Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 16

= July 22 =

Can't request reviewer rights / afc helper script permission
I would like to request and obtain the former mentioned rights. I am already a participant of creating and editing Wikipedia articles for years and would like to take my engagement further.

But when I try to add my request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants ("add request"), I have no permission to add my request on the page and I only see the source code.

--Laudrin (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

= July 16 =

00:40:08, 16 July 2019 review of submission by AlfansoLeone
Not sure why my submission was rejected. Subject is mentioned on multiple 3rd party websites with impartial, factual information such as competition scores, athletic participation, and current occupation. Subject is credited with numerous feature films, television series', and commercials.

AlfansoLeone (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * None of which demonstrates notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). Examining the cited sources:


 * {| class=wikitable

! Source || Significant? || Independent? || Reliable? || Secondary? || Pass/Fail || Notes ! colspan=5| Total qualifying sources || 0 || There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
 * California Birth Index || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || Birth certificates are primary sources, billions of people have them
 * Jeremy Goldstein || ✅ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || Wikipedia is not much interested in what the subject says about himself
 * local44.org || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || Apparently supplied by Goldstein, so not arms-length; also copies IMDb (which is not reliable)
 * maxpreps || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || High school volleyball stats are not significant coverage, hundreds of millions of people played a high school sport
 * U.S. Practical Shooting Assoc. || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || Not significant coverage
 * Hecho Studios || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || An employer, doesn't mention Goldstein
 * maxpreps || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || High school volleyball stats are not significant coverage, hundreds of millions of people played a high school sport
 * U.S. Practical Shooting Assoc. || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || Not significant coverage
 * Hecho Studios || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || An employer, doesn't mention Goldstein
 * U.S. Practical Shooting Assoc. || ❌ || ✅ || ✅ || ✅ || ❌ || Not significant coverage
 * Hecho Studios || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || An employer, doesn't mention Goldstein
 * Hecho Studios || ❌ || ❌ || ✅ || ❌ || ❌ || An employer, doesn't mention Goldstein
 * }


 * I concur with the reviewer that this is a hopeless topic, no amount of editing can make it acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

03:24:26, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Tidushuyin
I'm trying to update the new album for the group, Avalon. I am part of their street team. I have included a second reference to the new album that is releasing this fall. Tidushuyin (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Tidushuyin. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. If you believe, now that you've added a second reference, that the reason given for the rejection no longer applies, then you may resubmit the draft to have it re-evaluated. To do so, add  to the top of the draft. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria discount sources designed to hype an album release, and put a premium on critical analysis and objective post-release measures. Until the album is released, I think any article about it is likely to be redirected to the band article as "too soon", but I could be mistaken. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

05:51:30, 16 July 2019 review of submission by 2.247.250.134
Some time ago, we submitted a Wikipedia article about our company for independent community review. I know we have to be patient, but I wanted to ask about the status of the process. Is there anything we can do to speed up the review? There was a scam targeting us. While we have reported it to the Arbitration Committee, I was worried this might have slowed down the whole thing. 2.247.250.134 (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Subsequently declined by Theroadislong as an advert for a non-notable company. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

06:10:53, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Pequena Princesa
I have submitted this article twice. When I resubmitted, I addressed the three comments made by the declining reviewer: (1) use of YouTube references - all are gone now (2) use of the subject's website as a source - removed (3) use of placeholders for photos - removed. I now have all independent, reputable sources not at all related to the subject. Yet now another reviewer has declined the article, telling me that I need independent, reputable sources not at all related to the subject. There is a comment about articles tangentially referring to the subject: that may be true of 2 or 3 out of 14 articles but certainly not all or even most. It seems that the goal post keeps on moving, reviewer to reviewer, and every time I comply with one reviewer's demands the next reviewer makes more of his/her own. This last reviewer's comments are simply not true, as if he did not read the sources and simply copied the grounds for declining. Is there any form of appeal? Pequena Princesa (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

08:15:03, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Adinfraheight
We need to publish our company name with wikipedia. as our company has more than 2000 customers but not recommended by wikipedia. Adinfraheight (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - for if you return: Wikipedia does not recommend anyone. Companies have to meet high standards of notability - please have a read of company notability. As was presumably said in your block notice, you'll need to satisfy paid editing disclosure rules before progressing. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

10:49:13, 16 July 2019 review of submission by DoeEyed
Have updated the information with more external links to various sites (not the band's own site or Discogs as requested). DoeEyed (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

11:11:42, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Navsright
Navsright (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi just need abit more help with the citing issues I have on my page I am trying publish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Calibre_UK

14:49:32, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Colaguy101
The rejection reason is given as no secondary sources to confirm. I can answer any questions as the article is about my own profile. I am an author of books, hence I can answer any questions related to them. I am the secondary source for the article. Colaguy101 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than the personal experience of editors. You and any answers you might give to questions are not a source that may be used on Wikipedia unless that material has been published in a reliable source, such as a textbook, an academic journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Review of Books, etc.


 * Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

15:20:55, 16 July 2019 review of submission by 89.91.144.191
89.91.144.191 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please deleted this draft page because this article is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Request on 15:36:31, 16 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Intern1FAG
To whom it may concern,

I've been trying for a while to publish my page, The Fine Art Group, on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it keeps getting rejected - mostly for a lack of significant coverage.

However I believe that I have used plenty of reputable third-party sources to evidence my article, including Bloomberg, The Art Newspaper, Vogue, Christie's, and Antiques Trade Gazette.

Any advice that you can give on how I can improve the chances for my article to be accepted would be greatly appreciated!

Kind regards,

Sophie 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sophie 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

16:51:01, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Livingstone Imonitie
Livingstone Imonitie (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - I'm not sure what your question was, but I've reviewed your draft in any case. Unfortunately I've had to decline it for the reasons stated (both generally in the red box and more specifically by the yellow "!" beneath it) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

17:52:18, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Dnck26
I'm assuming my draft was denied because I have a COI. If not, then why was it rejected? Either way, how can I still get a page created for the business I am interning for? Dnck26 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I declined it because it was a blatant advert. Unless the company has been reported on in-depth in multiple independent sources we cannot have an article about it. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - as a secondary note, I've dropped a notice on your talk page. As an intern you count as a paid editor (actually paid or otherwise) - as such you need to disclose your link on your userpage. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

18:14:08, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Williamword
Hi - for the draft of GFP Real Estate, would like to understand how to change to get this approved or how it reads like an advertisement.

"Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

The topic is relevant and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

The article is factual and references the following sources:

5 references for New York Times 4 references for Commercial Observer (notable real estate industry source) 3 references for The Real Deal (notable real estate industry source) 1 reference for the Financial Times 1 reference for POLITICO

plus assorted other industry articles and sources for 20 references total. One reference was to their company website to confirm the corporate address. Could that be the cause for rejection?

The article was written neutrally, conveying what the referenced articles outlined. Not sure what needs to be edited out to make it acceptable in this instance.

thanks much William

Williamword (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft is certainly not written neutrally, it is full of trumpery "one of the significant developers within New York City" "the firm has acquired 10 properties with the acquisitions comprising more than 2.7 million square feet and valued at over $1.3 billion" "visionary philanthropist" " industry's most influential people". Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 22:10:05, 16 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tannerbyer
To whom it concerns,

I submitted a draft of a Wikipedia page as mentioned above, but it was declined primarily because of notability purposes. I am confused because I included many reliable secondary sources. At this point, I am wondering if it is worth the effort to rewrite and resent a draft for potential publication if you don't like all the sources I have already provided. Looking for any guidance, thank you.

Tannerbyer (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

23:49:05, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Irish Birdcatcher
Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC) My article was deleted, (on Trumpator the horse) and I know it was a short article but it has reliable sources and its a proven real horse. Its not a joke about Donald Trump.


 * Hi . I assume that by "My article was deleted", you mean Draft:Trumpator was rejected.


 * Your thesis seems to be that Trumpator should be included as a stand-alone article because he sired one or more major winners. One of the WP:NEQUESTRIAN criteria says horses may be presumed notable if they meet the general notability guideline (GNG) for being the sire of a major competitor. "If they meet GNG" means received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.


 * More discussion and analysis is needed than is provided by a pedigree. Seek advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing about where to look for detailed coverage. They'll be familiar with the British racing / breeding press of that period. Perhaps something like this might be a start, although it isn't much more than a pedigree in prose form. If you can find three in-depth sources, ensure that they leave no claim in the draft unsupported. The only source in the current draft doesn't say anything about Trumpator being leading sire or siring Sorcerer. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)