Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 2

= August 2 =

00:14:51, 2 August 2019 review of submission by ShirleyMarcus
ShirleyMarcus (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I was missing notable, verified articles. I have added 8+ of them now.
 * Subsequently deleted at the request of the author. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

03:26:10, 2 August 2019 review of draft by VicenteAssensio
Can you plase point out what part of the article is not referenced by a "reliable, secondary, published, independent" source. It's not clear.

Thanks

VicenteAssensio (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm not sure that's the most pertinent question to ask, since no reviewer has said that's the problem. The most recent review says the draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic.


 * The draft cites a single source inline, and quotes a second without, for some reason, citing it inline. The first is a primary source, an appraisal. Primary sources don't help establish notability. It is unclear whether the second source may be used on Wikipedia. Is it published, in the sense that an archived copy exists somewhere that the public can examine (possibly at considerable cost and inconvenience), or is it a report produced privately and locked away in the vault of whoever commissioned it? Sources must be verifiable. If it may be used at all, as a technical report on an examination of the violin, it's another primary source, so it doesn't help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

04:32:31, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Hrmehrotra
Hello Team,

I found 3 and 4 companies named with "CloudConnect" so i am looking to get the one where, i am working in Wikipedia for authentication of the firm. please help me, do i have to provide any more details or is there anything wrong?

I appreciate your help. Hrmehrotra (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As the reviewer noted, the article lacks sources. You need to add at least 3 or so independent and in-depth sources. The two in the article do not satisfy the criteria explained in the decline reason. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

10:26:56, 2 August 2019 review of draft by Barankeegnu
I've added more links and references as it was proposed in declining reason. Some of the references were declined by Wiki (for example AliExpress, there were an article about CDEK China there). I can even add more references but most of them are in Russian, I don't feel it has a lot of sense. Barankeegnu (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be in English. But sources have to be in-depth about the subject. Not part of a list, not a company profile or directory entry, not written or presented by someone from the company or a brief passing mention without any details. I checked the sources (I speak Russian) and none appear to satisfy this. I agree with the reviewer's conclusion. The criteria in the decline reason explain exactly what sources are needed for WP:GNG, but mainly significant. In the end, most companies do not pass the notability criteria for Wikipedia as there is little to say about them other than to make a company profile, which is against Wikipedia's purpose. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

10:35:48, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Sameerbhosle9
Hi, can you please suggest necessary changes or suggestions to this article as it is not getting approved. Thanks

Sameerbhosle9 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

12:18:12, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey
Hi - I have referenced a publication 'Knowledge, Service Products' by Nigel Watson as a primary resource - is this a suitable/ notable? It appears as the spirax sarco website but this is because it is a link to the publication pdf. Any help would be appreciated. Many thanks-

Benjamindavidharvey (talk)
 * Hi . The draft references http://www.spiraxsarcoengineering.com/Pages/home.aspx. The publication Knowledge, Service Products would be http://www.spiraxsarcoengineering.com/AboutUs/Documents/Knowledge,%20Service,%20Products.pdf. It is not an independent source because it was commissioned by Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc, the parent company of Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group. So it does not help establish notability.


 * The reason for the STOP sign on the draft is that rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for a stand alone article in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. You could propose at Talk:Spirax-Sarco Engineering the addition to that article of a modest amount of information about Watson-Marlow. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi - thank you for this

I would argue that the decision to not even offer an opportunity to revisit the page is very harsh. Watson-Marlow is cited across many pages across Wikipedia. It is a company that turns over nearly a quarter of a billion in sales worldwide. It is a significant, global player in pumping technology and fluid management engineering

Examples where Watson-Marlow are cited as manufactures/ a world leader:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinusoidal_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metering_pump

This is an example of competitor who have been in operation for less time and is not a world-leader in a single technology like Watson-Marlow, its sales are based on a diverse pump range.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prominent_(Unternehmen)

An example of a large pump group but whose references are their own website and a very weak article that mentions them indirectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundfos References[edit source] ^ "Our company". Grundfos.com. Retrieved 2018-02-23. ^ http://www.gea.com/global/en/news/corporate-news/2015/gea-acquirers-leading-supplier-of-hygienic-pumps.jsp

The decision to not allow for an edit seems to comes with the oversight of these pages and I would ask that it is reconsidered so I am able to shape content with reliable sources as the subject is without doubt notable when considered in relation to the above.


 * Harsh? AfC could instead decline the draft every time it's submitted, each time encouraging you to fix the problems and resubmit. I recall a draft that was declined 14 times that way. The current backlog is 21 weeks, so you do the math. Would you prefer to be strung along for five and half years, until you finally give up? Or would you prefer to know up front that the topic will never be accepted for publication?


 * You write "Watson-Marlow is cited across many pages across Wikipedia. It is a company that turns over nearly a quarter of a billion in sales worldwide. It is a significant, global player in pumping technology and fluid management engineering". So what? None of those satisfy the criteria in WP:NCORP, which is the guideline Wikipedia uses to determine which companies merit a stand alone encyclopedia article. If you don't like Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, you may wish to explore alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria.


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. Being mentioned in Wikipedia doesn't make a company notable. You, as someone with a conflict of interest with regard to Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group, should not be editing Peristaltic pump, especially not to insert the claim that the group is "widely recognised today as being the world leader". If you do something like that again, you're likely to be blocked from editing.


 * Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Wikipedia doesn't exist to make your company more competitive.


 * You are correct that Grundfos is a spectacularly crappy article. It was created in an era (2005) when requirements were much looser. Also, as mentioned above, any idiot can edit Wikipedia. Several major problems with the article are flagged, and if it can't be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it will be deleted. If you look at WikiProject Companies/Article alerts, you'll see that the deletion of 57 articles about companies is being considered today, and many more are being considered for merging. Bringing articles up to current standards is a slow and never-ending process. Meanwhile, the existence of poorly sourced articles is not a good excuse to create more of them. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why.


 * You may find WP:BFAQ informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

13:41:16, 2 August 2019 review of draft by JIm DeNunzio
Hello. I have an article in the Draft section that I am trying to publish. Is there anything else I need to do other that wait for it to be reviewed? I know that it may take 8+ weeks to publish, I just thought I would see if there was any improvements to the article that I need to make. Thank you for your time.

JIm DeNunzio (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

16:49:54, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Yafimpico
subject is a notable figure in a category with little representation, Kapler is a well known producer in a religious jewish music genre, please review the info again, he is not an artist but a producer of the most influential religious jewish songs in the last few years.

Yafimpico (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

22:16:54, 2 August 2019 review of submission by 41.113.14.159
41.113.14.159 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)