Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 May 10

= May 10 =

14:43:08, 10 May 2018 reviewed of submission As the Pizza Burns by AshleePowers
Hello, you reviewed the following for my entry and marked it for deletion. "Weakly sourced advert for a book yet to be published. The author's own site and Facebook are neither reliable, nor independent. Author has not declared their clear conflict of interest. Tagging for deletion." " This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." My post was deleted shortly after before I had a chance to adjust and edit it to meet criteria, this was my first article that I had written and am still learning to cite sources appropriately. Additionally, I am not the author of the book. While I am still considered to have a conflict of interest based on my relation to author it would be because I am his editor and project manager, not just his wife. The purpose of the article was not for advertisement, but for sole for informational purposes of publication. The book is currently set to launch in less than two weeks and is available for preorder, and if the author page and fan pages are the only sources of information the only other citations would be for the Amazon website where it is set to preorder. (which to me seemed more like advertisement than anything I had written.) Please help me better understand what I can do to help this article meet criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleePowers (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I reviewed and tagged and can reply to the query shortly. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - OK, responses below:
 * Advertising - I don't know what "for sole for informational purposes of publication" means. To me it was clearly a draft intended, if published, to raise awareness of the forthcoming novel. That's advertising.
 * Sourcing - its sources were the author's site and the author's Facebook. As I indicated in the review, neither is independent, and neither's reliable. They are what the book's author, or his agents say about the book. That's not how we source articles. Sources need to be reliable and independent.
 * Conflict of interest - As the author of the draft - not the book - you have a very, very clear conflict of interest in that you are the book author's editor, project manager and wife. This needs to be declared as a Conflict and our policies on conflict editing followed.
 * Notability (books) - This gives detailed guidance on the Notability criteria for books, including books yet to be published. If you have a read, you'll see that your husband's book doesn't meet the criteria and therefore isn't eligible for an article.
 * I hope this information is helpful. KJP1 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

19:53:47, 10 May 2018 review of submission by Jemowkd
Hi, I urgently need to find out why the submission has been rejected. Please could you provide me with specific points as to what I need to change? Thank you sincerely for your help. Jemowkd (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hi, not sure why this is now urgent as the draft was declined two months ago. The reviewer declined as the sources didn't meet the Notability criteria for companies, NCORP. If you've addressed this and resubmitted, another reviewer will take a look. KJP1 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Examining a random selection of cited sources: both business.london references fail the significant coverage test, and rlc.ventures and thestartupnetwork fail the independence test. The Sunday Times piece behind the paywall got my hopes up, but the whole thing is only 275 words, and it's almost entirely Chowdhry in Chowdhry's own words, with no analysis by the reporter, so it too lacks independence. RLC Ventures does not appear to be a suitable subject for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not for promotion, marketing, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

22:16:06, 10 May 2018 review of submission by Personale
What's the independent source can anyone help thanks :)


 * Hello please read WP:Independent sources which explains what we're looking for. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)