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

= January 2 =

Request on 03:09:33, 2 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tbilanow
Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and was trying to complete my first entry, but it was rejected and I'm not clear why. I work as a science editor at a major newspaper and am familiar with this organization. My paper has cited it in some stories, and it is the only Alzheimer's organization in a list of major organizations on Wikipedia that does not have it's own page. Sadly, I was aiming to get an article approved in 2016 -- I have been doing this with a friend who had his article approved, we had a bet -- but I'm just unclear on if this organization would EVER get approved, even though it exists in the real world. Tbilanow (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . It's not quite enough that an organisations exist: we only cover topics which are "notable", which for our purposes means that they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. However, I do agree that the reviewer was overly-strict in this case, as you have added plenty of references to the article demonstrating that the Fisher Centre is notable, so I've accepted the submission. Sorry you lost your bet, but I hope it doesn't put you off continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. We definitely need more editors with your experience and expertise! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , merged your later and earlier questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear on why this draft was rejected. I'm new to Wikipedia and was trying to do my first article. It has a lot of citations, including from major newspapers, so I'm unsure why it might not be an acceptable entry. Tbilanow (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Article published. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

05:45:11, 2 January 2017 review of submission by Skumarsys
HI Help Desk,

I have submitted my work three times. first time it was declined saying no proper sources: I have added all possible sources. Next it was told it look like Advertisement.: i have removed things that might look like advertisement.

Can you please help me publish the page in wikipedia.

Skumarsys (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . I understand the AfC can seem like a frustrating exercise in jumping through hoops, but unfortunately not all topics are suitable subjects for Wikipedia articles. In this case I'm afraid I agree with the previous reviewers, this does not appear to be a notable company and therefore is not suitable for inclusion. Additionally, your username suggests you have an association with the company you're writing about, which is against our conflict of interest policy. You should not be here simply to promote your company; we're an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or the yellow pages. A discussion is currently ongoing on whether we should keep your draft. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

06:29:04, 2 January 2017 review of submission by Carackus
Dear Help Desk,

I am requesting assistance with this article I just do not understand why I do not seem to be able to provide the extra reference points required. I keep putting the links in as external links via the editor but it does not link up. I have tried a purge etc. I am very new to this editing process and while I do feel the article and composer is worthy for inclusion cannot afford to invest much more time. I realise everyone is in the same boat and the editing it is all voluntary but I am really struggling to get my head around your protocols. Can you explain" the trivial passing mentions" and "press releases" referred to by your reviewer. SwisterTwister. I did research a number of articles on similar composers including a colleague of mine John McCabe and another composer David Stoll Indeed I researched a number of pages of composers some very eminent to identify a reasonable temple-plate. I am not complaining just struggling to come to terms with the editing process and your protocols. I can verify all the information included in the article. Indeed I have photos of much of the premieres and permissions from the publishing company to include these, though again I am struggling with the upload of images. Before I re-submit I can add a lot more external links via the editor but the reference side does not seem to be working. Thank you for any help you can offer with this. Complements of the season to you all. Wikipedia is such a wonderful source of information and you are all to be complemented on this data base, even if I cannot seem to understand all the protocols.

____ Carackus


 * Hello, Carackus. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the delay in response.  The best source of information as to why your submission was declined is the person who reviewed it.  I see that you have already asked for clarification from that person and are awaiting a response.  In the meantime, I'll be happy to offer my own views on your submission.  To me, it seems that you have not succeeded in demonstrating the notability of the subject, which is a demonstration that requires the presence of in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  And I just don't see much of that in your submission.  I see several links to YouTube and several more to mere listings in what appears to be a user-uploaded compendium of musical works.  The web page from the university was almost certainly written by the subject or by someone closely connected to him (and, therefore, not independent of the subject).  The one substantive source (appearing in your list of External Links) is the biography by David Wright.  But even here, there are questions as to reliability and independence.  The author is essentially a self-published blogger.  What's more, the biography is duplicated verbatim on the subject's own website, where it carries two copyright notices -- a 2007 notice for Wright and a 2008 notice for the website.  And moving on to other aspects, I see a great deal of personal detail that doesn't appear in the Wright biography, but still appears in your submission without being referenced to any source whatsoever.  That observation leads me to question whether you yourself are closely connected to the subject and, if so, many of the concerns spelled our at WP:COI will come into play.  And on top of all that, the overall tone of the submission is unencyclopedic, offering too much in the way of puffery and subjective description.  I, too, would have declined the submission had I been its reviewer.
 * As for moving forward, it would certainly be possible to 'clean up' the draft by removing the overly-lengthy listing of what appears to be pretty much every single thing that the subject has ever done, after which the prose could be re-written in an acceptably encyclopedic tone. But right now, all of that would be wasted effort if you are unable to produce reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that discuss him in depth.  You don't seem to have found any thus far and, unless you do find some, no amount of 'cleaning up' will make your submission acceptable for publication.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)