Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 20

= May 20 =

04:12:33, 20 May 2019 review of draft by Hariyadav
doramharishyadav 04:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - articles for living persons have more specific referencing requirements than, say, an article on a mountain. This means instead of general references like you have (though you've put them under "external links"), most content needs to be individually sourced to a particular reference - the blue numbers you see in other articles. These are called "inline references". Referencing for beginners can tell you how to do this. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

05:00:04, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Amna21
I want to understand why our page is being rejected. We have shared several references by leading newspapers of Pakistan such as Dawn, Tribune etc. Please can you help in highlighting which references are causing a problem in the acceptance of the page?

Thanks, Amna.

Amna21 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi have resubmitted it on your behalf as I believe the rejection was an error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

07:13:25, 20 May 2019 review of draft by Ladkap
Ladkap (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - what help are you looking for - as far as I can tell, this version of the draft hasn't been declined (last decline in March) and remains in the pool. The backlog is particularly tough at the moment and it could well be a fair length of time until review. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

08:05:27, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Kranthi Kumar Mukkera
Kranthi Kumar Mukkera (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that like most of us here, you are not notable enough for there to be an article about you. Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

11:48:26, 20 May 2019 review of draft by 217.147.174.57
I would like to know how is it possible to speed up the process of the page reviewing and publishing.

217.147.174.57 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - in a general sense (as in for everyone), you can't. It's dependent on there being loads of submissions and not enough experienced reviewers, leading to a supply/demand issue.


 * For you yourself, it probably helps things slightly if you put your four best sources (for showing notability) on the talk page, so that reviewers don't need to examine every source. I can't say this will speed it up, it just takes one obstacle out of the way. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Request on 12:28:45, 20 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Noixdegalle
Hi, I noticed that my article was rejected, and I wanted to ask if you could elaborate on the reasons for this? The EdTech market in Oslo has several companies that are described on Wikipedia (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeVideo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahoot!, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonBox), and Inspera is one of the big ones that seems to be missing. The EdTech industry is growing in Oslo, and Inspera is one of the large players (and is often mentioned as such, e.g. https://medium.com/the-edtech-world/edtech-norway-dff10491e68f).

Noixdegalle (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Medium is a group blog, so not a reliable source. Even if it were a reliable source, its passing mention of Inspera would do nothing to establish notability. Whether the industry is growing, whether Inspera is a large player, and whether Wikipedia articles about its competitors exist, are all irrelevant to the evaluation of whether Inspera is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

13:34:52, 20 May 2019 review of draft by Corowitz
Corowitz (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What's taking so long for my article to be approved?


 * - the fact that there are thousands of AfC drafts, dozens every day, and only a relatively limited number of experienced volunteers willing to spend their time reviewing drafts.


 * I would suggest putting the four best sources that show notability on the talk page, as this can ease reviewing when there are a long list of references. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

14:32:17, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Eadredwallace
Eadredwallace (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What do I need to do to become more notable?

16:40:17, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Asfabutt2001
I was asked to create a page for Ollie Kendall as a duo with Josh Carrott, however they already have one called Jolly and Josh Carrot also has one which is info on about him. As there is not much info about Ollie in wikipedia apart from a little mention from Josh Carrott's page. Is there any way I can try to create a page about info for Ollie Kendall?

(Update -->)Sorry my english is not very good, I didn't mean that I was asked, I meant that I wanted to create a page for Ollie Kendall but the draft was rejected because the page could've been made as a duo group but as there already is one and one page for the other partner Josh Carrott. I was making one for Ollie Kendall.

Asfabutt2001 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Who asked you to create a page for Ollie Kendall? Editors should not act at the behest of someone else without disclosing the connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that. For future reference, there's no need to copy a thread forward, simply reply at the bottom of it, indenting your response one level deeper and signing with four tildes ( ~ ). See Help:Talk pages for more information.
 * A separate article should not be created for Ollie Kendall. Josh Carrott has been redirected to Korean Englishman, where both members of the duo should be covered. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

19:50:29, 20 May 2019 review of submission by JSBenichou
I am the creator of the article draft "Tobias Sherman".

I have substantially changed the article since its initial review and decline to be purely factual with citation backing. I went into the IRC for help to get it to this stage. This is where we ended up. I believe I have done enough major changes that it deserves to be re-reviewed. Happy to make more changes if need be. JSBenichou (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Examining 8 of 15 sources at random: Variety, Sports Business Daily, Yahoo! and Esports Insider #1 are passing mentions and quotes from Sherman. I'm not convinced that AList is a reliable source, but even if it is, it is a primary source interview with no independent analysis by the interviewer, as is The Score Esports. Leaders is a non-notable organization issuing a press release about a non-notable award. None of the seven do anything to establish notability. ESPN #1 appears to be largely based on a press release, but also includes some analysis by the reporter, so may count as one source toward the three independent reliable sources novices are commonly advised to cite. I conclude that the reviewer is right, no amount of editing will make this draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

22:52:29, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Downcycle
Hello, I thought that I submitted a request for a review earlier, but I can't find a record of it ever going through. I am not affiliated with Sherpa CRM, I just wanted to try my hand at creating a new page about an interesting business I heard about, since most of the science stuff I work with is well documented. I tried to follow the template of other well known companies and founders, but I think I conflated the two and by entering the founder's personal views on the company page, it came across as promotional. I tried trimming it way down, so it was all just facts, but I don't think it was ever re-reviewed. If it's still not acceptable I'd appreciate some advice on how to get it there. Thanks! Downcycle (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . You posted about Sherpa CRM here, but without posing a question, so volunteers evidently didn't see anything actionable there.


 * The Wikipedia community has little or no appetite now for new articles about companies, especially young, small, private ones. Rejection is intended to be final, to communicate that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. Consequently it's unlikely that anyone here will sink time into the draft.


 * I encourage you to write about something else. Your work up until this draft is of a kind much more valuable to Wikipedia, and more editing like that would be much appreciated. See Community portal for ways to help. If you're determined to write about Sherpa CRM, you are a long-time editor in good standing and without a conflict of interest, so you may move the draft to mainspace. The consensus here is that it would be deleted there, but we could be wrong. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)