Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 January 15

= January 15 =

06:30:21, 15 January 2018 review of submission by Yaelfishel
I created this Wiki page to inform others about Carambola Media and not to advertise for Carambola Media. I included info that I felt was necessary for others to completely understand what Carambola Media is and other important details relating to the company. I modeled the page off of previous companies that I saw in Wikipedia and feel that I used a very similar format. I would greatly appreciate it if you can guide me through the process and explain to me how I can improve my article so that it will be published.

Thank you, Moshe Yaelfishel (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As the declining editor, happy to pick this up, but it'll be later today. If someone else looks at it in the meantime, the author may appreciate a second opinion. KJP1 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm hoping KJP1 does still give some feedback on the article, as I'm sure he's the number one person to talk to. There are actually a few issues with the draft, and whilst advertising language is a definite problem, it can be fixed. The wording of the article doesn't feel very Neutral, especially the products section, with "The interactive units create new revenue streams for publishers and a fun, interactive experience for the users" being highly suggestive language. The draft doesn't have many Wikilinks, which should be placed in the text, and link to articles on those subjects. Without knowledge of Video Advertising; I had litterally no idea what the company did from it's lead section. On top of this, something that isn't advertising is the sentence:

"In its inception, Carambola partnered with AOL to launch their in-video product in the U.S. in 2013, introducing, what AOL called, "the world's first automated video enrichment platform."[1] This is ok wording, however the citation used doesn't mention the quotation at all. Generally, with any quote, we need a reference to say that it was said, otherwise we are putting words in people's mouths. I've only had a brief glance at the article, and I hope my insights are helpful, but KJP1 may well update this with his thoughts as well.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Sorry for the delay in getting back. I endorse all that the above editor has said, my specific concerns are as follows:
 * - There are three sources - this isn't a great number to provide "significant coverage" but they are independent, third-party sources, which is good, but:
 * They all date from 2013, so are in the region of five years old. Is there nothing on the company from 2013 to 2018? The absence of any coverage after the funding rounds suggests to me that the company's not Notable.
 * The first source is used in the lead, to support the AOL quote. But it doesn't. AOL is not mentioned in the source, and the quote doesn't appear. A reference supporting a quote needs to do just that. Yours doesn't, which is concerning. Where does the quote come from?
 * The other two sources support the funding claims but that's it. Have a look at Notability (organizations and companies) This says "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" OK, you've got two, but all they cover are two bouts of seed funding in 2013.
 * What's not sourced? - this is the heart of my concerns. You have the following statements, "the world's first automated video enrichment platform". It may be a claim to Notability but it's not sourced, as we've seen above. "high user engagement", "a unique, editorial user experience", "the most relevant, engaging content and the best yielding programmatic advertising", "new revenue streams", "a fun, interactive experience". In each instance, the language is promotional, and, in my judgement, is clear advertising, without any supporting sourcing. In short, nothing at all about the article is sourced, except the seed-funding details, and the tone of all the content that is not sourced is promotional. In my book, that is advertising. Have a look at What Wikipedia is not. This says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." I think your unsourced content fails to meet this requirement.
 * Conflict of interest - I see this is the only article on Wikipedia you've ever contributed to. Can I ask, do you have a connection to the company? If you do, you need to declare the conflict, and you're not the best person to write about it.
 * I hope this is helpful in setting out my concerns. If you disagree, you can resubmit. It may be that another editor will take a different view. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

10:33:10, 15 January 2018 review of submission by 103.206.174.13
103.206.174.13 (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Worldbruce, If the person isn't so famous, how can he be given awards or get mentions in the Hindu? If you(Wikipedia) it always rely on citations and their value, bring in tamil people and listen to SUJITH's lectures. Whatever I've typed in the article, are true facts and The valuable information about him aren't registered because, they're only in videos and, Wikipedia has to trust people who create and not just rely on citation citation citation! Right?!
 * Hi . I'm actually not sure which article you are referring to, but it may this revision of your user talk. Even if an article is on another version of Wikipedia (Say the Hindi Wikipedia), it doesn't mean that it will pass the notability guidelines of the English site. Please read WP:GNG. Also, note that it's rare for YouTube, Twitter to be reliable references; and definately not in this case.


 * If I've been mistaken, and it was another page you had created, let me know.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Lee correctly sussed out the topic the questioner is talking about. It has also been submitted by as Draft:Sujith Kumar.


 * One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is ... living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." If you wish to be an effective contributor, there's no getting around "citation citation citation!"


 * Notable is not the same as famous. If receiving an award is covered by independent, reliable sources, as, for example, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is, then that coverage helps demonstrate notability. Awards that are covered only by the awarding organization and recipients do nothing to show notability. The draft cites no sources for Kumar's awards.


 * The Hindu mentions many people who are not notable, in other words not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. They are a newspaper, Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia's notability criteria require more than a brief mention of a person, they require significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. The draft has been declined twice for failing to show that Kumar is notable. I'm trying to help you understand why so that you don't waste time making changes that won't lead to acceptance of the draft.


 * The Articles for Creation process brings novice editors together with experienced Wikipedians to ensure that new contributions comply with certain basic policies and guidelines. You don't have to follow our advice, but ignoring it could lead to your contribution being deleted, as User:Saisri Pavithraa was, for being unambiguous advertising. You don't have to like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but if you don't you may be happier publishing in alternative outlets that have different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

16:49:06, 15 January 2018 review of submission by RosePouton
Hi there, I submitted an article a couple of months back about a local celebrity who I believe qualifies as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. She already features in one article on wikipedia about "The Voice" Season 5 but I feel she now needs her own page. The page has been reviewed and the person reviewing it rejected it on the grounds she is not notable enough. However I've read the guidelines again and I cannot see the issue. Would you be able to help me please?

The Page is Chloe Castro. I have included articles about her in the Telegraph, The Chronicle and The Northern Echo. There are more I can include if necessary, I just chose the most relevant citations.

Thank you very much.

Rose

RosePouton (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Many of the publishers cited by Draft:Chloe Castro are reliable. The Daily Mail is not (see WP:DAILYMAIL) so I have removed it. The Daily Express should be used with great caution (see WP:PUS). I recommend replacing it if you can find a more trustworthy source. The Cheat Sheet and Conversations About Her are obscure. They may be reliable, but better known sources might be more persuasive.


 * WP:MUSICBIO excludes, for the purposes of notability, "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", which is what the 103.4 Sun FM source is ("Chloe popped into the Sun FM studios to tell us more about what she has been up to"). Self-promotion is not the route to an encyclopedia article. The guideline also says singers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." Almost all the sources are about her participation in The Voice. Does 160 words in Conversations About Her show that she's notable independent of The Voice? Most experienced editors will say no.


 * The other problem is that the draft doesn't have much to say about her, and if the single she's giving away doesn't lead to a professional career, there may never be enough encyclopedic content to justify a stand alone article. Under the circumstances I think it's best to continue covering her in the context of The Voice UK (series 5) rather than in a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:22:43, 15 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Poojamehndiratta
I got the following response from Wikipedia: This submission appears to be taken from http://punjabstar.com/en/baljinder-sekha-carved-a-niche-for-himself-and-the-punjabi-community-in-canada/. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

The article I submitted to Wikipedia was also sent to Baljinder Sekha for approval. He sent it to the Punjab Star News too to be used as news. I have the letter from Punjab Star Editor stating that the article was provided by Baljinder Sekha.

I don't have the copyrights for the article I wrote. Please guide.

Poojamehndiratta (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Poojamehndiratta - What is your question? If you are saying that you have permission to use the copyrighted story for Wikipedia, then please read Wikipedia's more detailed explanation that permission is not enough, because we need a very specific and extreme type of copyleft permission to release the copyrighted material to all in the world.  So you will have to rewrite the story in your own words if you want to submit it to Wikipedia (and it will also have to pass notability and other guidelines}.  If you are saying that you do not have copyright permission and so you want to know what to do, you may either do nothing more (because your original submission has already been deleted) and leave it alone, or you may rewrite it in your own words and submit it, in which case it will still have to be notable and otherwise pass our standards.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , regarding now deleted Draft:Baljinder Sekha, you can't just copy and paste content from the web to wikipedia. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

20:07:30, 15 January 2018 review of submission by 176.58.150.3
176.58.150.3 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)