Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 August 5

= August 5 =

01:16:39, 5 August 2021 review of draft by MarkVanDannyBilly
I am wondering if I can find help with my draft for finding Japanese pages that have significant coverage of Gachimuchi Pants Wrestling. Can you help me improve a Nico Nico Douga video series and subculture that I enjoy? The lead section could use some work. Thanks. MarkVanDannyBilly (talk) MarkVanDannyBilly (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Japan or WP:WikiProject Professional Wrestling are your best bets for source hunting for puroresu articles. Bear in mind that professional wrestling - puroresu included - is under sanctions. is your best bet here. Teach me to actually read the page... —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

04:05:07, 5 August 2021 review of draft by JoeMOTHERRR
JoeMOTHERRR (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft deleted as vandalism, request moot. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

04:07:29, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Sharmaji1
Sharmaji1 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit is the only one that this account has made. Can you please provide a link to the draft in question? —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

07:28:33, 5 August 2021 review of draft by Fiona A. White
Hi Dan Arndt,

I am surprised to receive your email that I constructed my own biography/wiki page and therefore it has been deleted. To be clear I did not create this page but clearly a colleague and/or collaborator has. They may have used my name and email to create the article...I assume....as they may not be familiar with and or do not know how to operate the Wikipedia interface. How can this be rectified? Do they need to log in as themselves with their own email? Please clarify this and I will relay the information to my colleague to rectify (who most likely has put a lot of effort into creating the article and will no want their hard work deleted. In the meantime please, do not delete their work.

regards,

Prof. Fiona White

Fiona A. White (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft was created by your account on February 17th, this is logged in the edit history. Are you saying that someone else operated your account? 331dot (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

12:46:02, 5 August 2021 review of submission by ScContributor0
Hello, Resubmitting this since there was no response to my last post from 29 July. Please re-review this submission.

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on Notability guidelines for organizations and companies. Here is some significant coverage by prominent national publications about the company and its products:

Financial Express - https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/immensa-wi-fi-led-bulb-smart-lighting-for-smart-homes/2224249/ Outlook Business - https://www.outlookbusiness.com/markets/feature/crompton-greaves-consumer-electricals-has-been-doing-well-but-there-is-a-tightrope-walk-ahead-5981 Business Today - https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/amid-rising-demands-air-coolers-become-feature-rich-296263-2021-05-17 CNBC TV18 - https://www.cnbctv18.com/videos/business/companies/have-lined-up-medium-term-plans-for-led-production-crompton-greaves-consumer-7705401.htm HBL - https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/crompton-bets-on-premium-fans-to-sustain-sales-market-share/article23661845.ece

ScContributor0 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Request on 15:35:57, 5 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by TomFlynn1955
Hi I am asking for clarification about problems in getting an article (on The Canadian Theological Society) that I have written put online.

The 'reviewing editors' have claimed that "There are still no independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, which is needed to establish notability.... Also, many statements are unsupported by referencing."

First, I respectfully submit that this is simply not true. The revised entry provides references to at least 8 different sources (websites, books, newspapers), independent of the Society, including references to The Canadian Encyclopedia

Second, when I compare the article with other scholarly societies (e.g., American Philosophical Association, Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric, American Academy of Religion, Canadian Society for the Study of Religion, American Theological Society, Canadian Society of Soil Science, the Canadian Philosophical Association ) it is at least as substantive, notable, and referenced.

The Canadian Theological Society is not a vanity project, or a personal hobbyhorse, or whatever. It is a major scholarly society in Canada with an international outreach.

I would respectfully ask an editor, knowledgeable of academic societies, to kindly advise me how the entry provided does not meet the standard of the societies that already appear on Wikipedia.

Many thanks

Tom TomFlynn1955 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have sources for specific pieces of information, that confirm the existence of this organization, what it does, and its leadership; that's not actually what establishes that this organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We are looking for independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this organization, writing in depth about it.  Not every organization merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field.  It depends on the sources.  Please read Your First Article.
 * Please see other stuff exists. I have not examined the other articles you mention, but it could be that those other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us.  We can only address what we know about.  Article standards have also changed over the life of Wikipedia, so what was once acceptable may be no longer. If you have an association with this organization, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * American Philosophical Society's first edit was in November 2004, Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric's in October 2008, American Academy of Religion's also in November 2004, and the Canadian Philosophical Association's in September 2009. All of these predate the modern drafting process (2011). The remainder were created directly in mainspace and never drafted, as drafting would not be mandatory until 2018. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

16:14:04, 5 August 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:B:F005:65D1:548C:2060:90AE
2405:201:B:F005:65D1:548C:2060:90AE (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, and your IP address does not have any contributions other than to this page. If you have an account, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

16:52:57, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Gfisk86
Hello, I'm trying to get the messages at the top of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Strazynski) removed. I'm currently going through the article to remove advertisement-like language to satisfy the first message. For the second message, I have been a paid contributor to Robbie Strazynski's Cardplayer Lifestyle publication in the past, but I was not paid to write this article. Please let me know what I can do to get the second message removed. Gfisk86 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Ableman
 * This is not the place to ask about tags on existing articles. The proper venue for that is the article talk page. (And the fact you're paid for things unrelated to the Wikipedia article is immaterial; the fact remains that there is or was an employee/employer relationship between you and the subject.) —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

19:21:09, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Faye Samsaman
Hi, can anyone assist me in creating a page? I've been declined a lot of times. I appreciate all your help. Thank you. Faye Samsaman (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

19:55:07, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Carrabre
Carrabre (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Carrabre

Hey! i'm not sure why Presearch isn't viewed as notable enough to have a wikipedia page... There are projects like Yacy which have much lower usage/coverage in the news that are published on wikipedia. There are also competing services like Brave which has been published. If there are specific things in here that seem like advertising, please help me remove them/rework them so that it doesn't come across as such, if this is the main reason. DuckDuckGo Qwant & ecosia, with the latter two being of similar size to Presearch, all also have pages.

Carrabre (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Please read other stuff exists.  Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too; competitors meriting articles does not mean that Presearch does too.  Each article or draft article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us.  We can only address what we know about.  It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply have not been dealt with yet.
 * A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company and what it does- that what your draft does. Please review Your First Article.
 * If you work for Presearch, you must make a Terms of Use-required paid editing declaration; please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yacy's first edit was in July 2005. The drafting process didn't exist until 2011 and wasn't made mandatory until 2018. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Carrabre (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Carrabre

ahh thanks for explaining the backdrop on wikipedia... Didn't know that you've ramped up the threshold on article submissions in the past couple years. I believe i have disclosed the COI within the draft. Appreciate the feedback though and will work to make it better!
 * Please make a declaration on your user page(click your username in red) so it's clear to all. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * how do i do that on my page?
 * Simply click on your username to the left here, write a statement of your COI, and click publish. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Request on 21:01:08, 5 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Samke1315
I've had two reviewers reject my draft and they both said it fails WP:NNEWSPAPER. However, this is the wrong notability guideline to follow. The correct one is WP:NMEDIA. Under the "Subject-specific notability" section of WP:NMEDIA, you can see it lists five criteria for notability. My draft does in fact meet multiple of those factors listed for the notability requirement. Could someone please review this and advise what steps I should take once I resubmit it for review?

Samke1315 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first line of NMEDIA is "This page is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.". 331dot (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of WP:NNEWSPAPER also says "This is not an official policy or an official guideline of Wikipedia." So why is this being cited in a draft rejection by these reviewers? If they are going to take into account WP:NNEWSPAPER, they should also be reviewing WP:NMEDIA as well, since it is an extension of WP:NNEWSPAPER that provides further clarification on certain topics. What do you propose be done regarding this? --Samke1315 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You can ask the reviewer directly why they cite something that is not a notability guideline. In looking at the draft, I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. The draft just tells of the existence of the publication and that other outlets quote them; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I have reached out to the reviewer but they haven't responded. Also, I believe WP:NWEB that you linked above is the wrong notability subject. I believe since it is a newspaper, the correct one would be WP:NMEDIA that I linked earlier. The web notability guide you linked above is more so for websites in general, whereas WP:NMEDIA is specifically for newspapers. I think it's also important to note that with newspapers, there isn't always a ton of primary sources on the organizations themselves. This is explained in the "Why separate criteria" section on WP:NMEDIA. "Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as "advertising for the competition."" For example, see this Wikipedia page on the Pekin Daily Times. It has one reference and one external link and it was approved. There are many examples like this in particular for newspapers due to the subject-specific notability of them. Samke1315 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * To be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article, a newspaper must meet the general notability guideline, or arguably, if a web-only newspaper, WP:NWEB. There have been attempts to define subject-specific notability guidelines for newspapers, for the reasons you alluded to. They have resulted in the informal essays WP:NMEDIA and WP:NNEWSPAPER, but not in agreed on guidelines.


 * It may be unrealistic to think that an online newspaper with three employees and less than a decade of history would be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia.
 * There isn't significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * It hasn't received a well-known and significant award or honor.
 * It doesn't have a significant history and hasn't served a historic purpose.
 * It doesn't represent an undeserved ethnic or other non-trivial niche market.
 * It hasn't made significant impact in the field of news reporting.
 * It hasn't been used as a citation in academic or scholarly works on a regular or significant basis.
 * It has been shown to be quoted by other reliable sources, and those sources may consider it authoritative for police blotter type reporting within the two counties, but two examples in each of two years where their reporting has been briefly quoted is not convincing evidence that they are worthy of note.
 * Wikipedia is looking for articles about newspapers closer to the Illustrated Daily News end of the spectrum of significance.


 * The problem with comparing a draft to an existing article is that Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted very well by, that an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. It is not required to use the Articles for Creation process to create an article. (though not using it runs the risk of it being tagged as problematic or nominated for deletion) I have marked Pekin Daily Times with a maintenance template that it is possibly not notable and needs sources. We can only address the problematic articles that we know about.  If you want to pitch in and help, feel free to help identify other problematic articles for possible action.  You could also work to have the proposed guidelines made into actual guidelines- but even if you did that, I'm not sure they would apply to this online newspaper.  331dot (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * and Thank you both for your detail explanations. That was very informative. I think I may have to switch the category type from newspaper to something else that fits it better as it is a digital-only newspaper. I will also look to add some of those things you listed in the bullet points like awards and other reliable sources. Samke1315 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)