Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 January 24

= January 24 =

00:03:56, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Linusado66
We have been trying to submit an article for VR't Ventures who is a tech company caputuring celebrated museum exhibitions in virtual reality. They partnered up with MOCA Los Angeles for their first project, and are releasing their second project soon. We cited all the applicable web references but was told this wasn't good enough. What else is needed? I have compared our article with other articles on Wikipedia and they seem to be following the same guidelines so we are not quite sure why our article didn't get approved. Thank you so much! Linusado66 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.


 * It's natural to learn from and reason by example, but it's wiser to work from policies and guidelines such as those linked to from the decline notice on the draft. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The existence of poor articles is not a sound reason for creating more of them. The essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why. If you wish to compare the draft to an example, be sure to use one of Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I took another look at your draft. I still think that it is more about what the company or project says about itself than what others say about it.  However, I hadn't originally commented on the following sentence:  "This one-of-a-kind virtual experience opens up the highly-sought after works of the artist to the masses, forever preserving its impact, long after the closure of the exhibition".  That is marketing buzz-speak, and is the sort of promotional language that has no place in Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

04:16:10, 24 January 2018 review of submission by HickoryOughtShirt?4
I think I accidentally created a page and then moved it into draft space. For some reason I could not figure out how to create an article as an auto-confirmed user. Is there a way to fix this? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there is currently a note on my draft that says, "Warning: The page Matthew Highmore redirects to Draft:Matthew Highmore. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title." however I was the one who created that page in the first place. I moved it into draft space as there was a note on top saying I misplaced it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Everything seems to be in order. The warning is present because the sequence of actions was unusual, but you're aware of that and it was your intention for the page to be in draft space awaiting review, which it is. AfC is very highly backlogged, so please be patient. While you wait, keep calm and carry on editing Wikipedia :-) Worldbruce (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a relief. In the future, should I just click the little move icon in the top corner to avoid AfC? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as an auto-confirmed user, using the move function is one option for you. If you've had a Draft article template on it while under development, then in order to avoid an error message you'll want to remove the template before publishing the page to mainspace. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll now know to do that from now on. Can I do it now on my draft to avoid waiting about two months or is it too late?HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You may do it now if you wish. AfC can look like a quagmire from which it is impossible to extricate oneself, but it is an entirely optional process. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you see if I moved this properly? Matthew Highmore I didn't move it properly and I cannot move it into article space because I accidentally created the page already. I'll ask an admin for help. Thank you, you were very helpful! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

12:20:13, 24 January 2018 review of submission by 213.150.1.136
The article about Kontakt. The Art Collection of Erste Group and ERTSTE Foundation is the English version of the same entry, which exists in the German wikipedia. There it has been fully accepted and is published under: Kontakt. Die Kunstsammlung der Erste Group und ERSTE Stiftung In the English version, there are also many links to the artists, to the website, so I see no reason why this article should be declined!


 * Hello, I took the liberty to clean up your question, and you talk page. I hope you don't mind. There are three things that are at play with your submission; that I will inform you of. First, if this has been translated from, or taken from the German Wikipedia, you do need to denote that you have translated it (Or, it's a copywrite issue.) See Translating German Wikipedia. You will need to add tag to the page.


 * Secondly, the German page has some referencing to back up what it's saying, which is what notability on Wikipedia, and therefor the inclusion of articles is based on. Your article does not have this, you will need to add them.


 * And thirdly, even if you were to add the German wikipedia references to your article (Which I would recommend), it would not be enough to prove notability on the English Wikipedia. The different language wikipedia pages have different levels of what they deem notable. Search for papers, or other places that have reliable sources that mention the subject in depth.


 * Hope this helps,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

19:46:19, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Mckaystewart
I included two references from "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So, why is this listed as the reason my addition was rejected? This is so confusing.

Mckaystewart (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Draft:McKay Stewart, Actor and Stuntman was deleted for infringing the copyright of http://www.courierherald.com/news/former-plateau-resident-lands-role-with-marvel-t-v-series/ . I suggest that instead of attempting to write the article yourself you ask at Requested articles that an article be created. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

20:28:32, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Bbarmadillo
Please share your point of view on Draft:Don Morrison (mountaineer). This is a COI entry properly stated. The person is deceased and he is quite notable in mountaineering world. has declined the submission stating that every fact should have a proof-link. Truly supporting this approach in general, I would like to evaluate/verify two things with the community. 1) Are we facing a bit of a Crusade against paid editors here? Would it pass AfC had it not been a COI contribution? The article is quite well referenced and looks better than some of the articles that happily passed AfC. I think it qualifies at least as a stub. 2) The text was prepared by Morrison’s relatives. It uses all the known sources as well as some details that they know as a family. Trimming down the text only to referenced facts would kill around 60-70% of the content. Being an inclusionist I don’t support that. What do you think? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally treat COI editors the same, and I think it's unfair to point the blame here and say that Theroadislong is discriminating against paid editors. You'll find numerous editors who work for pay who pass their articles through AfC without much interference- and that's because the articles are well written and notable in the first place. With regards to the article itself- it is Wikipedia policy that any editor can remove an unsourced claim- so if Theroadislong wanted, they'd be entitled to strip the article down to its bare facts. The onus is on the editor adding the content to be able to prove the facts are correct. Theroadislong is correct- there's some storytelling going on (e.g. with the quotes from the biography) but on the whole I'd probably pass it myself with a few more sources/the unsourced bits removed. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)]
 * thank you for sharing your point of view. I am not blaming anyone (esp. since actually helped me a lot in the past with his exact comments and fair feedback), just asking. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you did trim the article down to what is sourced I would accept it, but with so much additional fluff and puff that is unsourced I'm not happy to. Killing around 60-70% of the content would be a great improvement. Since when has personal knowledge been acceptable in ANY article let alone a paid one? Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Unverifiable content must be removed. Being an "inclusionist" has nothing to do with the matter. Content from "personal knowledge" clearly violates the Verifiability policy and its removal is not up for discussion/negotiation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, thank you for a fair and straightforward feedback. Very helpful! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

23:41:28, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Audiophilela
I believe that this is a notable company in the industry of acoustics that services big-name clients and businesses. What in the article should be omitted or added to aid in the creation of this article? Thank you. Audiophilela (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm very happy to respond to this, as the latest reviewer to Decline, but it won't be until later today. KJP1 (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hi, as requested, I've had another look at this, but I'm afraid I still agree with the two other reviewers who declined the draft as an advertisement for a non-notable company. Although it has a range of sources, and these are properly cited which is good, they are all niche trade magazines, in three instances the same magazine. The Notability criteria for companies and organisations is set out here, Notability (organizations and companies). The section on sources' audiences states, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (my italics). On my reading, and on that of the other two reviewers, the sources are just too specialised to meet that requirement. Also, to me, the draft does read more like a product-placing advertisement than an objective overview of a notable company drawing on a range of appropriate sources. I see that this is your only editing on Wikipedia. Is there a particular reason why you think the company does warrant an article? KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for taking your time to help out in a timely manner. This company is utilized by many well-known clients as their acoustic consultants for years. They have been one of the few companies to engineer quantum acoustic technology that affect sound far different than traditional acoustics. This development is changing the paradigm of acoustic treatment. I could get more editors to help populate and refine the draft if that helps any further. I do want the draft to be as neutral and objective as possible. Thank you. Audiophilela (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)