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

= July 29 =

00:03:26, 29 July 2020 review of submission by Paul.jonah.paul
Since I submitted Draft:Shift4 Payments one year ago, the company has gone public on the NYSE. WP: Listed says it would be unusual for a NYSE-listed company not to have a Wikipedia article: “sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.” In this case, high-quality, independent analyst reports I have cited in the completely rewritten and resourced draft include those from: Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Citi, S&P Global, and RBC Capital. Since these analyst reports are behind expensive paywalls, I have included relevant excerpts on the Talk page of the draft. In addition, there is now mainstream editorial coverage from Reuters, Barrons , Bloomberg , Yahoo Finance (the news division, with independent reporters) , Market Watch , Fast Company and Business Insider  that Motley Foo  and Seeking Alpha [https://seekingalpha.com/news/3587376-credit-suisse-takes-bull-case-on-shift4-payments} could be added, if needed. Every three months there will be a new wave of analyst reporting coinciding with the mandatory public quarterly earning reports. FYI, I have modeled this article from Elgato and Tapad, both rated WP: Good Articles, to come up with the format of the draft, specifically separating out a Services section below History. As disclosed on Talk, I have a COI. Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Paul.jonah.paul, your draft was rejected (rejections are harder to overturn than regular declines) so possibly. Eternal Shadow   Talk  22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. It seems this was archived before a decision was made. You said "possibly." Should we bring other editors into the discussion? Set up an RfC? Bring this out of the archive? I realize a "rejection" is usually final, but the prominence and sourcing for this subject has changed so much in the 16 months since the rejection, this is really an exception. The rejection was before this company became NYSE-listed. This is a huge development. NYSE is probably the most important stock exchange in the world. This guarantees that every single quarter, from now on, this subject will have extensive independent analyst and editorial coverage, as recognized by WP: LISTED. I'm sorry I submitted it prematurely 16 months ago - since I personally didn't know much about Wikipedia at the time - but the encyclopedia readers shouldn’t be punished because I was new.  Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

00:31:13, 29 July 2020 review of submission by MAKANYC
I am not questioning your professionalism about what should pass or what should not. But Before it was required for person to have articles written about him/her. now it seems to be not enough? Or should person have 25k instagram followers and than its notable. don't be this hypocritical. I asked what is notable you guys send me link about it. This person completed every requirement to be included in wikipedia. Please do not apply your own understanding of notable to any submitted subjects.

Thanks. MAKANYC (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see from comments on the draft that you need to disclose paid editing before making further edits. Please do so, because yiu risk being blocked if you do not. UPE has been deployed on it. While paid editing is allowed the declaration must be made and must be clear, and in accordance with your policies.
 * In answer to your other question, no. You are in danger of being accused of casting aspersing upon the editor who has rejected your advert. It required, requires, better references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, 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 person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * If you are to overturn the rejection you have a great deal of work to do after you have made the declaration of paid editing. Fiddle   Faddle  10:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

01:00:50, 29 July 2020 review of draft by Onehundredhundredking
How many of the 248 first level country administrative divisions do I need citations for in order for it to get approved?

Onehundredhundredking (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is not the correct question. The correct question is "Do all entries on this list require references to prove that they belong?"
 * Generally the answer is that all list members require such a reference Fiddle   Faddle  10:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

07:30:09, 29 July 2020 review of submission by Katharina Konarek
Dear all, please be so kind to review the page again and let me know if it suits the wikipedia stanards.

Katharina Konarek (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

10:19:22, 29 July 2020 review of submission by Xinonag441
Xinonag441 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles must be based mainly on what has been written about the subject in reliable independent sources with some coverage of the subject (not yust passing mentions). Since your draft diddn't supply such sources, and a Google search neither brought up something usefull, the draft was rejected, meaning the reviewers dont intend on reviewing it again in the foreseeable future. You may want to read WP:TOOSOON and possibly Guidance for younger editors. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

10:35:53, 29 July 2020 review of submission by Dr. Susanne Saygin
The reviewer refused my submission on the grounds that it does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations, admonishing me to "Please check how to reference an article on Wikipedia. You need to find at least 3 reliable, independent sources which discuss the subject and use these as inline citations in the text". Yet, the only inline citation in my article is a crossreference to an - already approved - wikipedia-article on Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. I don't see/understand, why I would have to come up with and footnote three independent sources for a mere crossreference? What precisely is the problem here? Thanks for your feedback

Dr. Susanne Saygin (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft offers no sources to support its content. Wikipedia articles about people must do more than tell about the person. They must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Not every person merits an article on Wikipedia. If the person does not have significant coverage by sources- coverage that goes beyond brief mentions, routine announcements, etc., they would not merit an article at this time. You may find it helpful to read WP:Your First Article and use the new user tutorial- as successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

12:08:08, 29 July 2020 review of submission by Pdave51
I am unclear about why my submission was so quickly summarily dismissed as "not notable". Surely, positive ratings of my book, Winning the Poo, which is available in eBook, audio and paperback format, with such excellent ratings (averaging 4.9 stars out of 5) across the world, including reviews in the USA, UK, Germany, France and Italy, should suffice to render this "notable"? My main objective, however, is simply to assist the many young "reluctant readers" in the world today. Teachers in the UK have been buying this book for that very purpose, as its sartorial humor appeals to, and gains the attention of, such reluctant young readers. It also seems to me that similarly successful books have been included on Wikipedia, which leaves me feeling unfairly discrimated against. My work is verifiable and there are no copyright issues. I do hope to receive a positive re-review allowing my content to be published.

Thank you in advance. David Price Pdave51 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. There are sourcing criteria for this. You haven't provided any sources at all. We would need sources, such as reviewers from reputable publications with editorial staff. User reviews aren't used on Wikipedia. Other factors like popularity, appeal, etc. are not used for notability either. The way the draft is written is basically promotional and not acceptable without a substantial rewrite. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hi . The draft was quickly rejected because it cites zero sources, and searches found no full-length reviews in independent, reliable sources (think The Times, The Guardian, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde, La Republica, and the like). Ratings and user reviews on Amazon, Goodreads, and similar websites are worthless to Wikipedia. The book is not notable (does not satisfy the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria) so volunteers do not intend to waste time reviewing the draft again. Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself or promote your work. If any book that doesn't meet the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines has managed to sneak in, it should be deleted. It isn't a good excuse to add another such book. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

14:05:52, 29 July 2020 review of submission by CathLcvl
I am not sure why this page was not approve as I believe all requirements were respected. Can you please guide me?

CathLcvl (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is a WP:BLP, inline citations are absolutely required. Anything that could be challenged definitely needs a source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

16:57:12, 29 July 2020 review of submission by anmolmonga2009
Need help for this article I am writing. Thanks.


 * Draft:Barbie Maan would benefit from examination by reviewers with expertise in musician biographies . Another editor,, has cited the same UK Asian (OCC) chart and YouTube charts in articles such as Karan Aujla discography, Prem Dhillon, and Sidhu Moose Wala discography. The Official Charts Company UK Asian chart looks suitable under the general guidelines. However, my reading of Record charts and Walter Görlitz's reply in its talk archives is that the YouTube charts shouldn't be used, because they're single-network. Musician biographies are not my specialty, so input from those more experienced in the area would be appreciated. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MUSICBIO, the official charts reference is enough to demonstrate notability. The draft definitely needs some work, but it is proven notable. That's my assessment....charting is sort of a "quick success" test for notability, assuming the chart is Official Charts Company, Billboard, etc. I hope that that helps! -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

18:06:46, 29 July 2020 review of submission by MANOJ KUMAR SWASI 2
MANOJ KUMAR SWASI 2 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This submission lacks any form of reliable independent source. Twitter is not a reliable source. Google's search page is not a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

18:36:29, 29 July 2020 review of submission by 83.9.228.58
83.9.228.58 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This lacks any form of reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

18:49:10, 29 July 2020 review of draft by Agebhardnyc
Hi everyone, this draft article (Draft:TCN_Coalition) was initially rejected on June 13 has been significantly improved and resubmitted about 3-4 weeks ago now. The editor who rejected it advised that she isn't currently reviewing much and due to the timeliness of the space this article relates to, I was wondering if y'all see any chance to re-review the submission (and hopefully approve it, of course)? Thanks! Andreas Agebhardnyc (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

21:29:53, 29 July 2020 review of submission by Owerby
Hi! I didn't see articles on Wikipedia that described the differences between pandemic pods, micro schools, and educational family co-ops. As most schools (at least in California) will be held virtually this fall due to pandemic concerns, having an article that gave parents tools on how to think about educational options for their kids seemed worthy of a Wikipedia article. I'm very surprised it was deemed "not worthy". Please help! Owerby (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I expect I can distill this into "Why has my draft been rejected?" since this is a help desk where people ask for help.
 * It is WP:OR, an essay, and WP:SYNTH, and would make a decent newspaper article synopsis. It doe snot make an article for Wikipedia.
 * Pandemic Pods are certainly in the news, and likely to pass WP:N. This draft cannot.
 * If you start from scratch, find references, and write in a neutral tone about what the references say then you are likely to create something worth having. What I suggest you do is to abandon this page and star again without ever looking at it again. Referring to it will hinder you
 * 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 any 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  21:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

22:41:44, 29 July 2020 review of submission by Owerby
Hi, I'm trying to publish an article that explains Pandemic Pods, Micro Schools, and Educational Family Co-ops. I focus on the differences between these entities and why they are relevant now that most schools will only be held virtually. This seems like an important topic and I provided lots of references. Can you please explain why it was denied? Thank you!

Thank you for your answer. Just saw it! Owerby (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , A pleasure. I'm sorry to bear bad news, but a full rewrite from scratch is in order. I'm afraid nothing can or should be saved from the original version.
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle   Faddle  11:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle   Faddle  11:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)