Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 June 30

= June 30 =

09:17:26, 30 June 2017 review of submission by WorldH
I created a new article "Schönburg" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sch%C3%B6nburg) and I think I must have maken a mistkae because this article was never reviewed even though six weeks have passed. Could please anyone explain me how to move this draft in the right space for revision and ensure a fast revision (because it is pending for so many weeks now)? WorldH (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WorldH (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi I moved the page to Draft:Schönburg, you had it as a user page under an invalid username. It has never been reviewed because you have not submitted it. To do so please add {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) to the top of the page. Your other draft Draft:Saaleck is correctly submitted and waiting review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia already has an article Schönburg (Saale), which is supposedly about the municipality but is mostly about the castle. Draft:Schönburg is also about the castle. It might be better to enlarge the existing article, rather than create a second article about the same castle. Maproom (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Review and Namespace
I have made some fundamental edits on my article Draft:Whiteplains British School but it is still awaiting a formal review and approval. Please can anyone help to move it for a formal review and approval for namespace?--Nwachinazo (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been submitted, but please be patient; we're highly backlogged at the moment, but we'll drop you a note as soon as someone reviews it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

11:27:52, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Yuval Filmus
My submission, about a mathematical topic, got rejected since it has no explanation for the average reader. Other articles about mathematical topics similarly contain no explanations for the average reader. My motivation for contributing further articles to Wikipedia in the future is naturally rather minimal at the moment. I was responding to a community call (https://thmatters.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/tcs-wikipedia-project/), but your side has to cooperate as well.

Yuval Filmus (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi The only article you seem to have edited Analysis of Boolean functions is in mainspace, so it has actually been accepted. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. By the way, you might be interested in joining WP:WikiProject Mathematics, you will find other subject specialists there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

✅ accepted draft Dr Strauss   talk  13:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

13:16:27, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Dmurray06
I work for Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company, therefore we own the copyright material on the company's website (www.psmic.com/history.aspx). I realize this creates a COI, but I took special care to make sure the article met the guidelines and requirements of Wikipedia. Is there preferred method for a company to submit an article to Wikipedia? I was under the impression that submitting it in the Editing Wizard, in the specified tone was sufficient. Any guidance you can provide is appreciated Dmurray06 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * COI editors are advised to create drafts as opposed to going straight into the mainspace.  Dr Strauss   talk  13:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:BFAQ. Companies are strongly advised not to submit articles at all. It's almost always a huge waste of time for the company and for Wikipedia volunteers. If a company is foolish enough to think that an article about them would be a good thing (is unfamiliar with the law of unintended consequences), then the preferred way to get an article is to ask at Requested articles. Companies that ignore that advice too, should, as DrStrauss says, submit their proposed article as a draft.


 * So why is your draft being deleted? The company may be able to license the text on their website so that it could be published here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.


 * Even if the company changes the copyright notices on their web page to a compatible license, it likely will be impossible to use the text here. Material on their web page has been written to promote them, a purpose which is incompatible with Wikipedia. Writing an encyclopedia article is an entirely different undertaking. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

16:30:22, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Dmurray06
{{Lafc|username=Dmurray06|ts=16:30:22, 30 June 2017|page= @WorldBruce I'm sorry I thought I was creating a draft using Article Wizard. I was trying to figure out the proper way to disclose my COI. Pioneer State Mutual is a well established Insurance Company that has been in business for over 100 years. All of our competitors have Wikipedia pages. How do you suspect they went about this? Can you please offer a solution of where I should go from here? Dmurray06 (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * {{replyto|Dmurray06}} Hello, D.  Your notification of WorldBruce failed (it was incorrectly coded), so I'll notify him here {{replyto|Worldbruce}}.  I'll also add my own comments.  First, it will help to recognize that, by lifting material directly from your company's web site, your first effort was doomed to failure.  If it hasn't been already, your submission is going to be deleted later today.  So, moving forward means starting a new draft, perhaps in your Sandbox.  Second (regarding the CoI), if your new draft is accepted for publication, someone will slap a "COI banner" on its Talk page.  But you can also add the disclosure to your user page, which you can create by clicking here.  See WP:COI for more information.  And now to the underlying question -- is your company sufficiently notable so as to justify an article on Wikipedia?  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  But you're not going to demonstrate notability simply by quoting what the company says about itself on its web page.  Instead, you are going to need to demonstrate that there is something about your company that caused it to receive substantial coverage from reliable independent sources.  Let's start with Best's Review.  Has that publication ever done a piece on your company?  If yes, then you're well on the way to demonstrating notability.  If not, then you'll need to find other reliable independent sources that devote some in-depth coverage to your company.  For what it's worth, I have a personal fascination with the history of insurance in the United States, so I hope you succeed in demonstrating that this is a notable company.  But frankly, nothing I saw on your web site leads me to think that you will succeed.  It started out in 1908 selling farm fire insurance, but that type of insurance was already commonplace in the U.S. for more than half a century before that.  It then changed to issuing general property coverage.  But so too did many, many others.  You really do need to find something about the company that's worth an article, and it needs to be something more than "we exist and have been around for a hundred years".  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

17:04:34, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Ryanmardini24
I want to know how I can change my Draft in order to make it accepted by the Article Creation. Ryanmardini24 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Question has already been answered at the Teahouse, here. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

21:59:03, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Ncsr11
Translated from Italian language Wikipedia. Request for it to pass based on Italian page w/o references, please.Ncsr11 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Ncsr11 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for your translation. Existence doesn't mean that an article is acceptable to Wikipedia. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. In any case, each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Italian Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. The English Wikipedia's verifiability policy has gotten stricter over the years. These days no AfC reviewer would accept a draft with no references. If she's notable, surely you can find three independent, reliable sources that discuss her at some depth. Someone here might be willing to do it for you, but we're pretty swamped. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)