Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 4

= April 4 =

Request on 02:43:31, 4 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nicolonour
I'm trying to create an entry for Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, which is a world leader in energy efficiency, but am having trouble. This is the text I want to include which comes from Bloomberg.

"Efficient Power Conversion Corporation provides enhancement mode gallium nitride based power management devices ... The company was founded in 2007 and is based in El Segundo, California."

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=99399790

Nicolonour (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . You may only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Moreover, text written for someplace else is rarely suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. You may use information from elsewhere, but must recast it in your own words and structure.
 * If you are considering taking another stab at writing an article about Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, I strongly advise against it. The company does not appear to be notable (it does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards). --Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

04:17:33, 4 April 2019 review of submission by 140Macpherson
Hi,

We have submitted new materials and would like a review or advice on how to make the article better. thank you.

140Macpherson (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify who you are referring to when you say "we"?  JTP (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

07:59:15, 4 April 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E
I posed a couple of questions to the declining editor at Draft talk:Harry Gideonse, but he never responded. I really don't understand what I pointed out.

I had similar issues at Draft talk:Francis Kilcoyne. There, the same editor seemed to be saying that names of people and institutions - unchanged - were copyright violations. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To attract the attention of a specific editor to a discussion, you need to notify them in your post. See Help:Talk pages for an explanation. Names of people and institutions, particularly if long, can trigger false positive copyright warnings from automated tools, but they are not violations of copyright. If that was all that caused the editor to tag the draft for copyright investigation, then you should be able to persuade them through discussion that they were mistaken. Otherwise, you can wait for an administrator or copyright clerk to complete the investigation (I'm not sure what their backlog is right now, but it's often weeks or months). If there is no infringement the text will be restored. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

09:20:40, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Sonnenalle44
As I understand it, this page is being rejected based on the idea I am involved in one way or another with S.Crasneanscki. I have denied this on my page. Now, I'm not in a strong position to edit so perhaps an editor might see the significance of this page and edit it themselves to make it whatever they deem suitable for publication. All the information needed is there.

Sonnenalle44 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

10:30:04, 4 April 2019 review of submission by PilotSuggs
I am asking for a review of this article as the person is notable in the media for his adventures and a list of accomplishments has been added, explaining the achievements further. (Apologies, this should have been added from the outset). I appreciate the time taken to re-review this.

Thanks

PilotSuggs (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

11:28:38, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Ricochet198
{{Lafc|username=Ricochet198|ts=11:28:38, 4 April 2019|page=

Ricochet198 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

12:04:55, 4 April 2019 review of submission by HotSquash London
HotSquash London (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I am requiring assistance as my article has been rejected and I am unsure why, the reason is that it isn't suitable fir Wikipedia but why? I have seen many fashion limited companies listed on Wikipedia. Please let me know why our page has been rejected.


 * There are three main reasons the draft was rejected. It wasn't "notable", which in Wikipedia terms, means there weren't sufficient "in-depth, independent, reliable secondary sources" (Newspapers, books etc). As a company you'll need at least 3 or 4 high quality sources. Lots of poor quality sources is not equivalent to a few good ones.


 * The second is that it is promotional - we dislike people linked to a company writing it, because they are generally unable of doing so in the neutral way we require.


 * The third issue is that your username indicates more than one person editing - if usernames have to be individual - edit it to be something like "Cool Guy1 at HotSquash London" (beginning can be whatever you want).


 * As a side note, I suspect you are an employee of the company. If so, please say, as there are additional requirements you need to follow to avoid being blocked again.


 * However - it's not worth doing that until you've found enough good secondary sources to indicate you can support an article on the company. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

17:56:09, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man
I made a lot of new changes to my article. I added more sources and made the number more notable, in contrast to the earlier revision that only had one fact about the number. I don't know what I was thinking, but I got the help of User:StaringAtTheStars, and he helped find articles with the number 91,000,000 in them, and I now have 19 references. Another irate man (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

21:03:46, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Thedavidshow
I have a couple of questions. First of all I believe... even in the very first draft of this article that I've written, it met all of the notability requirements for a chain of shops. If you look up ANY chain of shops... all but the largest of them are lucky to have anything more than a notice in the local paper of when one or more of the stores opened. Take The Gadget Shop, for example. Two sources. One of them a rather questionable online source. But nobody should expect a five page article in the New York Times from a gadget store. Or this one: MicroWarehouse ONE source... repeated. And they're out of business. (So I doubt there will be future sources). Or Bally Shoe ... Again, I'm not knocking their notability, they are shops that either exist or have existed and someone thought enough of them to write articles about them.

I wanted to write about this chain or barbershops. I think I provided a dozen sources from the very beginning. Then I was drinking my tea one morning and noticed that Prince William of England visited the shop and so I added People Magazine, ABC News, and the Daily Mail to the list of sources. I've written a few articles over the years (on my old account from years ago that I no longer remember or have access to) so I'm well familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and practices.

I guess my question is: When is this article going to be approved? (It's been well beyond two months since it was submitted in January. And it absolutely meets and exceeds the notability requirement.)

Thedavidshow (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

22:09:08, 4 April 2019 review of draft by DondeEstaElBurro?
DondeEstaElBurro? (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why on Earth did you tell me that my article's topic (2019 Paris apartment fire) wasn't significant enough, when Wikipedia published someone else's 3 sentence stub (February 2019 Paris fire) ABOUT THE EXACT SAME FIRE!?


 * Hi good day. I have noticed you have added some content from your draft article into February 2019 Paris fire page and we thank you for that. Reviewer  declined the draft under NOT and ONEEVENT where by the subject "might not be notable" Additional development / aftermath /wider implications of the fire would secure the notability of the subject. Even the February 2019 Paris fire page / or any articles that are in Wikipedia main space, they would still be subjected to be nominated for "article for deletion" if editors think the notability of the articles are in questions. Do note articles in Wikipedia are always in "working in progress" status. I hope I have answered your question and thank you for your contribution. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

22:35:49, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Ejpastor
Thank you for your guidance already! I am making this Wiki about a very notorious local artist and am working on expanding the references. I am sure he meets the criteria described in WP:NARTIST but proving it is another issue. I have reached out to arts festivals and fairs to find proof he won awards (he had, but it may not have been published somewhere). The Robert E. Wood Legacy Committee was formed immediately after his 2012 death, but information from the Committee is not considered a secondary source. Would newspaper articles about the Legacy Committee or Memorial exhibitions be considered as secondary sources to prove his notability? Thank you! Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi good day. We are after independent, reliable sources (secondary reliable sources) whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length. If the newspaper mention about Robert Wood with majority of the content in any article that would be sufficed. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 5:37 pm, Today (UTC+8)