Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 August 31

= August 31 =

00:47:48, 31 August 2020 review of submission by 2804:14D:7E82:A39F:E1A6:CA7A:866:C4F8
2804:14D:7E82:A39F:E1A6:CA7A:866:C4F8 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Because it's a very famous object show worldwide and has atleast 600 Million views, and it's very well made
 * And yet there is not one reference in the article that would suggest that any journalist from any reliable source has ever seen it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

04:29:17, 31 August 2020 review of submission by ColourfulKharacter
Hi. I am trying to understand the notability for indie films. This one, 1956 Central Travancore, has been picked up by film festivals and received considerable coverage in independent media, and yet it is rejected for publication repeatedly. I've seen far less substantiated articles being accepted for publication, like Savam by the same director coincidentally, for instance. Or this one that was a winner at the same festival.

I have read the notability guidelines backwards and forwards, and the specific entry of film too. I feel that this entry qualifies, but apparently it doesn't. I am super confused at this point, so I would appreciate some help.

ColourfulKharacter (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be that you ask the reviewer of your draft directly why they made the decision they did. In any event, please see other stuff exists.  It is usually a poor argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist; those articles could be problematic as well.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us.  We can only address what we know about.(I've tagged one of the articles you mention as having issues)  This is why each article is judged on its own merits.
 * Your draft seems to be cited largely to press release-type articles or other routine announcements. (I say that while noting that I cannot understand the non-English sources given) This is not the significant coverage required.  331dot (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I understand that there are lacunae in the process; I was not using the other articles as an argument for mine to exist. I am merely pointing out that I am confused by what is considered notable for indie films specifically, because there appear to be entries that are notable in their own right but lack significant coverage.


 * I have already read other stuff exists as well. I was asking for help to understand if there is a rubric I missed about indie films, which by their nature do not receive significant coverage, but are notable for the strides they make in non-commercial cinema.


 * Thank you for your suggestion of contacting the reviewer; I will do so. ColourfulKharacter (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of specific notability criteria for independent films; all films are judged using the same criteria. Unfortunately, the requirement that a subject get significant coverage in reliable sources does prevent some topics from appearing on Wikipedia either significantly or at all- but verification is an important principle of Wikipedia. If an independent film has made strides in non-commercial cinema, somebody unaffiliated with a particular film needs to say so and explain why. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

07:48:41, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Studyash
Studyash (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Request on 08:15:55, 31 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Alvin kipchumba kosgei
i do not have the suitable experience to continue editing and researching this amazing article that requires a suitable and experienced editor i hope it would not be a problem.thanks

Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This would need reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Not acceptable sources include:


 * The subject's social media pages and the subject's homepage, as they are not independent. This includes interviews
 * other user-generated content
 * Directory entries, as they areant significant coverage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

09:12:05, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Aie555
I've reviewed the draft and removed all sources that do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. I've added some new sources that should make a better case for notability.

Aie555 (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. Swapping out the references will not solve the issue of notability; please review the definition of a notable company. No amount of editing can confer notability on this business, it must be apparent from significant coverage in published, independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I've reviewed the listed resources prior to my edits and tried to adapt the draft accordingly. Since the last time the draft has been reviewed there have been some new developments which are cited using new authoritative and independent sources. If the new coverage is not enough, what steps can I take to help publish this article? Aie555 (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that this is the only topic you have edited about, do you have a connection with Memsource? 331dot (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. I've disclosed my conflict of interests on my user page.
 * You don't say what your COI is. If you are an employee or other paid representative, you need to make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement.  As I said, no matter how much you edit your draft, you cannot confer notability on this company.  It depends on significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show how this company meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable company.  If the company does not meet this definition, it would not merit an article at this time.  Not every company does, even within the same field. Ideally, an article should be written by an independent editor that has taken note of significant coverage of this company in reliable sources and chooses on their own to write about it.  If you have been tasked with creating this draft, you will have to disappoint your superiors- pursuing this further will, to be frank, only waste your own time and that of others.  Feel free to show your superiors this discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I believe that I've made the appropriate disclosure, as I will neither receive or expect to receive any financial compensation for my edits. I have also not been tasked to edit it, my contributions are entirely voluntary. As for the issue of notability, I've added a few sources relating to recent developments which were covered by independent and reputable sources (Forbes, Slator, CzechCrunch). My other edits were primarily focused on removing primary sources, sources of questionable independence, and anything that resembled a sales pitch. Aie555 (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the nature of your conflict of interest? Something can be promotional without being a "sales pitch".  Being promotional does not just mean soliciting customers or selling something, at least to Wikipedia. Promotional includes merely telling about the subject.  331dot (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point regarding promotional content, but this article could only be considered promotional if the provided sources do not make a convincing case for notability. I believe that my edits have addressed the concerns of previous reviewers and have gone further to establish notability. I would welcome any substantive feedback on the draft itself and the provided sources. As for my conflict of interests, I work in the language technology industry and have professional relationship with Memsource. I have not been tasked to write this and do not expect any compensation, financial or otherwise. Aie555 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, swapping out the sources doesn't change the notability of this company. You could ask the reviewer who rejected your draft if your changes change their opinion, and I certainly don't speak for them, but I don't think it will succeed. It may help if you specifically cite the parts of the notability guidelines you feel you have met, and run all the sources through the criteria described here. Unless you can convince them to change their mind, there isn't much more that you can do. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

10:32:11, 31 August 2020 review of draft by 2A02:587:B80C:700:15B1:918B:9D88:DD1C
Although the process is still ongoing for a draft biography of Vassilios Joseph Lefakinis (a pioneer businessman from Greece), I see there is a comment that implies the article is a SPAM. Where this stands for? What do I need to pay attention in order not to have such characterisation? Thanks! 2A02:587:B80C:700:15B1:918B:9D88:DD1C (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing such a comment. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

13:31:07, 31 August 2020 review of draft by Eswnav
Eswnav (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone improve this article.

Request on 13:58:43, 31 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ackee123
Hi, I would like to start over with this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adegoke_Steve_Colson Please can soemone help me? I understand the issues better now. To be clear the person who I spoke with about the content which I had based my material on said that he is happy for me to actually use his content, but I would rather start anew to have a clearly encyclopedic article. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, but have had to sort out the family health stuff, and things arebetter now

Ackee123 (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

16:56:22, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Abbas Kwarbai
Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)