Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 30

= July 30 =

05:02:39, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Grahamfried
My first version of this page was rejected because it relied on primary sources. I have changed the page draft so that it now only references reliable secondary sources, and I believe (and hope!) that it is now fit for publication. Thanks! Grahamfried (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

07:24:49, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Babitahamdard
Babitahamdard (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

10:06:00, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey
This page was submitted due to the elevation of the parent company Spirax-Sarco releasing a history book and being recently elevated to the FTSE 100. Watson-Marlow are a significant company with a rich history and significance in the pumping market.

Please clarify why this was not a notable enough subject? Is it the sources?

Benjamindavidharvey (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources that you have provided do not show that Watson-Marlow is sufficiently notable independent of Spirax-Sarco (because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). Wikipedia uses the word notable in a way that means independent sources have written about the subject, see WP:N. Sources must be in-depth and independent coverage, see WP:RS for more information. I quickly evaluated the sources that you listed, Spirax's website is not independent and neither is the Scientist Live piece (it was written by a Watson-Marlow employee, like a lot of trade magazine articles). The Business Cornwall article I would mostly call "routine coverage" of business activities per WP:CORPDEPTH, merely expanding a factory doesn't make a company notable. Some of this information could expand the Watson-Marlow section of the Spirax article (you could request an edit there since you have a COI), or you need to find at least 2 or 3 good sources about Watson-Marlow specifically. Writing articles about companies is difficult. Hope this helps. shoy (reactions) 14:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

10:56:25, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Ankit Chamol
why my article got rejected Ankit Chamol (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My article has knowledge on business coaching. I covered Why, When, Who and How all the useful aspects which will help entrepreneurs. I have not promoted any company or individual. I have valid references from Frobes, Inc.com, Entrepreneur.com. Why my article is rehected and wha changes i do so it gets accepted. Ankit Chamol (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi take a look at WP:NOTGUIDE. Your draft breaks that rule with almost every sentence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 14:06:24, 30 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Elifnurk
I have an article rejected (MArio Grigorov), however i think i have made the suitable changes now and would like to know how it would be accepted.

Thanks

Elifnurk (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

14:51:20, 30 July 2019 review of submission by KLSB
Reworking the article, I have deleted the paragraphs that could have been misunderstood as advertising (e.g. on pricing). Plus, as I have added multiple highly reliable third-party sources to the article (e.g. Forbes, Bloomberg L.P.), the argument (»reads like an advertisement«) appears not valid any longer. Even more important: Same as Lime (transportation company), TIER is one of the leading companies (+5m rides, +300 employees, +30m funding) in the growing e-scooter industry, which is why a wikipedia entry for TIER is highly relevant. KLSB (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

16:48:54, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Sandy Di Yu
Hi there, I was wondering if it's possible to get a second opinion on this draft. It was rejected as the editor deemed it did not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I reviewed in meticulously so to ensure the sources I used would fit the eligibility as outlined on the page.

I believe the guidelines have been followed for sources 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 on Draft:ArtRabbit. The editor stated that the sources "consists of passing mentions and self-promotion", which I do not believe is the case for the above-mentioned sources. For example, source 1 is a book publication from an established publisher with several pages dedicated to the topic I referred to. Source 4 is in an academic journal which speaks about 4 organisations, including the one I wrote the article about, as a secondary source. Sources 5 and 6 are articles from news outlets, and they are both solely about the organisation. Source 8 is a documentary that prominently features the organisation.

Is this still insufficient? If so, could someone please clarify why it's insufficient? Thank you for your time and dedication!

Sandy Di Yu (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . The Evening Standard piece is a good start. Design Week and East London Lines are less compelling in terms of significant coverage. I don't have access to the Manoto TV documentary, so cannot evaluate it directly, but you didn't get much content out of it. If you resubmit the draft (the most certain way of getting a second opinion), and if I have time available when it next reaches the head of the queue (i.e. 20+ weeks from now), I would be willing to get the book evaluate it as a source.
 * It's difficult to publish pages about companies and their products on Wikipedia these days. If you follow WikiProject Companies/Article alerts you'll see that such pages are deleted, merged, or declined with great regularity. If you nonetheless decide to pursue this, I suggest:
 * Wait a year or two to see if more is written about ArtRabbit in independent, reliable sources.
 * Remove Apollo - if the awardee and awarding organization are the only ones to publicize an award, it isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.
 * Try to replace Brexit Podcast with an independent source. If you keep it, indicate in the citation where the supporting material can be found, such as "5:42 minutes in" so that reviewers don't have to wade through the whole half hour.
 * --Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

17:10:37, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Ljadams1984
Hello. I received feedback about this wiki article that it goes against the purpose of wikipedia however there are various similar personalities featured on the website. The cases discussed in the article are sourced from mainstream media outlets as well and the details of the cases were headline news on Russia Today, The Southern Poverty Law Center, Branston Trilakes, KPRS, and various other mainstream media outlets. An example of a similar article with similar content can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau

Thank you.

Ljadams1984 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The existence of similar articles is not an argument that will carry weight with reviewers, since existence doesn't mean "meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
 * RT (Russia Today), "as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation, including the promotion of conspiracy theories", is not generally reliable for controversial topics, see WP:RSP. I haven't looked at it closely, but suspect Free Republic, American Freedom Radio, justiceforshawnaforde.com, website.informer.com, thetruthdenied.com, and the various primary sources are also problematic. KPRS and the Branson Tri-Lakes News sound better. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

00:07:22, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Ljadams1984

Thank you for your feedback and review. I have removed the references to thetruthdenied.com. The main source of the information comes from the following sources: Voice of San Diego news paper San Diego Citybeats Southern Poverty Law Center San Diego Court Records San Diego Union-Tribune KNSD San Diego KSPR Branson, MO Branson Tri-Lakes News

The websites: American Freedom Radio is the radio station which the programs aired on. The information from that website is simply biography of the programs Truth Brigade Radio and Soul Journeys Radio. The information is also mentioned in the mainstream media articles from the sources listed above. The reference to Russia Today is referencing an interview of which the subject of this article was a guest and does not reference any material reported by Russia Today itself but rather words of the subject out of their own mouth.

If further editing is required I will be happy to do so. However, I would kindly ask that you please review the Wiki article as I am confident the information contained meets Wiki standards.

Thank you again for your time and attention to this.

19:21:58, 30 July 2019 review of submission by 106.206.0.55
106.206.0.55 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

21:17:11, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Thomasskm
Thomasskm (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Your draft has now been deleted twice, for copyright and then being unambigously promotional. I suspect you need to declare your connection and until you can write a company draft in a neutral form, it won't be accepted (drafts can often be declined for advertising, even if they aren't unambiguous pure promoting - they have to be fully neutral). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

21:54:47, 30 July 2019 review of draft by Ncamhi
Quiero crear una página de Wikipedia para Robero Camhi, destacado empresario y emprendedor chileno, sin embargo, es necesario arreglar ciertos aspectos en el código para que la página quede bien. Ncamhi (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hola Ncamhi, esta es la Wikipedia en inglés (en.wikipedia.org). Si desea publicar un artículo en español, hágalo en Wikipedia en español (es.wikipedia.org) 80.130.157.66 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)