Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 April 26

= April 26 =

08:38:16, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Vnk414
I've added all the references citations to the Article and I am perfectly sure that the article is ready for it's publication and Important Note the Article is not a single percent related to any promotion of the person, Wikipedi is a free encylopedia everyone here are free to express their views. The person in article has achieve a great place in Aviation, so I doesn't think that the Article is promoting him as he doesn't requires any promotion, the Article is created so that the People could easily get information about him as Wikipedia is an easy acces Encyclopedia,Regards Vnk414 Vnk414 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - "the Article is not a single percent related to any promotion of the person". No, more like 100% promotion, with very weak sourcing, mainly comprising interviews with Chui. It's been deleted as advertising before, and I suspect it will be again. KJP1 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

10:26:36, 26 April 2018 review of draft by Lefurmusic
Hi There,

I am needing for some help to submit a draft for review. Could you help me with the process please ? I first tried this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AFC_submission/draft) but it looks I am not allowed to use this function.

This is the Draft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Le_Fur

Best Regards,

Lefurmusic (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - I have submitted this on your behalf.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

16:57:32, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Matthew w green
My article which is at Draft:Trackvia was rejected as not notable. However, when looking at similar articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airtable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoho_Corporation

The attribution for these article seem similar and of similar relevance.

Also, the editor who reject works for a company (Google) which in many ways is a competitor to Trackvia. This seems a conflict of interest. Should he have not recused himself?

What am I missing.

Thank you for any help

Matthew w green (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and articles should not be compared. Potential COIs aside, I agree with the reviewer. The submission is very short with minimal notability demonstrated. Perhaps expanding the submission with more information and mainstream sources should help.  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

18:16:33, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Riptide360
Draft:Hope Services

Riptide360 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Draft:Hope Services Riptide360 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC) I've updated the pages with additional citations and added a current news event story (exNFL player rapes Hope Service client) to address user:DGG's lack of notability concern. Can someone look at the page and let me know if this entry now qualifies for inclusion into Wikipedia? If it doesn't can we make it as a stub for me to continue to work on it as there are currently no Wikipedia entries for developmentally disabled organizations in California (something that affects 1 in 7 kids).
 * - I haven't reviewed the article, but will do so. However, using the alleged rape of a vulnerable client to seek to boost the Notability of the draft's subject seems very questionable. Surely there are other ways to demonstrate Notability? KJP1 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Agreed. Thanks for agreeing to review, and if you are able to approve creating the page without mention of the incident I'm all for deleting the reference. I've left the victim's name off the entry, and the only relevancy is that she is a client and using the service to look for meaningful employment. Riptide360 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm not sure you're getting my point. My concerns are: it's an ongoing case and the alleged perpetrator hasn't been convicted of anything, which your statement above overlooks; the need to protect the anonymity of the alleged victim; the potential impact on the reputation of the centre. My point is simply whether your desire to have a Wikipedia article on the subject should outweigh these concerns. That's what I'm asking you to think about. KJP1 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You steered the draft off-track after it was declined. Quality of sources is much more important than quantity. Try to remove or replace references published by the organization, that mention the organization only briefly, or that are routine coverage. I've added two better sources to a "further reading" section. If you don't have access to the one that requires a subscription, WP:RX can help you. A third source, the case study, is less ideal, but may reference better sources. In-depth sources like the 60th anniversary Merc piece should be able to support more content than just two sentences. See WP:NAMEDREFS for how to cite a source more than once. If you want to contrast the draft with a high-quality article about a non-profit, see Seacology. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further reading section. The article now has 10 cited references - 5 of them from the local San Jose Mercury News. 2 of the references are from the organization itself that I've removed. The current court trial incident has been removed. I'll give it another look through and will be resubmitting it for review. Thanks for the helpful input.Riptide360 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

20:46:51, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Matthew w green
I believe now that I have a misunderstanding of notability. Does it have more to do with citations or with the reviewers outside attempt to discover notability? I am familiar with one company's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibotta) which was accepted. The 'Trackvia' page references 'similar' sources (i.e. BBC vs. NYT, etc). Perhaps BBC is not considered a reliable source? Not certain. Would someone be willing to point out why that submission has greater notability than my draft? Again, Thanks for the help. Matthew w green (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Matthew, have another look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That essay shows why it's not profitable to try to argue for the acceptance, or retention, of one article by referencing another. Wikipedia's a constant work in progress and there are articles on here that shouldn't be. In time, they'll hopefully be identified and improved or removed. You need to look at the issues relating to your draft and try to address them. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

20:57:48, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Kmbrannelly
How do I add our corporate logo our page? How do I reformat the table on my page to be located on the right side our our page? Kmbrannelly (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - A missing logo is the least of this draft's issues. It's a completely unsourced advertisement and you clearly have an undeclared Conflict of interest. I've reviewed it and tagged it for deletion. Wikipedia isn't a marketing platform. KJP1 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

22:20:26, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Yadesa Bojia
I designed a flag of a continent, why am i considered not worthy? i attached an official press release from African Union, a story that was written about me from University of Washington and Seattle's local newspapers. Yadesa Bojia (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hi, there are a number of issues to think about here.
 * Autobiography - you're trying to write an article about yourself. This guideline shows why that's not a great idea.
 * Notability (events) - it's a difficult call to decide if one event, in your case designing the AU flag, equates to Notability. Two reviewers, one being me, decided it didn't but others may take a different view.
 * Inline citation - either way, you should put the citations inline, so that readers can see what content they are supporting.
 * Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

22:48:49, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Ashleemann
My draft was declined because of notability. All three references would be considered notable. I see similar pages with references that are less likely to be notable, but are published. I would like clarification why this page was declined, while IGEL Technology has references that are blogs and less verifiable.

Thank you. Ashleemann (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Ashleemann. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)