Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 24

= April 24 =

01:32:51, 24 April 2019 review of submission by JarodHunt
I submitted a draft article about a subreddit with over 2 million subscribers. /r/atheism. I was told by someone that a subreddit is not notable enough for inclusion on wikioedia, but he then said "i could be wrong though." Note there is a reddit for the donald trump reddit, which only has 700,000 subscribers. Home come a donald trump reddit gets a wiki and an atheist one doesn't? Is wikipedia full of trump supporters?

JarodHunt (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Greetings. Link here your page -  Draft:/r/Atheism.
 * Wikipedia is not affiliated with any political groups. In Wikipedia notability defines as the subjec is "worthy of notice" and it does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, popularity or how many subscribers they have in utube, reddit or tweeter. The topic needs to receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the topic/subject in length and in dept and not only passing mentioned. Independent reliable sources such as from major newspaper would be suitable. Sources such as from home page, official website, press releases, interview, user generated sites, sources associated with the subject, marketing articles and etc are considered NOT reliable and / or not independent for such they can NOT be used to demonstrate/contribute to the nobility guidelines which is required. Do read The answer to life, the universe, and everything for further detail. If you would provide the above requirement, then you could rework on the article and try again. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Than you - this subreddit has been covered by Buzzfeed, Mashable, the Daily Dot, Patheos, Vox, and about two dozen other tech websites. Many of these articles are linked in the draft. What do you people want, a front page article from the New York Times? Are we now only including stories that have been carved into the moon with a giant laser?

JarodHunt (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Have you discussed it with reviewer ? Their comment suggests that they are open to other points of view. An argument based on subscriber numbers is unlikely to move anyone, but you have another argument in the extent of coverage and the general notability guideline. If you put your case with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you may be able to persuade them to undo their rejection. Such a course is more likely to bear fruit than engaging in hyperbole with editors who didn't review the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we won't accept a front page article from the New York Times due to copyright issues and no, we are not all Donald Trump supporters or atheists. Your reasoning makes no sense. Reddit and Wikipedia are two different sites, with different notability standards. On Reddit, anything is notable enough. So I don't care if there's a Reddit for a sub Reddit because we have stricter guidelines. Thank you-- Booth Sift  23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

11:38:21, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Adamszala
Hello DGG, I believe this person deserve to be on wikipedia because he is very young entrepreneur who achieved many things in his short age, maybe I haven't add enough sources but If you say I can add more. Adamszala (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you wish to address a specific editor on a talk page, use some form of notification template, such as, which renders as.


 * Quality is far more important than quantity. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant information about their subject. Three is enough if they're good. The fact that each source in the draft is cited exactly once suggests that none of them contain significant coverage of Hnetinka. If they did, you would be able to cite them at multiple points throughout the text. As noted by various reviewers, the draft also has severe focus (are you writing about a person or a company) and tone problems. You may find it helpful to gain experience by editing existing articles for a while. See Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I rejected this article for 2 reasons. One of them, by far the most important, is that it is an apparent attempt at promotionalism  The other, is that there is no indication that he isnotable  either in an ordinary sense or in a WP sense. . "Being an entrepreneur and the owner of three companies, [he] is now one of the successful American businessmen" This was followed by  10 points attempting to show the success of the companies--which might at best make for articles on the companies, but does not speak to his own notability But let's look at them: 1. "[one of the companies] ... plan to best Amazon in the same day delivery service. "that's plan, not succeed or eve n have a minimal realistic chance.  2.  " [another of his companies] opened 40+ e-commerce delivery fulfilment centres and working with the delivery partners including Deliv, UberRUSH, Coyote, AxleHire and Dynamex." that's a fair start for a new business, but nowhere close to importance.  3. and then "[that 2nd company] facilitated the shipments of goods worth $1.7 million." which is absurdly trivial. 4. then a local newspaper published what is obviously a press release about a local firm, based on an interview with the subject himself,   making remarkable claims for innovation in what is basically merely running a delivery service for other companies. Such claims for first in the world need much more reliable sourcing than that.  5. It signed a deal to distribute for another company.  6. It added a shopping cart function (in 2018), 7. It becames a minor  service provider  for an actually imortant company, as claimed by himself. 8. He gave a talk at a conference.   9. It discarded its previous business model, based on not owning the warehouse, and opened a warehouse,  10. It raised $7 million in a funding round.
 * The contributor has made 4 tries in 14 days, and still not produced anything acceptable.
 * (but it is not the case that citing each article only once is a bad thing. It's what most articles do for most of their references. It's what I do. What would actually be unacceptable would be using multiple references to prove each minor point. ) DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

12:40:15, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Rwunderlich
I am self publishing this page as I am a candidate for US Congress. I am the author and the source.

I think I can use my website, which contains my military record to source some of the information; however, much of the information is not sourced as I lived it. So I have a bit of a conundrum. Thanks

Rwunderlich (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . An article about you may cite your own website for a relatively small amount of information, so long as it is uncontroversial (where you grew up and went to high school, for example), but the bulk of any article should come from sources independent of you. Wikipedia is by its nature a trailing medium. An article won't be accepted here until the subject has gained significant attention by the world at large over a period of time, as evidenced by coverage in independent reliable sources (think books, newspapers, magazines, and their web equivalents). It's possible that you may not gain the necessary attention unless you win the election. Moreover, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Forget about writing about yourself here, and concentrate on your campaign. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely concentrating on the campaign. Getting everything in place. I can't start too early as the election is in November 2020, so I am just getting things in place. I can save this draft and as I start doing interviews and talking events, I can source the page and republish. In the mean time I will continue to edit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwunderlich (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you will not succeed in getting an article just as a candidate unless you receive a very great deal of national-level publicity (which is conceivable, however unlikely, in an election year like the next one). What will get you an article is being elected.  DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Request on 14:01:31, 24 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikilrcs
Hello, Thank you for the follow up on our article (Wikilrcs, Robert_J._Vallerand). In the first paragraph, we mentionned a few references or sources. Is it the way it is supposed to be? If so, what can we do to improve the rest of our content? Thank you so much for your help, Michael Wikilrcs (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is "we" or "our"? Wikipedia only allows one person per account.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at hte actual draft, which I declined: It's a BLP, so each statement of fact in the article must have a reference. He's a university professor, so the routine facts of his degrees and appointments can be sourced from an official CV, but they must be actually sourced, and this must be indicated in the article itself, not just listing sources at the botttom. As the decline notice said, see WP:REFBEGIN for the method. As for his potential notability here, it would depend upon the extent of influence of his work, as specified at WP:PROF. He has written one book, for OUP, and this counts a good deal. It would count much more if there are also references to substantial 3rd party independent published reviews in reliable sources,  His papers whow very high citations--some areover 1000, and this is normally sufficient. List the 4 or 5 most cited, with the citation figures,from google scholar. Don't just refer to an outside list. He has some significnat awards. Give exact references to the evidence for them.
 * f you make claims for having done something important, you need references to substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources saying so. Avoid vague statements. Readers of an encyclopedia don't care how many students he's taught-- they care about whether any of his doctoral or postdoctoral students are notabler themselves, in the sense of having WP articles about them.
 * Try to make the article less personal, and more encyclopedic. Accomplishments in high school or as an undergraduate do not belong in a WP article.  DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

14:25:30, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Futiledevicess
I got one article rejected before claiming that there was 'unambiguous advertising' and would like to know why. It was a page about an art exhibition held in a museum, then does including the exhibition catalogue mean advertising already? I thought that would just provide more information if readers would like to know or read more about the exhibition.

Futiledevicess (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Being unambiguous advertising is one of two reasons Draft:From China to Taiwan: Pioneers of Abstraction (1955-1985) was deleted. An exhibition's catalog may be used as a source for an article about an exhibition, but the bulk of any such article should come from arms-length sources, such as reviews by art critics or art historians. Often there aren't enough independent sources about a specific exhibition to justify a separate encyclopedia article about it. Instead, the exhibition catalog might better serve as a source for expanding articles about the art movement, history, or artists involved. If you're interested in writing about art, you may wish to join WikiProject Visual arts or a WikiProject aligned with your regional interests. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

18:30:08, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Kit Lewis Research
Hello, I don't understand how the topic of this page can be 'contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia' when it describes a test many students rely on to apply to university, which has been developed by a major university and is used by a number of others. It seems entirely reasonable that students and universities should be able to find out about this through Wikipedia. If content such as this is permitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Language_Tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_Standard_English_Test I can't see how my own page violates any of Wikipedia's principles. Please can you review this decision or advise me appropriately. Many thanks

Kit Lewis Research Kit Lewis Research (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reviewer read it as a guideline on how to take the test, rather than an encyclopedia article about the test. I think if you add more information about the test itself and shorten the test-taking process to one section, it'll be better. You can also contact the reviewer, Theroadislong about this. -- Booth  Sift  01:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

22:23:30, 24 April 2019 review of draft by Azurerae
When creating the page, a typo was made. It should be Simone_Maria_Arnold_Liebster And/or the married name or maiden name may need to be removed as I'm not sure if Wikipedia uses one, the other or both for page name. Azurerae (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , I renamed the draft to Draft:Simone Arnold Liebster as per her common name published on her book and per this online article entry.   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)