Law Project.  I doubt you'll get a quick response at the Portal (if, indeed, you get one at all), so you might want to delete it and re-post at the link given in my first response.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

18:24:12, 2 August 2017 review of submission by VM510
Hi there,

My page (CoLAB Planning Series) was declined. I understood that the mod found some peacock terms and language that they didn't feel remained neutral. I went through the article and deleted/edited terms I felt could've been the culprits, and I have also added a new citation from a newspaper (another problem my page might've had). Would you mind going through the article and letting me know if I've fixed the peacock terms and remained in NPOV? Am I on my way to making the article better? If you find some peacock terms/ non-NPOV language, could you point them out to me? Your help will be much appreciated before I feel ready to resubmit. Thanks! VM510 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC) VM510 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Comment left on the draft page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Request on 18:51:13, 2 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mboxcar
Contest speedy deletion

Hello, I created a page, and it was rejected. I made significant edits in response to the feedback I received, and it was rejected again. It is meant to be wholly informational, not advertising. Where am I supposed to go from here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NAVEX_Global

I was told to go to the page and click the button to contest deletion - but no button exists.

Mboxcar (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mboxcar. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the great delay in response.  I'm a bit confused by your question.  It appears that you yourself requested deletion of your draft about two hours after you posted your question here.  If you've changed your mind about it, please let us know.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

19:20:14, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Paigedmckinney
We are confused as to why reviewers our saying that our references do not show that our subject is notable, we would like some clarification on how to best fix this so that our page can get approved. Any suggestions would be helpful, we are just confused as to what we are missing. Paigedmckinney (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Paige. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the great delay in response.  I've left a comment on the draft, suggesting that you might make a better case for notability if you add "wikilinks" to the cited awards and galleries.  If you choose to do this, feel free to drop a note on my Talk page after you've done it and I'll be happy to take another look.  In the meantime, you used the word "we" when asking your question.  Who are you representing here?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)