Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 October 15

= October 15 =

05:59:44, 15 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald
Hello, My article on Matt_Godbolt was rejected by David.moreno72 for being not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would like to make the case that Godbolt is a notable person following from section 2.3 of wikipedia's notibility policy for persons dealing with creative professionals. While it could be argued that C++ Developers are not actually Creative professionals, The majority of Godbolt's talks and the projects he is involved in are all "Creative" in nature, speaking more on the philosophies of development and developing tools for educational use rather then proprietary gain. First I would argue he meets criterion 1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.", Godbolt is the poster boy for CLion, the 4th largest C++ IDE with 8% market share at the moment (see this study). You can observe Godbolt right there on the front page just by visiting CLion's website. On top of this, Godbolt has been invited to give 5 separate talks at CppCon (the worlds largest C++ convention) years in a row alongside some of the other largest names in C++, who already have Wikipedia pages, (see Herb Sutter, Bjarne Stroustrup). As for criterion 3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", Godbolt's flagship project, Compiler Explorer, is a significant piece of software and is widly used by many programmers including famous programmers such asAndrei Alexandrescu (see the citations on the rejected page for more info on the validity this confirmation). Ontop of this, he was personally invited to give a talk on the history of this project at CppCon 2019. (looking at the requirements for notability I see I cant cite Alexa rank as a reason for notability, but I feel I should mention its quite up there for C++ developers if you're interested in doing any independent investigation). For criterion 4(b), "won significant critical attention", I will restate again his invitation to the worlds largest C++ conference's to personally speak about his work, and will also point out that his work has been cited and his tools used by many other C++ programmers, including being featured on multiple episodes of C++ Weekly (episodes 83, 172, 188 SE). I hope this establishes Godbolt's notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, Please let me know if there are any other problems or if the article needs anything else before it can be published.

JamesTOswald (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be notable, a subject must have been covered in reliable, independent sources. Almost none of the sources on the article were independent of the subject. A google search revealed no sources that meet our standards for notability. This person appears to just not be notable at this time. Wait a few years, see if they've become notable, and you could always create an article then. Unfortunately, there are 8 billion people and very few meet the standard to be included in Wikipedia. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

06:45:11, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Bhesch
I am requesting re-review because I have been notified that this page is not ready for inclusion on Wikipedia yet many other organizations like [Texas College Democrats] have a page very similar to this one. Please explain. Bhesch (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article that does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean it is welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It is not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

06:52:00, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Smehra2801
Hello Wikipedia,

I have tried a lot in providing the resourceful information about this artist through News Articles, General Publications and alot more. Today I have added again as I have read their news in Dainik Savera - Newspaper and updated it. I would request you to please have a look at and help me making it notable. Smehra2801 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Firstly read WP:BFAQ
 * For a business to be notable in Wikipedia terms, it requires significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. None of your sources meet all of these criteria.
 * In your case I imagine No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability applies. Not every business can have a Wikipedia article, and if sources meeting these criteria don't exist there is nothing you can do.
 * In addition, the tone is far too promotional - Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business.  Oxon Alex    - talk  19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In your case I imagine No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability applies. Not every business can have a Wikipedia article, and if sources meeting these criteria don't exist there is nothing you can do.
 * In addition, the tone is far too promotional - Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business.  Oxon Alex    - talk  19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, the tone is far too promotional - Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business.  Oxon Alex    - talk  19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

09:16:41, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Kapa89
I added two sources describing the software Kapa89 (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Both sources are blogs that are not considered as reliable sources. You should find significant coverage from reliable sources to show the software is notable, otherwise it is not suitable for Wikipedia.-- 94rain  Talk  12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 10:07:42, 15 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by AniSingh1991
It has been twice that my draft is getting rejected even after following all the guidelines. Proper references are being provided, the content is taken care to be not promotional, valid data is provided and everything else. My draft name - STUDDS Accessories.

Please revert as soon as possible.

Please

AniSingh1991 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your draft was deleted instead of being declined, which means it was promotional to such a level that it warranted speedy deletion and there was no point editing it -- it would need a full rewrite. It seem unlikely that it had "proper references", as you state. This looks like a run-of-the-mill company, so I doubt it is notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we have specific sourcing requirements: there has to be significant in-depth information from reputable reliable publications. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

All the guidelines have been followed but still the draft is getting It has been twice that my draft is getting rejected even after following all the guidelines. Proper references are being provided, the content is taken care to be not promotional, valid data is provided and everything else. My draft name - STUDDS Accessories.

Please revert as soon as possible.

Please

AniSingh1991 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . If you think you're following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but your drafts are nonetheless being deleted, then you almost certainly don't understand the rules. Although "valid data" is a good property for drafts to have, it is insufficient. The topic must be notable, which most companies are not. You may find WP:BFAQ informative. It would be wise to edit existing articles for a few months or years to gain experience before trying to create new ones, especially ones about companies still in existence.


 * Whatever you choose to do, this is not the right place to ask for a deleted draft to be restored. A number of essays have been written for people in your position:
 * So your article has been nominated for deletion
 * What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
 * Help:My article got nominated for deletion!
 * Why was the page I created deleted?
 * These may help you understand why the page was deleted, and what your options are going forward. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

11:51:10, 15 October 2019 review of draft by Rocciadurissima
Hello, an article I wrote has been declined, based on the fact that sources are not all external. I wonder: how is it possible that the notability criterion is not met when someone goes on TV and has millions of views on YT? And why are sources such as discogs and youtube excluded, when by fact they are the only way to effectively prove claims about notability and discography? That's a bit of a paradox. Thanks. Rocciadurissima (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not base notability on popularity or similar factors, only on presence of reputable independent sources. There are specific guidelines for such sources, as stated in the draft's decline reason. We don't write original content, we only aggregate what other sources have already discussed. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

12:56:02, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Chirag-Behre
Hello,

I have made a few changes and added links to the content. Kindly review the same.

Regards, Chirag-Behre (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are independent of the subject. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

13:15:56, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Sourabh kachru
Sourabh kachru (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , your article was likley declined for two reasons: A. as it stands, the article does not meet wp:42 - there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, in order to verify the content of the article. B. Because the article appers overly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. If you are being paid to create articles, are are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI.  Oxon Alex    - talk  19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

17:03:53, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Thebigl42
Hi,

I agree that adding Amazon reference doesn't increase the validity of the page. However, I've also added links to Columbia University, Harvard University, Google -- all of which are notable institutions of our time. This is the most exciting and influential media start up coming out of Kathmandu, Nepal and it feels odd for Wikipedia editors to refuse entry.

Thank you very much.

Thebigl42 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , at the moment, the sources that are independent of the publication are simply mentions of the publication and its founder, rather than in depth coverage. See Trivial mentions.
 * This only means that at the present time, the subject is non notable.
 * This doesn't mean that once it has become a more established fixture, independent, in depth, sources won't become avaliable, at which point you can write an article. This is expanded in the essay WP:TOOSOON - this isn't a reflection on what the magazine will become - In 2006, the article for the iPhone was removed, under similar reasons.  Oxon Alex    - talk  18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean that once it has become a more established fixture, independent, in depth, sources won't become avaliable, at which point you can write an article. This is expanded in the essay WP:TOOSOON - this isn't a reflection on what the magazine will become - In 2006, the article for the iPhone was removed, under similar reasons.  Oxon Alex    - talk  18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean that once it has become a more established fixture, independent, in depth, sources won't become avaliable, at which point you can write an article. This is expanded in the essay WP:TOOSOON - this isn't a reflection on what the magazine will become - In 2006, the article for the iPhone was removed, under similar reasons.  Oxon Alex    - talk  18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

17:30:51, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Bhesch
How can this article be improved to be approved by Wikipedia? Bhesch (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now your article cites zero independent reliable sources. Also, while College Democrats of America is a notable organization, individual chapters usually are not. See WP:BRANCH. shoy (reactions) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * But for example, the Texas College Democrats does have a page without any notability comments on that page. Please explain. Bhesch (reactions) 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I turned Texas College Democrats into a redirect. It does not need its own page, and in fact a version of the page with even more information was previously turned into a redirect at Articles for deletion/Texas College Democrats. shoy (reactions) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

19:13:09, 15 October 2019 review of draft by Creatorsforum
I would like to find out how we can improve the Wikipedia page and get it approved. We tried submitting the draft, but it's been pending review for months. We tried submitting or moving the draft to an article space, but it was deleted and reverted back to a draft with a different name. We don't know if the information, format, etc. is wrong and would like to get the draft reviewed, hopefully, approved and moved to article space as the show is believed to proceed with Season 2 in a month and Season 1's Wikipedia page is not even approved/authorized. It's been taking forever. Kindly advise? Creatorsforum (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creatorsforum (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For starters, I have left a note on your talkpage about WP:PAID editing, you might also wish to read WP:COI. I'm not sure who "we" refers to, but keep in mind that editing for pay requires disclosure, and that accounts must only represent a single person, such as "Dave at Creatorsforum". In terms of the content of the article, the issue is that it is not properly sourced and it reads like an advertisement. Ideally, you need more sources. Said sources need to be reliable, independent, secondary sources. What that means is the source should not be written or related to the subject of the article, as are many of the current sources. Really the best sources are things like news articles and books. Once you have better sources, you then need to make sure the article reads like its part of an encyclopedia. It should be neutral, and read like an uninvolved review of the subject. As is, the articles reads like it is trying to explicitly promote its subject. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)