Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 15

= July 15 =

05:07:54, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Mr. Wiki Indian
Mr. Wiki Indian (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This article can be made, because when the article was present, it was covered with semi-protection. This proves that, the article was notable, but over time the information and sources were removed from the article. Which led reviewers to think that the article is not notable.

It is proved that when the article was present, semi-protection was imposed by the administrator.

My only opinion is to remake the article.


 * ❌ See Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani Fiddle   Faddle  06:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

08:20:05, 15 July 2020 review of submission by PiZzaMizzA2004
Battle for Dream Island is a YouTube series with millions of views. The page was given two reasons why it was denied. One was for notability. It won the Fandom 2016 Battle of the Fantasy Foods with Yoylecake. It also is a member of the Channel Frederator Network. The other reason was for going against the core Wikipedia values. I do not think the article goes against them. I am working on adding citations, and I do not think that the page is being added just for public recognition. I hope that it is re-reviewed. If it is denied, I can understand, since it's just a stub at certain points. PiZzaMizzA2004 (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Viewership is not usually a measure of notability, neither is winning a frankly unremarkable award(it isn't an Academy Award). What matters is if this web series received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that chose on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of notable web content. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

11:26:55, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Wikibtalpha
Why? This is not a promotion. Its just introduction of the LSCCTV media organization. Wikibtalpha (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft just tells about this organization; that is considered promotional on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself.
 * If you are associated with this organization, you must review and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

12:52:14, 15 July 2020 review of draft by Mariabeyond
Hi! I based this Beyond Celiac page off of other foundation pages such as The Lupus Foundation of America or the Michael J. Fox Foundation which weren't rejected. Looking for suggestions on how to get the page published and not rejected. Thank you!

Mariabeyond (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.


 * Lupus Foundation of America didn't go through the Articles for Creation process, so no one ever rejected it, but no one ever accepted it either. The most recent major edits were by someone who appears to be an undisclosed paid editor, so in its current state it may be a steaming pile of manure, not something you want to use as a model. The Michael J. Fox Foundation was kept mainly because it's the largest funder of private research in the US, and has been written about extensively. In its current state the article has serious problems, and should not be imitated.


 * When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. If you wish to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

16:44:46, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Brad Lambert
Brad Lambert (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I imagine you would like to know why your autobiography is being nominated for speedy deletion? WP:NOTLINKEDIN may assist Fiddle   Faddle  16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

17:47:13, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Sailrite
Hello, I would like a little more direction on what changes I can make to this page to keep it on Wikipedia. It is meant to be an unbiased explanation and historical background of the sewing machine company, Sailrite. If you could just be a little more specific on what needs to be fixed I will make the changes. Thank you.

Sailrite (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please note your draft is blatant promotion of the company and its products which is not acceptable here. ~ Amkgp  💬  18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

18:08:41, 15 July 2020 review of draft by (Oinkers42)
What am I supposed to place in the Reception section if not listicles? Also, why does everyone keep trying to remove draft categories?(Oinkers42) (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(Oinkers42) (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm having trouble here. The draft categories are present. And "What am I supposed to place in the Reception section if not listicles?" is impenetrable for me. Perhaps you would expand on that thought? Fiddle   Faddle  19:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , When the article was removed, the draft category Category:Drafts about fictional people was removed. I re-added it immediately after. For the "What am I supposed to place in the Reception section if not listicles?" comment, when my draft was reviewed, the main point of contention was "Many of the sources are listicles (the use of which is discouraged) or WP:TRIVIAL mentions.". I was wondering on if the opinion of people that are not directly review-based was ineligible for the article, then what is the point of a reception section for a fictional character.(Oinkers42) (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see the word 'listicle' now, in the decline comment, not a term I have seen before. Category:Drafts about fictional people is, I think, neither here nor there.  Fictional characters are outside my reviewing expertise, I'm afraid. Have you asked  for a little more help by explaining theor rationale to help you? We each must be able to explain what we do  Fiddle   Faddle  19:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You might also wish to ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games Fiddle   Faddle  19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

18:14:34, 15 July 2020 review of draft by Sungjinyun
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

This page is not promotional because it gives an unbiased explanation of what Daniel Gale Sotheby's International Realty is as a company and will provide the history of how it was founded and how it grew to be one of the largest Real Estate brokerages in one of the most expensive cities to live in. I don't think this page does anything more than explain what Daniel Gale is as a company and how they became the company they are today with current leadership. Please let me know if there's anything I can do specifically to keep this page up. I've done thorough research on this topic and have provided several different sources that speak of it at the regional and national level. Douglas Elliman, another real estate brokerage, has a similar page and they have no issues. SJY 18:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * {{u|Sungjinyun}}, I've looked with care at the references. These are key to this moving from a draft into an article. A couple, perhaps three, are interviews with members of the firm. Those are primary sources, can be used sparingly, but are no use in verifying notability. I'm afraid that includes the New York Times. The Newsday one is unavailable to me in the UK. I can't judge it. The remainder are difficult. If accepted today I predict it would be nominated for immediate deletion. That's not good.
 * Your tone is not promotional, but your references are. Can you find a couple that are truly speaking about the firm? We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle   Faddle  18:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

20:00:04, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Thotd123
This article is sufficiently notable because it has a Google Knowledge Panel. Please Reconsider it. Thotd123 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ A Google Knowledge Panel doesn't make the subject notable. -   t • c 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

20:59:04, 15 July 2020 review of draft by 65.158.226.226
Hello there - I was inquiring once more on what types of references you're looking for since what I've submitted the past 4 times has been declined. When going to Sony Music's wiki page, all of those references are linked back to other wiki pages, however, it seemed in the last review I was told not to link to other wiki pages. So where should I look to place the correct references for this music label? Please advise. Thank you!

65.158.226.226 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the sources actually used in the article:
 * YP.Com is just a directory entry, no significant coverage. am not sure if this would count as an independent relaible, source anyway, but without significant coverage it doesn't matter.
 * The IMDB is not considerd a relaible source (in most cases) and should not be cit4ed
 * The Fantastic Negrito does not even mention Position_Music, much less have significant overage of it. Moreover, since that is a group:# published by Position, their statements are not independent and do not help to establish notability.
 * The Laughing Squid page again does not ven mention Position music that I can see, much less offer significant coverage.
 * The Toy Story 4 trailer again does not even mention Position music. It might be the the film itself gives a credit, but not the linked trailer.
 * In short, not one of these cited sources offers any support for the notability of Position music. I am not going to examine in detail the 22 unlinked web sites listed. If some of these are, you believe, actually helpful, please list the best three to five of them. Please do not list any that are not independent of Position Music, which mean no blogs, nothing based on a press release, nothing from any group published by Position, noting from any business partner or affiliate of position, and of course nothing from posi8tion itself. Further please only list ones that include significant coverage of positio9n, say several paragraphs or more actually about position, not just a mention that it has published this work or that. If there are more than five that fit these specifications, please list only the best five. If there are not at least three, well, maybe two, don't bother. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

21:30:49, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Nitin.35
The draft created was marked as advertising content, I have taken all the information from a Google News search for keyword 'Edureka' and only those sources which I believe to be neutral. I want to understand which part / references are considered as advertising, so that I can take care of that in all my future edits. I have tried to post everything from a 'neutral point of view' as mentioned in the review comments. Another review comment says that the topic of article doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article, so I want to understand the qualifying criteria also. As per my understanding, the topic i.e. 'Edureka' has received lots of media coverage (which I have also used in references), which is reliable and independent in nature.

Would like to understand these points so that I can improve my future submissions. TIA

Nitin.35 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * is Your old account? If so, you must return there and appeal the block first.  Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No this is the only account I have and it has been there for almost 10 years now I believe. If you are wondering about my relationship with the topic, I do not have any relation with that account or the topic itself. I just used their service and didn't find an article on wikipedia so I drafted one using info available at various media articles by doing a google search. I have done the same for a few other topics and was wondering what I need to keep in mind while looking for information from google search. I do try to follow the guidelines given by wikipedia and only try to use known media entities that are neutral, non promotional and not interviews / paid articles. But its subjective and I might have judged incorrectly a paid media article as independent coverage. Thanks for your time. Nitin.35 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. - My purpose is not to challenge the decision to decline the draft, just want to improve my editing & research skills. I do see a lot of Indian companies with notable mentions in public space but without a proper Wiki article. If possible I would like to contribute towards that.Nitin.35 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

/ : I understand that wikipedia has WP:NO DEADLINE, just wanted to bring your attention back to my query. I've tried to look back at the draft multiple times, but I am not able to understand what language is being considered as advertising. Also out of the references given in the draft, if any of the references are biased and/or promotional let me know about that, I'll try to replace those references. While we are on this point, another draft I created Draft:Yulu_Bikes is under review for 3-4 weeks now. That might also be having similar issues, So if I can find out the actual issue, I can fix them in all my submissions. Nitin.35 (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave 2 reasons : the more important one is that the article did not contain sufficient third-party reliable sources to show notability sources dealing with funding and similar routine business activities do not count towards notability. To mail announcements such as the offering of a course or emotional interview in a trade paper. Therefore the  effect of the article  was to be a promotional for the school.  if you have good references that discuss the subject in substantial detail and do not consist mainly of interviews with the founder you can try again DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Nitin.35 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)