Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 August 29

= August 29 =

Request on 02:39:40, 29 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Q at MSA
Hi. I’m having difficulties drafting an article for an economic and social development consulting firm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MarketShare_Associates.

First off, I’ll disclose that I’ve been paid by MarketShare Associates (MSA) for my contributions to Wikipedia, as also indicated on my userpage. However, I’m not a staff member, and my mandate is foremost to work with Wikipedia editors to ensure the article’s content is legitimately worthy of inclusion. I'm keen to edit any or all parts of the article in order to achieve this. Any feedback that is helpful in this regard is very appreciated.

The reason I’ve been provided for the declined article is: “This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. 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.”

I’d appreciate guidance on 2 points to ensure that the article is a meaningful encyclopaedic contribution in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines:


 * Areas to change to ensure the article is written from a neutral point of view;
 * Improving the range of independent, reliable, published sources

A few additional clarifying points to explain the challenges I’m having so far:


 * 1) In terms of notability, the subject of the article (an international development firm) provides services and research that have been documented extensively in technical and policy documents formally published by other international aid organizations. No original research is needed to extract content for this article beyond what has been addressed directly and in detail in works published by these projects.
 * 2) On independent, reliable, published sources: The majority of sources referenced in this article are published by international aid organizations (international organizations like the UN, NGOs like Habitat for Humanity, foundations, think tanks, academia, and other private firms), rather than the subject being discussed. The development projects wholly own and have control over the content of the published works. Based #1 and #2, I believe I’ve met the criteria for verifiability and notability.
 * 3) On neutrality: I believe I’ve culled the advertorial language from the article. Which other areas likely need attention? The objective is to include the legitimately impactful work that MSA has contributed to helping other international development organizations.

If there are other areas you’d flag for improvement, please suggest! Thank you for your help!

Q at MSA (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do this bullet by bullet.
 * Merely providing services does not count for notability, even if this is documented. We would need to see professional reviews of those services for them to matter.
 * Aid organisations are generally not acceptable sources, especially if they work with or make use of the company's services (as this effectively makes them a surrogate for the company, and thus no longer third-party as far as Wikipedia sourcing is concerned).
 * The article as writ still reads like an investment brochure trying extremely hard to fly under the radar; the "Approach and Services", "Focus Areas", and "Notable Research" in particular are incredibly problematic from a neutrality standpoint due to blacking out Buzzword Bingo cards, being overly detailed, and going off onto not-directly-relevant tangents.
 * While it is nice that you have disclosed, in my experience as an editor and -en-help regular it's absurdly difficult for a user in your position to be able to write something that falls in line with WP:Neutral point of view simply because it requires a tone that practically nowhere else does and due to inherent bias as a result of your job. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

04:19:04, 29 August 2020 review of submission by Csvijay141987
Csvijay141987 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to promote your webshop, and I feel like I saw this submission before... Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

08:04:18, 29 August 2020 review of submission by Studyash
Studyash (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage(more than a brief mention or press release) to support the article's content.  Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that itn't their fist time they create a section here in the last days. My browser says me that there are 4 section in total, including this one. Maybe send the draft to MfD? Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

19:16:32, 29 August 2020 review of draft by Imi Ike Nui
I am trying to create a page "Kapaemahu (film)" for the animated short film Kapaemahu, which is already mentioned on a few other Wikipedia pages and which is a legit subject (noted in Variety Magazine and other trade and professional journals, Oscar qualified, etc.) But after I aw the review process might take 2-3 months I went to the internet and saw the suggestion of how to get the page published directly (subject to deletion0 I copy-pasted the content into a new page form and added a "suggested deletion" to the draft page.  Now it looks like both pages are rejected?  Sorry to be so amateur- how to fix???

Imi Ike Nui (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , The copy and paste move breaks the enquire traceability that Wikipedia requires, so is invalid. The draft has simply been declined. I suggest you resubmit it.
 * There is no deadline on Wikipedia, so the review will take the time it takes. Fiddle   Faddle  19:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, cut-and-paste moves are essentially internal copyvio thanks to the licencing (C&P moves don't provide attribution). —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

20:21:08, 29 August 2020 review of submission by Rhodium66
Dear friends, I have a question concerning the draft article "Pomogailo Anatoliy". Unfortunately, it has been declined. I have a question - why are the references not enough for Wikipedia? They do show the texts of publications concerning the subject of the article. In addition, the reference to the web-site "math-net.ru", the reference to the web-site of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the reference to the web-site "lifelib.ru" and the reference to the "Intellectual system of the thematic research of the scientometric data" - all of them are the independant and publidhed sources of information in Russia concerning the subject of the article. All these web-sites are the international data bases of the articles and details about their authors. The subject matter of the article is the Soviet and Russian scientist - so, the information about his articles are the main part of the references. I do not understand - why are they not reliable and not enough for Wikipedia? Could ypu please clarify it? So that I could fix the draft of the article. Looking forward to your reply. Thank you!

Kind regards, Rhodium66 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Rhodium66

Rhodium66 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not interested in another Seigenthaler. Every single claim needs to be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. If no such sources exist for a claim, then that claim must be removed. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

22:18:55, 29 August 2020 review of draft by Dyokomizo
I wrote this draft of an article about Code Ocean and it was rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Code_Ocean

Code Ocean is basically a scientific researcher's tool, so there's no significant mention of it on mainstream media.

Both Nature and IEEE published articles about them, but they also partnered with Code Ocean so neither are "independent" sources.

This draft is now stuck in limbo because of this Catch-22.

Dyokomizo (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . If multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of it turn up, then Draft:Code Ocean may be resubmitted. If such sources don't exist, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. Billions of things are unsuitable subjects. I don't see any dilemma here. If you are editing with Wikipedia's interests foremost, then you shouldn't want an article that fails the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria. If you are instead driven by some outside motivation, then you shouldn't be writing about this topic here. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)