Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 October 4

= October 4 =

01:11:39, 4 October 2018 review of draft by Tyler mack13
i would like to know if this page would be considered to be acceptable for my client? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Allan_Aziz if so how can i improve it?

Tyler mack13 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Please disclose any conflict of interests or paid editing. Also, unsourced biographies of living people are not accepted. —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 08:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

05:43:02, 4 October 2018 review of submission by Chennai Information Updater
Chennai Information Updater (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

my articles declining all the time ..., am not a paid editor and just provide all details which were available from the internet... Can somebody help me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Star_Martin


 * Please read the comments left by reviewers on the draft. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

10:01:13, 4 October 2018 review of draft by 154.78.234.122
why is my article being declined

154.78.234.122 (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it lacks secondary sources to establish notability. See the decline notices at the top of your draft. —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 10:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

13:06:21, 4 October 2018 review of submission by Lucia S Herrera
We are requesting a re-review for Zangi. Zangi is an established and up and coming company in the tech industry which deserves to be considered notable for the following reasons.

- It's competitors in company size and age are considered notable. For example: RetroShare, Tox, Bitmessage, Ricochet, & Ring are all serverless instant messaging companies who have the same or less amount of sources in quantity, and these sources are not in any publications more prestigious than the updated sources that I have presented on the Zangi wikipedia. - Zangi is an international corporation, developed in an highly recognized tech industry regions like Silicon Valley and Armenia (a google search of Armenia's tech industry would show the countries trending interest in this field). - Another related topic of interest these days is the sort of software Zangi is relevant to. Serverless, Secure Data, decentralized automation for business communication.

I believe that publishers like Reuters (Domain Authority of 94), TG Daily (Domain Authority 98), and Crunchbase (DA 91) are recognized for their legitimacy and should be considered notable.

I hope you will reconsider Zangi, and I look forward to constructive criticism on ways to improve this page to meet Wikipedia standards.

thank you for your time and consideration,

Lucia Lucia S Herrera (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's competitors are irrelevant to its notability on Wikipedia. Articles can be notable while having few sources, notability only requires that these sources exist - although they should be added to the articles. Notability is not inherited from other software or companies.  As for the three sources you pointed out, all your references to Reuters were not produced by them and are hence not secondary and more press releases, so they cannot establish notability; Crunchbase is not considered reliable as it consists of user-generated content (source).  It appears that TG Daily might be a good source, but you need at least 3 good ones to pass WP:GNG (with more specific criteria at WP:NCORP), so as is the article definitely appears to fall short; I haven't looked for others, but if  has said that it's not notable, presumably he's looked.  Note that this can all change with time. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I rejected Draft:Zangi (software) because the sources cited in the draft don't show that Zangi meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. To qualify for an article, a subject needs to have received significant coverage in at least 2 reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here are the sources cited in the draft:
 * Odyssey: Not significant coverage and not a reliable source. See Odyssey (publication). Short mention in a listicle from a crowdsourced publication (user-generated content) with little to no quality control.
 * Medium: Not reliable or independent. Published on Zangi's blog.
 * Bloglovin': Not reliable. Self-published blog.
 * Crunchbase: Not significant. Directory listing.
 * Crunchbase: Duplicate of #4.
 * Trend Hunter: Not reliable. Crowdsourced publication with little to no quality control, according to their FAQ.
 * Zangi Blog: Not reliable or independent.
 * TGDaily: Not reliable. No named authors. Publication has no editorial team.
 * Reuters: Not independent. Story is a "Reuters Brand Feature", which is "a paid for, custom created solution which allows brands to share their story with their target audience on Reuters.com".
 * Interesting Engineering: Not reliable. Site doesn't distinguish between content ads and non-sponsored content.
 * Zangi Blog: Not reliable or independent.
 * Interesting Engineering: Duplicate of #10.
 * Reuters: Duplicate of #9.
 * Reuters: Not independent. "Reuters Brand Feature", just like #9.
 * Reuters: Not independent. "Reuters Brand Feature", just like #9.
 * Microsoft TechNet Gallery: Not reliable. User-generated content.
 * I rejected the draft instead of declining it because an internet search did not reveal any other sources that would meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. My suggestion to you is to focus on your product, and to spend your effort on improving Zangi. As Zangi becomes more notable, it will naturally attract press attention, and you can always submit another draft to Wikipedia when Zangi qualifies for an article in the future. —  Newslinger  talk   22:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please take a moment to review Wikipedia's policy on paid contributions. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   23:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

15:11:44, 4 October 2018 review of draft by Bmasi
Have I submitted the draft for review correctly Bmasi (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wiki community, I have reviewed my article on Lara Porzak several times after having been declined because I had two versions of it in my sandbox. I have since deleted the old one and submitted the most updated version for review but it has been a long time since I submitted and I just wanted to know if it was perhaps because I hadn't submitted correctly. Could someone please advise me? Many thanks Beatrice


 * It is correctly submitted. Please be patient while the review is waiting. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are almost 4000 pending submissions waiting for review. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)