Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 March 23

= March 23 =

07:09:53, 23 March 2018 review of submission by Mukund01
I have made drastic changes to the article. Please review again. It certainly is rewritten.

Mukund01 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . On your behalf I have submitted Draft:Tomáš Hudlický for review (it seems that the submit button was inadvertently lost when copyrighted material was removed). You can expect the draft to be reviewed within the next two months or so. There is a PD-self template on the draft that you probably intended to place on File:Tomáš Hudlický.jpg instead. You should move the template, or the image will be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

09:22:08, 23 March 2018 review of submission by SaranyaRethas
THE SOURCES ARE RELIABLE INDEED.!!! ALL THOSE ARE PUBLIC NEWS PAPERS THAT GIVES THE INFORMATION. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chrissymad|Chrissymad The Nelson DilipKumar's name is not mere mentioned in those pages, they are reliable and confirms that the movie is already completed and it is directed by him. I am not sure what more reliable sources you would like to have and more information you need.

Please don't decline an article just for the sake of doing it.

I have changed the contents more than 6 times and everytime its the same comment. SaranyaRethas (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, The New Indian Express is a reliable source, and the draft is finally doing a better job of referencing it. However, the cited articles lack in-depth information, or independence, or both. An interview in which Dilipkumar promotes his work, with no analysis by the interviewer, does not help show notability. The same is true of articles based wholly on press releases and tweets from Dilipkumar. Wikipedia will not publish a biography of Dilipkumar at this time because he is not notable. No amount of editing can fix that problem. You can revisit the topic in a year or two, he may become notable by then. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

14:07:04, 23 March 2018 review of submission by 45.127.52.73
Hi,

I'm trying to publish a document for Biography of a IAS officer. Please check my submission and guide me why it's not getting approved as I am not getting the issue.

Thank you

45.127.52.73 (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left an explanation on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

14:32:56, 23 March 2018 review of submission by VLHudson
{{{Lafc|username=VLHudson|ts=14:32:56, 23 March 2018|link=Draft:Vermont_Public_Utility_Commission}} Thanks for the prompt input on the article I created for the Vermont Public Utility Commission; however, MatthewVanitas' message baffles me. If it's just a matter of removing the link to the PUC Web site, that's one thing; however, to imply in any way that a governmental agency that has existed since 1881 is not "notable and worth of inclusion in an encylopedia" (especially when the Vermont PUC is among many throughout the USA) makes little sense. Moreover, its a page virtually identical to content appearing under an existing Wikipedia page titled with its old/former name: Vermont Public Service Board). VLHudson (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" means that Draft:Vermont Public Utility Commission fails to demonstrate notability, not that the organization is necessarily non-notable. The "virtually identical" existing page has the same problem and needs improved referencing in order to be kept. The other thing to note is that when an entity changes its name, Wikipedia doesn't create a second article, but updates any existing article to show both names (as has been done already). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for the response. I am the one who updated the existing Vermont Public Service Board page to reflect the new name, and created the PUC article for presence when users search for the Vermont Public Utility Commission; also, as the someone fascinated by its history, I thought I could expand on the explanation of what the PUC is and how it began. Given that the current PSB page has existed since 13 September 2008, based on its history (and had no references to problems, etc., when I first visited it, etc.) it's unclear why, after 10 years of existing on Wikipedia, it suddenly has a "problem and needs improved referencing in order to be kept." what purpose does Wikipedia wish to serve (to educate people is what I thought)? The Vermont PUC is in the news - and nationally - frequently, especially in regards to wind energy, so - again - "notability" seems subjective rather than objective, especially since Wikipedia has at least one existing page for a company that I know for a fact doesn't really exist and is a fraud. And the "notability" of that page includes links to business / trade mags that just regurgitate the company press release. In the end, this seems much ado about nothing.
 * See WP:PURPOSE and WP:NOT for an explanation of the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:ARTICLEAGE for an explanation of why the age of an article is irrelevant to the question of whether it does or doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Bruce is a little blunt but not wrong, but to nuance it a bit I'll note:
 * "Vermont PUC is in the news" is exactly what we want; if a page is too much just reciting what the subject says about itself, that's not actually educating the reader. But if as you say outside experts are observing and analyzing the PUC, then that is the kind of insight that should appear in the article.
 * The current page Vermont Public Service Board is based entirely on what the PSB says about itself, that's the problem. It doesn't mean it's flat-out wrong, it just means the reader is not being provided with any external insight, and that the page is in danger of simply being another "About Us!" page for the subject.
 * It's fine (and standard) to have a link to the PUC itself under "External links", you just shouldn't be citing the subject itself for anything other than utter basics like when it was founded, where it's based out of, etc. You should be citing external observers like books and newspapers for any "claims to fame" the subject has.
 * If I understand you right, Draft:Vermont_Public_Utility_Commission isn't a new topic, it's just a revamp of the existing article since the name has changed, is that correct? In that case there is no need to create a new Draft, simply update Vermont Public Service Board and ask that it be moved to its new official name. I assume that the name change is indisputable, it's still the same org but just a different name? If so you can just update the bolded term in the first sentence, and add a line to the intro saying "It was called X but in 2017 the name was changed to Y". If you do that, and ping me on my Talk page, I can move the entire article to its current name. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:13:13, 23 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaushini Peiris
Kaushini Peiris (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . If User:Kaushini Peiris/sandbox is an autobiogaphy, understand that Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, it is not a place to write about yourself. All articles must cite published, independent, reliable, secondary sources. See Help:Introduction to referencing/1. The draft cites no sources, so it has no hope of being accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

17:53:37, 23 March 2018 review of submission by Inoldland
I created a page for Mobile Reach and the page was declined by Robert McClenon due to it having only one reference to establish corporate notability. I have since added three references for a total of four. Is there anything else I need to do to get the page accepted and published? Inoldland (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To me it reads like an advertisement and the three additional sources are just advertising placings. I'm not seeing anything of the significant coverage from reliable sources necessary to demonstrate Notability. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)