Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 13

= July 13 =

00:54:30, 13 July 2020 review of submission by MelissaJeanT
I'd like to have the submission reviewed again. I was hired not to promote the firm, but to ensure that the language and content be unbiased and factual as members of the firm were too close to the content and unable to write in a neutral tone. I have removed and adjusted language that can be misconstrued as boastful or opinionated and only stated facts that are supported by external sources and pages within wikipedia. The original submission was written to match examples of other firms drawn from live pages. However, I am seeking additional help and a second opinion from someone who is more familiar with the level of neutrality needed for a first submission.

MelissaJeanT (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi The fundamental problem is that none of the cited sources are simultaneously; independent of the firm, discuss the firm itself in significant depth and detail, and are published by reliable sources. For example all of the cases mentioned are sourced from the trial records, (primary sources). All they prove are that the firm exists and was involved, but tens of thousands of law firms are involved in millions of legal proceedings all around the world, so that in itself is of no real significance. Court records in any event almost never contain anything significant about the law firms involved. What you need to find is serious journalistic coverage about the firm itself, but excluding press releases, interviews or any other material originating from the firm itself or it's agents or representatives. If you can't find at least three such sources no article about the firm can be accepted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

02:28:03, 13 July 2020 review of submission by 216.174.72.68
I have rewritten the article to conform to encyclopedic guidelines....

216.174.72.68 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, next time you should submit it for consideration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

03:55:02, 13 July 2020 review of draft by Cory Gordon
Hi. I included 3 references, including a front page Washington Post article that broke this story? What is not credible about this? Thank you. Cory Gordon (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please don't ask for help aggressively. While it ought not to prejudice people against your draft we are all real people who volunteer here.
 * I have left you a couple of comments on your draft Fiddle   Faddle  13:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

04:34:33, 13 July 2020 review of submission by JaredT041199
JaredT041199 (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to create an article for Eiji Hanawa but it got rejected, so i tried to improve it but it still got rejected, so what do i do?
 * Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, as it appears the person does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Please review the information left by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

05:00:22, 13 July 2020 review of submission by MichaelDubley
Hello,

I would like to re-submit the following page as all wiki-editors advice for the page has been followed. I have contacted all three wiki-editors to show them the changes and they are content with the changes. Please see the below for what changes were made and who suggested them.

The Drover's wife - Required more reputable references are included. Hemmersbach Rhino Force has many articles by legitimate German journalism organizations that have now been included.

Lapablo - Required that the tone of the article is changed to be wiki-appropriate. I have edited sentences that are not in the correct wiki tone and removed any content that appeared promotional.

On top of the above, I have copied the page of a similiar organisation IAPF as this served as a good template for what accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks very much for your consideration.

Kind regards, Michael. MichaelDubley (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is at Deletion_review/Log/2020_July_7, you can let that proceed to a conclusion. However so it looks as if people are arguing you can ignore the rejection notice and submit it again, or even move it to article space again if you like. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

08:17:35, 13 July 2020 review of submission by Anirudh 2057
Anirudh 2057 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To get this over the line, another reference or two with significant content should be supplied. Not one from villiageinfo.in. If it is a popular holiday destination, then someone will have written about it in a newspaper or magazine. Also if you took the photo, please upload a copy without the name defacing the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

13:51:15, 13 July 2020 review of submission by Adpb
Dear Reviewer, apologies, unsure if I had properly made this request previously. I would like to request a re-review based on the following changes made to address the previous review comments/concerns/issues and to request advise if any further changes are required for the biography’s acceptance.

1)	Comment: “Insufficient improvements since it was sent for incubation.” – Changes made: The biography has been redrafted. 2)	Issues: “WP:PROMO issues” – Changes made: References have been organized to show/include reputed newspaper articles.

3)	Concerns: “WP:NPOV concerns due to author's COI[1]” – Changes made: Prior to the previous review a declaration had been made on the Talk page that I have a connection to the subject.

Thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Thanks Adpb (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Adpb (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 14:58:14, 13 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Steveeanet
I recently created an article for Dave Eanet, the long-time play-by-play announcer for Northwestern football and basketball. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dave_Eanet

The article was rejected, and I received this comment:

"Subject fails WP:GNG. Most of the cited sources are from his employer, WGN, or the school who's games he calls, NU, so none of those are independent of the subject. None of the awards or honors claimed are notable (meaning Wikipedia doesn't have articles about those honors)."

While this explanation makes sense, the one thing I don't understand is why several other college football announcers were able to have published pages while using similar sources (directly from the school/local media outlet). Here are some exapmles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Blaha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Brandstatter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McConnell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Carlin

These men have comparable notability to Eanet. In fact, Eanet has more coverage/accolades than several of them. I have added some more independent sources to my article, but am hoping for a bit more of an understand as to why the above articles got approved but mine didn't.

Steveeanet (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Franky, Wikipedia's standards were lower in the past, and some articles were created which would not be accepted today. Each of the articles that you linked above has notices about problems, and they may be deleted or modified before long. But also, Wikipedia has a practice that each article must stand on its own. This is summarized in the page Other Stuff Exists. To over-simplify that page, just because one article exists that violates a guideline or standard, is not a justification for creating another one. The argument "X exists using similar sources, so you must allow Y" seems logical, but because Wikipedia is volunteer-driven and therefore inco9nsistant in degree of development, such arguments are generally regarded as having little force. The exception might be if the prototype article X hjad been recognized through a peer-review process as a Good Article or a Featured Article. But that is not the case for any of the articles you link to.
 * So I would advise that you not worry about how other articles have or have not been sourced, but simply do what you can to improve the draft you are working on so that it might be accepted. Frankly, reviewers mostly prefer to accept drafts rather than to decline or reject them. But they are tasked with upholding certain standards, and avoiding an article being approved and moved to the main article space, only to have it deleted soon afterwards. This is not easy, which is one reason we have fewer reviewers than drafts to review. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

13 July rejection of Draft: Aicha Evans based on WP:notability
Hello! I’m trying to create / revise an article about an African American Female tech CEO to celebrate #500womenscientists. However, despite 20+ references (from NYT, Forbes, TechCrunch, etc) we are told she still lacks notability. I am curious what “bar” must be satisfied here, as I’ve read (and created) articles with far fewer references and claims to notability from the sports or music world that sail through. All advice welcomed! Tarselli (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * link: Draft:Aicha Evans
 * Hello, Actually, fewer high-quality sources are often better than many poorer ones. Please understand that a source may be highly reliable, but if it does not offer significant coverage, it will help little if at all to demonstrate notability.  I looked at the first 7 sources cited in the draft -- I am not going to check more than 30. Several were behind paywalls, but none of the others offered in-depth coverage of Evans.  A story that she was appointed to a new (and granted important) position, along with a brief resume o9f her previous position(s), is not in-depth coverage. A source should have several paragraphs about Evans, at a minimum, that is not routine coverage, such as anyone in her job would get.
 * Please identify the three to five best sources in the article, all of which should include such in-depth coverage, or add several that do and identify those. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, for the helpful review. I'm going through and stripping out less-important references and refining the text ahead of its third review. Much appreciated! Tarselli (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

19:19:39, 13 July 2020 review of submission by Jeffseif
Jeffseif (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as it was claimed to be copy of https://news-af.feednews.com/news/detail/919c95a284840f1f6f3a9d89afed57f7. Your own original writing is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 21:47:35, 13 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by ArborChamp
Hello, I have submitted my draft for review twice on a highly accomplished director and film-maker Felischa Marye. I have added more than extensive information on the talk page to show why my article is worthy of Wikipedia. There is more than significant coverage and there are others who are on Wikipedia who are directors for the same shows that she is and have less information. At this point, I would like to know if there is a minority or cultural response team that I can reach. I am an African American female who has contributed to Wikipedia and love the platform but it seems as if 80 percent if not all of the edits and reviews are made by men. I have seen it time and time again and have not said anything but due to the climate of change, I feel compelled to finally speak up and say something even if it falls on death ears. As a woman, I demand change on Wikipedia as a journalist and literary I demand change from my peers and as an African American I demand that my voice be heard so that a dialogue can begin. ArborChamp (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC) ArborChamp (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Link: Draft:Felischa Marye
 * Hello, . It is undoubtedly truse that the large majority of active editors of Wikipedia are men, and that their ethnic diversity is significantly less than that of the population at large. They are also more centered in the US then one might wish. But I, and I think most editors, do my best to tr5eat all subjects fairly and equally, based only on Wikipedia policy.
 * There is no to the best of my understanding on Wikipedia, the closest thing I know of is WikiProject Women in Red. Franky, implications of bias in reviewing are not likley to gain a favorable response, still less are "demands".
 * Wikipedia creates articles only for topics with significant coverage from independent reliable sources When there is systematic bias in the sources (and there often is) such that people who should be covered are not, there will inevitably be consequent bias in Wikipedioa. We do not create sources, we merely report on them.
 * as to the draft, lets us look at the last set of source links on the draft page:
 * The first is a blog.
 * The 2nd has a single passing mention of Marye.
 * The 3rd has a single passing mention of Marye.
 * The 4th seems to bew based on an interview or PR, but in any case there is only a passing mention of Marye.
 * The 5tyh says nothign about Marye exceprt that she creaed the show being discussed. It malso sounds very muich like a repeated PR.
 * The same is true of the 6th
 * The 7th doesn't mention Marye at all, although it discusses the show she created.
 * The 8th is a duplicatge of the 6th -- I mean it the the4 exact same page.
 * The 9th discusses the show, but does not so much as mention Marye's name
 * The 10th haa single passing mention, and seems to be based on the same PR as the n2nd and 3rd.
 * And so on. Not one has anything approaching significant coverage of Marye. I am not goign to go through all the otehr sources listed on the talk page and in the draft. Can you please identify, preferably on the draft's talk page, some three to five independent reliable sources, each of which has significant coverage of Marye? At least several paragraphs about her? Large numbers of weak sources only harm the case, because when the first several prove worthless, the tendency is to just dismiss the draft as a waste of time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I think that "several paragraphs" in 3-5 sources may be a stretch. I think that a few lengthy paragraphs in 2-3+ sources should be fine if they provide sufficient context about the subject.  Username 6892 00:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

22:51:22, 13 July 2020 review of submission by SescotRadio
SescotRadio (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You say that our submission is not'significant enought' to warrent inclusion. Why?
 * under WP:G11.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)