Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 May 25

= May 25 =

02:02:53, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Belachow
Hi! I have edit out some parts which might seems not in a neutral tone, can you please tell me are the references appropriate? And what more I can do to get it publish. My boss has been nagging me about always failing in making this wiki page, I am very frustrated and tired of this, I am apparently a COI but he just doesn't care. Please let me know what more I can do! Many thanks!!!! Belachow (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

02:22:58, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Glammazon
Glammazon (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting a review because l finally did correct the External References section and even added a new reference.
 * Most of the references are still returning 404 codes. Looks like they are one-time-urls. The only url I was able to access was https : //www.digitalcomicmuseum.com/index.php?cid=51, which I archived to prevent more dead urls. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

09:01:08, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Nycinuk
Hello have just added another reference to this development as I just saw it (Musicweek)- still not clear when this article is not being approved.

Also not clear why I am being accused of being paid to create this article?

Suggest an editor googles outernet london to verify the notability

Thanks for your help!

Nycinuk (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for the decline has been given to you in the draft several times: "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. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." Additional comments have been left by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

09:15:27, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Shanisun
Shanisun (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning it will not be considered further. Please review the reasons given by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

10:34:19, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Checkmate149
i submitted this article for creation of a new wiki page and was told it doesnt deserve an article. this individual started an edtech platform which has around 100k users in tanzania, he was the 18th most influential young tanzanian out of 50 in 2019 beating the likes of senior government officials like the regional commisioner, Mr. Paul Makonda. there are tens of articles on his work and tens of health articles he has written for the biggest newspaper in the country, The Citizen. the name is Ali Khatau. he is a medical doctor at agakhan hospital and is the chief medical intern plus the head of postgraduate applications among the interns. please google that name and look him up. hes won many awards and many article features in different reliable websites. i dont think the reviewer took enough time to go through the citations we attached to the article. if he had done so, he would have seen the tremendous work this individual is doing in tanzania. i dont blame the reviewer as i understand the large amount of articles needing reviewing for wiki everyday. please review this article and especially the links/citations and do advise. if you still think he doesnt deserve a wiki page, ill respect your decision and wont pursue it further, but i strongly believe he does based on current citations attached. Checkmate149 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've commented on Draft:Ali Khatau. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

10:35:41, 25 May 2020 review of submission by ToLoveAgain
Please re-review this page about Kit David Torres and what is needed for it to be approved. All the references needed were already given which are all viewable via internet - both in UK and Philippines news. Please give regard and take into consideration. Thank you.

ToLoveAgain (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It seems that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

11:35:25, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Uros77
Hi, I tried to follow all of your recommendations. I hope you can review it again and see if it is a good fit now. :)

Thank you.

Best, Uroš

Uros77 (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Uros77. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

11:48:10, 25 May 2020 review of submission by 27.123.142.39
27.123.142.39 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft you created was only an introductory sentence about yourself. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves, this is an encyclopedia.  Please read the autobiography policy for more information.  If you want a user page where you can tell the Wikipedia community a little about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use, you may create an account. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

12:10:52, 25 May 2020 review of submission by PTEKNI
My article submission has declined, I would be grateful, if you could provide me some information about the reasons. PTEKNI (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You were given the reasons for the decline by the reviewer on the draft. Do you have questions about those reasons? 331dot (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

13:29:41, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Samantha Herbst
Samantha Herbst (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking for help with the Paid Contributor template.

I recently submitted a Draft article which was reviewed and declined. I have since amended the issues that the editor had with the article sources and included the Paid Contributor template to my talk page. Please can you advise if I have done everything correctly and whether it is safe to resubmit my article.

My submission: Draft: Mint Group

Samantha Herbst (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft seems to be sourced to nothing but press releases or other routine business announcements, which are primary sources that do not establish that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it, with independent reliable sources who have chosen on their own to give a subject significant coverage.  331dot (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Since it was reviewed, however, I have taken out all references to press releases and only included articles run by reputable news agencies and industry journals. These publications would not have published under duress and definitely did so independently... Does it really still look otherwise to you (a genuine question)?

Can you confirm how many times I am allowed to submit and revise? And if my Paid Contributor template is correct on my talk page?

Thank you for your assistance.

Samantha Herbst (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft is ALL pure marketing puffery "workspace optimisation aimed at empowering the international workforce" "has worked to expand its service offering over the years" "a global services provider that assists clients" "to offer the South African industry a comprehensive set of integrated IT solutions" is all totally inappropriate content and so is the rest. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk) I could really use some help here. Asking me to "please stop" on my draft is not helpful. Would whittling this piece way down to the bare bones be more appropriate? I'm really doing my best to understand what exactly Wikipedia is looking for here. I changed the sources, would you be willing to have a look if I whittled down the language?

Samantha Herbst (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia explicitly excludes trade rags ("industry journals") such as ITWeb and its Alpha and Brainstorm publications, MS Dynamics World, Microsoft Care GH, IT Online, and Engineer IT from sources that can demonstrate notability, because of their narrow audience and often too-cozy relationship with companies in the industry they cover. Using the wrong kind of sources is probably part of why it's so nauseating to read. The draft still does nothing to show that the company is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. What is Wikipedia looking for? It's not looking for an article about this company. Consider alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

14:16:48, 25 May 2020 review of draft by 2A00:23C7:9C81:CB01:5B:32A3:CFA3:4ECE
Hi

I really fear that this is not being looked at objectively but out of some misguided attempt to make some sort of point.

I am trying to address all possible reasons for not approving this post. Let's go through them all and then the actual post and perhaps you could help (as I believe this is a help desk?) and tell me what you feel needs to be changed.

1. I am not being paid to post this content. You asked me to make a statement saying this and I have already made this statement on one of my earlier requests for help on this help desk. I do not work for the organisation in question but I walk past the site every working day and I'm a journalist (not connected to any of the citations) and don't understand why this is not on Wikipedia.

2. The site is notable. It's a major development in the heart of world famous city. There are public spaces and facilities. There has been lots of press coverage. There is lots of local talk about it. It includes Denmark Street which if you know anything about music is world famous (see it's Wikipedia entry). Google it if you doubt any of this.

3. Now let's turn to the actual proposed entry. As mentioned several requests for helps back there is no hyperbole or exaggerated claims. I have simply put together a narrative about the site based on sources I have found by googling as I satisfy me curiosity. The reason there are so many citations are a) because it appears to be written about quite a lot (because it is a big thing in London) and b) because several of the previous rejections have asked for more sources. I fail to see what better references can be provided than editorial coverage in the UK mainstream press and broadcast media. Have you even looked at the citations? They are "a range of independent, reliable, published sources" - none of whom I work for.

So let's go through it:

--> Outernet London is the name of a mixed use development currently under construction in the West End of London.

It is. Not promotional.

--> Construction follows more than a decade of planning.[1]

True - the future of the site has been a source of much discussion for anyone who knows the area. Also covered in citations. Not promotional.

--> The site is adjacent to the new Crossrail Tottenham Court Road/Charing Cross Road southern exit and runs across Denmark Street - “Tin Pan Alley” with St Giles High Street to the east and Charing Cross Road to the west.

This is correct. Not promotional.

--> To protect against vibration from from Crossrail and Northern line tunnels special construction methods have been used. [2]

So is this. Added to give even more context. Not promotional.

--> The development is due to open in 2020.[3]

What the coverage and hoardings on the site say. Not promotional.

--> It will feature many areas and facilities available to the general public including a 2,000 capacity music venue, a gallery, broadcasting and media facilities, a hotel, bars and restaurants.[4]

All factual as far as I can see. Confirmed by several of the cited sources. Presumably this is useful or do you deem this promotional?

--> The public spaces will feature a number of high resolution video screens [5] [6] including the "World's largest LED screen deployment".[7] [8] Announcements have been made that there will be advertising campaigns using virtual reality [9], augmented reality [10] and artificial intelligence. [11] News reports have indicated that entertainment will be created by Technicolor[12] [13] [14] and Sir Ridley's Scott's the Ridley Scott Creative Group.[15] [16] [17] There will also be residential apartments [18] office space [19] and 20,000 sq ft of retail space[20]. The area immediately surrounding Outernet is also under development from Crossrail and other projects. By 2021 when all these projects complete the Oxford Street shopping area will have undergone significant renewal.[21] [22]

This is all based on what I have read and would seem - to me - to explain why the whole site is notable over and above where it is. Surely the largest outdoor screens in the world are notable? Is saying what the site will contain promotional? A lot of this has been added since my first draft because more references keep on being asked for. It is all factual and based on citations. If you object to any of this part please explain why and which bits?

--> The site includes Denmark Street which is being redeveloped as part of the project. Denmark Street has been synonymous with music in London[23] and has traditionally featured music equipment shops and live music related nightlife. The street is nicked named London's Tin Pan Alley.[24]

This is correct, gives context and completely factual. Not promotional.

--> The redevelopment as part of Outernet has been welcomed by London's Night Czar Amy Lame [25] but the redevelopment has been controversial [26] and also criticised with many commentators lamenting [27] the decline of live music in London [28] and criticising the redevelopment plans. [29] [30] [31]

Also true - citations all evidence this. Not promotional.

--> Outernet London have said they will preserve the music legacy and support live music.[32] It is reported that the redeveloped Denmark Street will featuring busking points and a pro-bono recording studio.[33]

Also true - citations all evidence this. Not promotional.

--> The main construction contractor for the project is Skanska[34] and the developer is Consolidated Developments [35] [36]

Also true - citations all evidence this. Not promotional.

Please advise which parts "read like an advert" to you and how you like those parts written to not "read like an advert" in your eyes. Please also advise which of the citations you seem to think I have written and are not "independent, reliable, published sources"

Thank you. 2A00:23C7:9C81:CB01:5B:32A3:CFA3:4ECE (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you editing whilst logged out? Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

14:24:24, 25 May 2020 review of draft by DIP UZH
Is it possible to help improve this article according to standard or article can not be published Thanks so much DIP UZH (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi what struvk me about the draft is the many claims without sources, so I will place tags where it needs references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thank You so much for advise. Citations done. You can see the draft text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIP UZH (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

14:56:04, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Գարիկ Ավագյան
Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This article goes through "Notability (music)" at least, for these two:

"3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."

Why it was declined? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suspect the reviewer failed to find the WP:THREE in the draft. From what I see, some sources in the draft dont appear to be reliable (at least Amazon is afaik not reliable). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

14:56:44, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Nycinuk
Have updated further in response to feedback - note if you look at other similar developments that have entries like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Yards_(development) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shard (which are both obviously bigger entries as those sites are now complete) they are written in a similar style.

Nycinuk (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OSE for why its often not a good argument to cite other articles for the existence of yours. Howewer, it appears good now from what I see. @reviewers, If I missed something, it would be glad if you highlighted the problematic text in some way. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

16:31:10, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Michaelbeijer
Hi there, I know very little about how WikiPedia works technically (so excuse me if I am being naive), but I have a question about why the article about CafeTran (the CAT tool) is continually being rejected, when most of the other CAT tools DO have their own articles. This seems a bit odd, if you ask me.

All the other big CAT tools have their own pages:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MemoQ


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDL_Trados_Studio
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordfast
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_Vu_(software)

… so what is so different about CafeTran?

On my Talk page, User:Sulfurboy, said: "Most recent submission was done with zero improvements which is considered WP:GAMING they system.". I didn't intend to try to game the system, just wanted to show my support for the idea of creating a page for CafeTran too, since it is one of the translation industry's most important CAT tools currently. Heck, the biggest online portal for translators in the world (Proz.com) is even offering it as part of its extended subscription package, so how the software can't be notable is really beyond me.

It looks to me like the people continually rejecting it are not familiar with the translation industry at all, otherwise they would immediately recognise that it is indeed perfectly notable. Rejecting it smacks of academic pedantry, iyam.


 * Michael Beijer (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Michael, the problem is that you (or someone) resubmitted the article for inclusion without making the requested changes. The more people resubmit the page without making the changes that the senior editors think they have requested, the less likely it is that the article is every going to be accepted.  I have spent a lot of time and effort and have done a great deal and went through a lot of trouble trying to comply with AngusWOOF's initial requests.  Resubmitting the article without attempting to comply with e.g. Theroadislong's request, shows bad faith (even though that may not have been intended). SamHolt6 made additional requests, and although I had thought that I had fully complied with it, clearly something else was still wrong.  So, at least you (or whoever resubmitted the page this time) could have taken Theroadislong's request about removing Youtube links seriously. I'm not sure which of the links are considered "blog posts", although there is one link that has the word "blog" in it, so that one could easily have been removed before resubmitting the page.  The sad thing is that the information in the article does not even rely on the Youtube links -- all but one of the Youtube links were *secondary* citations, and removing them would not have left great pieces of content unreferenced.  I will ask "advice" and ask that we are told which links are considered "blog post" links, and remove the Youtube links, but I fear the damage is done.  Once senior editors get it into their heads that a topic is non-notable, there are very few windows of opportunity to get the page "in" again. -- leuce (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

19:42:12, 25 May 2020 review of submission by CupOfTeaGossip
what am i doing wrong? Eat Your Heart Out Ent 19:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Your submission reads like a product announcement, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia may not be used for any form of advertising, promotion, or public relations. Novice editors usually find it easier to build up experience editing existing articles before trying to create a new one. See Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

20:04:41, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Squaduser
Hello, I've been inserting the references manually following the guideline in every step. The draft was declined because I didn't use the reftoolbar templates. Should I edit the draft by inserting all the references through the templates? Thank you Squaduser (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft should not have been declined or rejected for that reason. You do not have to do anything differently with regard to how the references are inserted or formatted. However, the reviewer raised a second issue that you have not addressed. It would be helpful if you would explain in a few words on your user page the nature of your connection to Erik Stark and what your interest is in editing Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,. Thank you for your advice, I've been writing on my user page about my interest in editing Wikipedia and my connection with Erik Stark and the powerboat racing world. I hope this might help. Thanks

21:39:14, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach
I agree that any Wikipedia reader does not need any knowledge of the submission area to read and have personal opinion about it (the only damage will be that not everything will be understood and appreciated by such reader). However, this should exclude the editors who reject/accept the articles, i.e., they have the decision power - the editors should have such knowledge, otherwise they produce their personal and biased (by lack of knowledge) opinion which is very consequential for the author of the submission. And exactly this I experienced with the editor who rejected my submission knowing technically nothing about the area of submission (this follows directly from his comments, what is easy to prove). Thus that editor should prove rather that he knows at least something from the area - not me (I proved that rich by per-reviewed publication record in the area of submission). The person without knowledge of the area of submission should not have the decision power. Eeberbach (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear that English is not your first language and perhaps this is part of the problem with your draft? Perhaps you would be better advised editing in the Wikipedia of your own language initially? The help desk isn't really the place to suggest major changes in the way that drafts are reviewed, you could visit Village pump where new proposals are discussed? Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)