Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 25

= January 25 =

00:34:55, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Julianhyde
It's been a year since the submission was declined, and Apache Arrow has been steadily gaining in adoption. 3,000 stars on GitHub are an indication of this.

Maryland database professor Daniel Abadi, who has no connection with the project but has done considerable work on database memory representations, wrote an analysis of Arrow's strengths and weaknesses in March and recommended the project. Do you think a paragraph summarizing his analysis would satisfy the "notable" and "independent" criteria?

I do not agree that the article is "written like an advertisement". The claims made in the article are goals of the project, and a piece of technology is defined by its goals and constraints.

01:28:57, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Athu1
Athu1 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not submit this page for an additional review. That was done by somebody else. Also, it had been mentioned to resubmit after filming started, which I did. I also gave sources to that. Many other film articles have come out including the same actor's movie Sarkar. Because of this, I request a re-review of this film article and to reinstate this as a draft rather than reject this.
 * User:Athu1 - I would not have rejected the draft as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but I probably would have rejected the draft as failing film notability. Films that have not yet begun production are very seldom notable, but films that are in production are also usually not notable, unless the production itself is notable.  The film has just begun production, and the article says nothing about the production that would make it notable.  Drafts and articles about this film have been repeatedly resubmitted, which is tendentious.  I see no reason to give the draft on the film yet another review.  The only real question is whether the draft should be deleted and create-protected.  I suggest just leaving the rejected draft alone for six months, after which time it will be deleted as an expired draft, and then wait until October 2019 when the film is released.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

06:49:14, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Suranyimeng
Suranyimeng (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

06:51:13, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Robinsonritchie
I am asking for an advice on how to publish a Biography of an Artist. I don't know how to do that. Could you please help me with that. Thank you Robinsonritchie (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Robinsonritchie - Since the artist is yourself, first read the autobiography policy. If you satisfy artist notability, someone is likely to create the biography about you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

09:59:29, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Riga-to-Rangoon
Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

hi...i am trying yo submit this draft but am having problems with it...i have this link for a draft i made and saved but am not sure it reaches you? can you help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Gustave_Brisch

Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Riga-to-Rangoon - You have not yet submitted the draft. Do you want it submitted for review?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

yes please Robert - can you do this for me? or what should i do next? Many thanks indeed... Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

11:01:53, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Aondofasamuel
Aondofasamuel (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - as the reviewer said, there may be other issues with the draft, but the clearest is the lack of sources. Wikipedia articles are required to have sources that are: in-depth, reliable, independent & secondary. I suggest having a read of referencing for beginners

12:02:41, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Lawrencedudley-parallax
Hey, as this is a publicly traded company I'd like to expand on the information available on Wikipedia about it. The founder, Arnold Ziff, is considered to be sufficiently notable for inclusion so I believe that the PLC he founded should be as well.

Lawrencedudley-parallax (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - unfortunately Wikipedia specifically rejects inherited notability - the company would need to stand on its own merits. Additionally, there is functionally no detail in this draft and it currently lacks any suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

13:04:03, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Spook Electro
Spook Electro (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - the reviewer was correct. The draft both completely lacks sourcing and also a list of genres and basic biographical details would not be sufficient content. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

14:01:22, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie

14:01:22, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie
Thank you for the sources. I’ve went through it thoroughly and made changes to the wiki page. Please look at it and accept or comment. You should accept this submitted article for the following reasons:

1) Uses only Verifiable- reliable third-party sources: Reputable online magazines: reuters.com tenextweb.com trendhunter.com entrepremeur.com

Local online newspapers: news.am armenpress.am

Government websites: gov.am

2) Has a Neutral POV- neutral tone throughout, no opinions just facts, no judgmental language, no loaded words, flattery or words that imply lack of credibility, no promotion, only facts

3) No original research- not opinion piece

4)Article content subject is notable, other similar wiki pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)

Jack Helie (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

15:09:32, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Tejasmaan
Tejasmaan (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sir u tell how to make a articale
 * See WP:YFA and WP:N. Your article does not have a single source, which violates the verifiability policy. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 15:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

15:23:05, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Millipede
Hello, I was working on an article about American violinist Anton Miller and wanted to link to the article on violinist Franco Gulli, but that article exists in Italian and not in English, so I wasn't sure how to create the link. Any advice will be appreciated.

I think maybe I should direct this question to the Help desk. . . Sorry if I put it in the wrong place.

Millipede (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined - reasons left on your talk page. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

16:59:33, 25 January 2019 review of draft by JohnLindam82
We are trying to publish company page following the guidelines for creating company pages. We keep getting declined due to the guidelines, despite referencing independent, reliable, third party sources. What would it take to get the page published. For example, would a major article in a state-owned news paper or other media with national coverage be sufficient?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnLindam82/sandbox/ozonetech

JohnLindam82 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JohnLindam82 - Who is "we", and what is your affiliation with the company? A user account should be that of one person, and any connection between that person and the subject of a draft or article, such as a company, is a conflict of interest and must be declared in accordance with the conflict of interest policy.
 * If you are spending corporate money to try to publish an article about your company, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia, you might make better use of corporate resources by improving your own web page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

17:36:40, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Associatekono
Unsure why the submission was declined because of unreliable secondary sources. The portfolios were featured in national well-known journals listed at the bottom. This is for the PINTURA:PALABRA page

Associatekono (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

17:41:45, 25 January 2019 review of draft by DMayumba
I have a number of sources that do not have an online presence as they are magazines from the 70s. I can cite the info as a journal but was wondering if I can insert images of the articles. If so, what is the best way to do so? Thanks!

DMayumba (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi do not upload images of the articles, doing so would almost certainly be a violation of copyright. A complete citation is sufficient. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

18:00:02, 25 January 2019 review of submission by 2601:601:1501:3E90:5D72:37B9:12D1:2E91
2601:601:1501:3E90:5D72:37B9:12D1:2E91 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:53:26, 25 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rsesguy
My draft article T. Mark Harrison was rejected without comment. Please provide some guidance how I might improve it. Thanks, Mark

Rsesguy (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.generalgeology.com/speaker/prof-dr-t-mark-harrison/ Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:07:50, 25 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rsesguy
I have been informed that my draft article T. Mark Harrison has been deleted due to "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.generalgeology.com/speaker/prof-dr-t-mark-harrison/)". The site specified is bibliographic text that I provided to the conference to apprise attendees of my background. This is my original prose and should not have been copyrighted by this organization.  I could ask them to remove the text but that doesn't advance knowledge. Thanks you, Mark Harrison

Rsesguy (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Rsesguy - Please read the autobiography policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

21:29:13, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Marcelju
The Official name of the award is RSA Conference..... I was asked by the conference organizers if the title of this article can change RSA--> RSAC Or to:  RSA Conference Is this possible?

Marcelju (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi The RSA Conference and the Award have seperate articles, as they are distinct subjects. The award is given at the conference. There may however be a case for merging the two articles into one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

22:15:48, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Rontl
I don't know if I'm really asking for a "Re-review" at this point, I just clicked on the button that said "ask for advice," and it took me here. I don't understand how a person was supposed to go about asking for advice prior to this, so hopefully you'll be able to help me. When it was first rejected, I wrote on the wall of the person who rejected it, and never heard back. Then, more recently, I posted my questions on the wall of the Help Desk, and also never heard anything, and eventually another notification came that it was denied. Below, I have made those points again, and I would very much appreciate it if someone could help me understand.

It was earlier decided that this organization does not meet the standards for Notability, and it is true that the Wall Street Journal only has had brief mentions of the organization. However, the WSJ only asks for information from recognized experts in a given field. The fact that the Wall Street Journal and Forbes have turned to the Reverse Logistics Association, multiple times, for information, is what should validate the organization as being thought leaders in the field. The Wall Street Journal didn't just make a passing reference to the organization or something it did, it turned to the organization for its expertise and knowledge of the field.

Quoting from the page on Notability WP:ORGIN, “Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. “

This organization has not only attracted the attention of reliable sources, these reliable sources clearly believe the organization is, itself, a reliable source, having quoted it so many times. It is true that we do not have a long article about the organization in the WSJ, but no trade organization gets that kind of article written about itself. The fact that the WSJ and Fortune find the organization to be a reliable source of information seems like “verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources.”

Moreover, my claim that Notable trade organizations do not get long magazine articles written about them seems to be supported by other pages, as well. It seems that the standard for professional organizations that is in use is not the one outlined in the Notability page, and I would say that this is a good thing.

I just looked at some of the organizations listed here: List_of_industry_trade_groups_in_the_United_States I only looked at National organizations, and I only looked at the first column of “Advertising, Business and Marketing” organizations, representing 13 organizations. (There appear to be 14 organizations, but “Ad 2” redirects to American Advertising Federation, so there are only 13 unique organizations there) However, all of the following 10 articles, I would argue, have received less media attention that has the RLA, and have less to point to, in the way of “substantial” coverage. These 10 organizations don’t provide links to any substantial coverage anywhere outside of their own publications. In this very small sample, the RLA has more media coverage than over two-thirds of the trade association organizations’ pages I looked at. A small number of those organizations are able to point to something outside its own publications: In short, it would seem that the de facto standard for professional and trade organizations is not as stringent as that which is described on the Notability page, and the RLA page has been held to a standard that is not applied to any other professional organizations.
 * American_Advertising_Federation
 * AMC_Institute
 * American_Independent_Business_Alliance
 * Association_for_Convention_Operations_Management
 * Association_of_Chamber_of_Commerce_Executives
 * Association_of_National_Advertisers
 * Center_for_Audit_Quality
 * Community_Associations_Institute
 * Compete_America
 * Association_for_Information_and_Image_Management - Only has a mention in a guide to trade associations
 * Commercial_Real_Estate_Women - Three very short descriptions of the organization creating new chapters, etc.

Either 2/3 of those organizations have to have their pages taken down, or it must be admitted that the standard for trade organizations is not as stringent as the general standard for organizations. Because the RLA has more evidence for significance than these organizations, I would argue that either the RLA page needs to be allowed, or else these other groups need to have their pages taken down. And I believe that these other organizations deserve to have their organizations listed in Wikipedia, as does the RLA.

I would argue that a different standard should be applied to not-for-profit trade associations than for other organizations. Every adult in the US is a potential customer of a car company or electronics company, so magazines like to publish articles about them, because people like to read articles about them. For trade associations, however, there is a very small number of people who might be interested in any one organization, so there is no incentive for magazines to publish articles about them. Magazines just don’t write in-depth articles about trade associations the way they do about companies or other groups like Greenpeace or AARP, etc.

Notability is an important criteria, because it prevents someone from writing an article about their favorite bowling alley. I absolutely agree Wikipedia is right to have standards about notability. But I would argue that for professional organizations, notability should be based on what an organization has done, and who else finds it credible and notable, not just where it has been profiled. And if the Wall Street Journal and Fortune think that an organization is notable enough to cite as a source for information, it seems to me like that should be enough. Thanks.

Rontl (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)