Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 December 3

= December 3 =

04:09:03, 3 December 2019 review of draft by Nawab Afridi
Nawab Afridi (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , You might wish to ask MJL, the reviewer who looked at your draft last, for feedback. They are very friendly and would almost certainly review it again if you left a note on their talk page. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please guide me if the following profile OK?

06:37:19, 3 December 2019 review of submission by Xayns
Xayns (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

i have now added notable references
 * , The draft has been deleted so we cannot help you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

08:28:16, 3 December 2019 review of submission by Aheisk
Hello Wikipedia, my submission of an entry on Christopher Lloyd sometime ago was rejected. Christopher Lloyd is a very prominent Australian-Finnish professor with many achievements, including election to the Finnish Academy of Arts and Sciences. Now I have discovered that there is an entry for a young English person – Grace Blakeley – whose achievements are very scant compared with Christopher Lloyd's achievements yet she has an entry and he doesn't.  Can you explain this to me please? Thank you. Aheisk.

Aheisk (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Other stuff exists, Grace Blakeley is well sourced and passes notability guidelines. 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 08:53:34, 3 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Megha101
Can i share the school establishment document with the support team of Wikipedia as a proof of existence as we don;t have much of presence online since it is a new school. Megha101 (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , That is not sufficient. We need published sources in order for them to be reliable. If published sources do not exist, the subject is not notable. Also, there is no Wikipedia support team that does what you suggest, just volunteer editors who review these articles. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:08:56, 3 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Sunnymish
Hi I got rid of the copyrighted material from the article I want to create, and was wondering how to try and get it published again, currently the edited version is in my drafts. Thanks any help would be great.

Sunnymish (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . If you are asking about Draft:Manju Sheth, there is now a button on it that will let you submit it for review, but it would not be accepted in its current state. You may find Help:Your first article helpful. Concentrate on finding independent, reliable sources which prove that she is notable. Remove statements from the draft for which you cannot cite reliable, published sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

19:41:19, 3 December 2019 review of draft by 73.215.83.120
Hello, I am puzzled as to why my new page creation did not pass. Can you please let me know which references are needed? This page is for a company that has split from an existing company - Williams Lea Tag -- which already has an existing Wikipedia page. There is plenty of evidence of the company split, as seen in the references provided. These references are from neutral third parties including PrintWeek, campaignlive.co.uk and Marketing Interactive - none of which are "passing references", as the sources only talk about the company split. Please let me know what more I am supposed to provide.

73.215.83.120 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the comments provided on the draft, in particular WP:NCORP. Mere existence of a company is not enough to prove notability, and the fact that it split from a company with a company with a page already does not matter, because WP:Notability is not inherited. All of your sources are coverage of routine business activities and press releases, which do not contribute to notability. See WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 15:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

20:53:25, 3 December 2019 review of submission by Tedfmyers
Hello, I would love to have some feedback on my article. I previously asked for help, but my question was archived before anyone was able to give me any comments. See here for my previous question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_November_15#22:19:34.2C_15_November_2019_review_of_submission_by_Tedfmyers

To summarize my prior question, I believe that the subject of my article passes WP:NCORP due to sufficient number of significant, independent, reliable, and secondary articles cited. Would one of you kind reviewers take a look and give me your opinion on the matter?

Tedfmyers (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Given you're asking for a second review, which means looking through all sources again, could you link here 3 (best) sources that you believe pass WP:GNG and thus WP:CORPDEPTH that are 1) reliable/reuptable 2) secondary/independent 3) significant/in-depth. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Hellknowz, thanks for the quick response! The three sources I'd choose are Source 7, Source 13, and Source 19. (The Marketplace, Harvard Business Review, and Science Magazine articles). Hope this helps with the review process! Tedfmyers (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * marketplace source is not in-depth; there are only a couple paragraphs about the company and half is by Kuhl. hbr looks decent; the article isn't directly about the company, but it ends up basically talking for half of it, including company's founding, funding, prototypes, plans. sciencemag is also not in-depth; there are barely two paragraphs about the company and aren't even exclusively about the company. I'm afraid that's one decent source (although I imagine editors may argue even in that one the company isn't the subject of the article, although I would argue that it's on the threshold of significant coverage). — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the evaluation, you’re helping me better understand the rules; especially the threshold for significant/in-depth coverage. I agree with you that the subject of an article doesn’t need to be main topic of the source material (as the WP:GNG states) - so the HBR article is a passable source (if not the other two I proposed earlier due to lack of coverage). Here are two different articles I believe are significant enough, and fulfill all other requirements: source 8 and source 11 . (Greenbiz and Vice articles). Both these articles spend multiple paragraphs discussing the environmental and business impact of the company.


 * These do look pretty good to me. They are heavy on quoting the company/persons but that's more or less fine. They are focused on the company's work and provide a good deal of detail and history. So I'd say this reaches the bare minimum threshold. Plus, there are a bunch of other sources to supplement. I might take a look at the draft later. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)