Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 May 25

= May 25 =

01:11:39, 25 May 2018 review of submission by DrThneed
Hi, Just want to query what I should do. I had a book out from the library (The Striped Ships), and saw that the author wiki article linked to some articles for her individual books. The Striped Ships didn't have an article though, so I thought I might dive in and create it. It got rejected as not having verifiable references. I had put the book itself as the reference but maybe without enough detail in my citation of it? I've since put the ISBN and publisher etc in there. But what else should I do? I could maybe put in a 'Critical reception' section and link to Publisher's Weekly review, or something like that, but is that necessary to correct the faults with the article? Thanks for any help you can provide.

DrThneed (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Not every book is suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia article. The official guideline that applies is Notability (books). It calls for "two or more non-trivial ... reviews", but in practice Wikipedians often subject modern fiction to a tougher standard. I've seen drafts/articles citing five or six reviews declined/deleted if they aren't all full-length reviews by professional book critics in top-notch publications.
 * An alternative to creating an article about the book would be to expand Eloise Jarvis McGraw with information about the book. You may find it useful to study some of Wikipedia's best articles about authors: Enid Blyton, Mary Martha Sherwood, Nancy Mitford, and Olivia Manning, to see how their works are discussed in their biographies. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Request on 07:10:29, 25 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Bastien COTTE Fluigent
I'm creating a company page but doesn't seem to meet the criteria regarding references. Would it pass with no citations at this point ? Thank you for your help. Bastien COTTE Fluigent (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

07:14:50, 25 May 2018 review of submission by 60.243.77.155


 * Hello, Your draft has been rejected as according to the reviewer it lack independent, reliable source to pass the notability reimbursements for organisation under Wikipedia guidelines. Pls check if the company meet the notability and if so provide more independent reliable source before resubmit.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Request on 07:14:50, 25 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 60.243.77.155
60.243.77.155 (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

08:30:31, 25 May 2018 review of submission by Vinit Goenka

Request on 08:30:31, 25 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Vinit Goenka
Vinit Goenka (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

08:45:45, 25 May 2018 review of submission by Vinit Goenka

Request on 08:45:45, 25 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Vinit Goenka
Vinit Goenka (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

10:53:43, 25 May 2018 review of submission by Inamabidi
This is a re-submission of a modified article that was deleted earlier. There was an issue with it's tone, which is been taken care of in this new draft. That's why please expedite the review.inam 10:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC) inam 10:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inamabidi (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, . Drafts will never be expedited. It has been added to the back of the queue and will wait like everyone else's.  JTP (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Already declined Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

14:05:03, 25 May 2018 review of submission by Zmunir
I am trying to create a page for Professor Ishfaq Ahmad who is a professor of Computer Science and well known for his contributions in multiprocessor computing and scheduling techniques. Another page exists with the title Ishfaq Ahmad which is for a renowned physicist. I had named the new page Professor Ishfaq Ahmad, but somebody removed the word professor indicating that it is not part of the name. Now I see an error message that the title of the page is not unique and another page exists with the same title. Please let me know how to handle naming of this new page. Thanks Zmunir (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have rename your draft article and you can find it here - Draft:Ishfaq Ahmad (computer science professor). "Services section" is not needed. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ishfaq Ahmad is an IEEE Fellow" meets WP:PROF #3 - in fact #3 uses IEEE Fellow as the example. This should have been simply accepted. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

16:04:20, 25 May 2018 review of submission by DI-prosek
Hello. This is in reference to the submission for CAN Capital, which was rejected because the "references do not adequately show the subject's notability." The reviewer specifically said that there should be "significant coverage into them, not the industry in general."

I've closely reviewed Wikipedia's notability guidelines and I would argue that there at least 8 sources (of 24 sources total) that meet the community's definition of notability. These sources, which are clearly referenced on the draft page, include:


 * "Dan DeMeo's CAN Capital Reinvents Financing for Small Business". Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2014/02/11/dan-demeos-can-capital-reinvents-financing-for-small-business/#61d585a62bf4
 * "Capital Access Network Raises $30M From Accel To Loan Small Businesses Working Capital – TechCrunch". TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/capital-access-network-raises-30m-from-accel-to-loan-small-businesses-working-capital/
 * "CAN Capital: Beyond Hyperbole". deBanked. https://debanked.com/2015/12/can-capital-beyond-hyperbole/
 * "Small-Business Lender CAN Capital Replaces CEO, Promotes Sanz". Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/small-business-lender-can-capital-replaces-ceo-promotes-sanz
 * "CAN Capital Resumes Funding". deBanked. https://debanked.com/2017/07/can-capital-resumes-funding/
 * "Gauging Risk, In 24-Hour Increments". American Banker. http://www.americanbanker.com/magazine/121_9/small-business-lenders-risk-monitoring-electronic-payments-system-1041368-1.html
 * "Banks won't lend? Turn to these guys instead". CNNMoney. http://money.cnn.com/gallery/smallbusiness/2014/07/17/alternative-lending-banks/
 * "Forget the Algorithms. Get Me a Loan Broker!". Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-03/alternative-lenders-still-rely-on-loan-brokers

These sources are all legitimate, independent third-party publications with stories that are either specifically about CAN Capital (or as it was previously known, Capital Access Network) or mention CAN Capital multiple times throughout the article. Therefore, I am asking for clarification on why the submission was rejected and what more needs to be done to improve the page. Thank you for the community's time.

DI-prosek (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I don't think many would agree with you but you can always resubmit and try. To me, it looks like the weakly-sourced, paid-for, advertisement that it is. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * - I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but am still left a bit confused as to what is needed to improve the page. Are the sources not considered notable enough? Is the page not written in a neutral POV? Most significantly, please clarify how the draft can be characterized as "weakly sourced," seeing as it cites articles from Forbes, Bloomberg and TechCrunch (among others) where CAN Capital is the primary subject of the article. I would also contend that the draft being "paid for" should not affect an assessment of the subject's notability: I have disclosed my COI very clearly and have followed Wikipedia's paid editing guidelines to the letter by refraining from creating the article directly and by instead going through the AfC process. Finally, if you believe the draft resembles an "advertisement," I welcome your constructive comments on how to improve the content by making it less promotional. I hope that you and other editors can look past my disclosed COI and judge the notability of CAN Capital based solely on the objective criteria laid out in WP:CORP. Thank you again for your time.
 * Hi . Your premise is that something can be done to improve the draft. If CAN Capital is not notable (notability is not a property of sources, but of Wikipedia article topics; the notability of topics is demonstrated by what sources cover them and the nature of that coverage), then no amount of editing can produce an acceptable draft. Examining a random sample of the cited sources:
 * American Banker is a trade journal. Reviewers are likely to discount such sources for the purposes of establishing notability because of their limited audience and often too cozy relationship with companies in their industry. AB bases a large part of their article on what the company says about itself, which is a bad sign.
 * CNN Money is the best of the sampled sources, but at ~220 words, doesn't go into much depth.
 * deBanked and Bankless Times appear to be in the business of regurgitating press releases. If you are convinced that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, I suggest you seek a consensus at WP:RSN about whether they are reliable sources for demonstrating notability. My sense is that no reputable media would reprint drivel like "Our new easy-to-use online platform will allow small businesses to acquire funds to help them move forward on their journeys to success" without critical commentary.
 * Inc. and Crains are lists, not significant coverage, so they do not help establish notability. Although they are reliable for the fact that company is on those lists, being on those lists has no encyclopedic value. It isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article.
 * Perhaps my random sample missed the draft's good sources. If so, you can improve the draft by ruthlessly pruning it to eliminate weak sources and help the better sources stand out. A good start would be to kill the entire recognition section, which is full of meaningless PR dreck. You've mentioned Forbes several times. The specific piece is in a Forbes blog, which is entirely different from the magazine, and is not a reliable source. In my experience, being profiled in a Forbes blog is almost an indicator of non-notability, showing a desperation for coverage that can't be obtained in legitimate media. Definitely not something to boast about. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bruce, that is much more helpful. I think the deeper issue--here specifically as well as Wikipedia in general--is that the media landscape is changing. I work in financial communications (as I disclose on my user page) and am intimately familiar with each of these publications as both a reader and a PR professional. They ARE legitimate sources within the context of the industry that they're covering. In fact, some of the best reporting anywhere comes from these trade publications. That's certainly not true in 100% of cases, but I specifically picked out sources that I felt were objective and neutrally written. If you (the greater you) limit the definition of "notability" to only stuff covered in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, then that screens out a huge amount of content and takes away from what makes Wikipedia such a great resource in the first place. There just simply aren't enough journalists to cover everything in depth, which is why you see so many so-called "regurgitated press releases." Continuing to treat these publications as unreliable sources only makes the problem worse. To your point on whether the topic itself is notable, alternative lending and specifically small business lending are two of the fastest growing sectors in finance and have been covered ad nauseam by every top-tier publication as well as reputable consulting firms and business schools. I could list of hundreds of articles and studies. CAN Capital is one of the oldest and biggest players in the space, and I hope to prove that point as I continue to work on the page. If you have any further suggestions or thoughts on the issue of reliability/notability, I would love to hear them. Thank you, and looking forward to learning and working more with the Wikipedia community.

DI-prosek (talk)

19:41:06, 25 May 2018 review of submission by Ahanamirza
Hello as u said i read the guidline but my point is i havent mention that the actor is notable, he is just an actor and we should give this article atleast a chance .. i find so many articles of actors where imdb is the only source but they are still having a main space article so my question is why not him ... help with the same thanks

ArtWriterMirza 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it is really not acceptable with IMDB sources only, other pages if you see them it's no one bother to initiate a discussion to delete them based on Notablity Quek157 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)