Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 February 12

= February 12 =

Request on 05:29:26, 12 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Satapathysobhana
Satapathysobhana (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

11:46:26, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Xariklou96
Xariklou96 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Dear Sir/Madame,

Unfortunately, I created both a draft and an article and my draft couldn't be held for submission review because of an unintentional double-copy! What suldI do in this case?

Lots of regards, CK

11:50:34, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Big Ayeh
So what should I do? Big Ayeh (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Choose a different topic to write about (we have over 6 million to choose from, most of which need improvement). See Task Center if you're not sure where to start. If you're determined to write about non-notable musician Paa Kwasi, you may wish to consider an alternative outlet, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

14:47:10, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Jinxxxxxxxed
Jinxxxxxxxed (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Why was my article on Stacyplays was not accepted
 * Because fandom wikis are not considered reliable sources and there is no evidence how WP:NPERSON is met Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

15:16:07, 12 February 2021 review of draft by Amana22
Hello, I am asking for help because I am a fairly new Wikipedian and I submitted what is only my second biography of a living person and it has been rejected after submission (my first BLP in 2018 went live without any issues). The first issue raised was 'reliable sources'. And the second was 'reads more like an advertisement'. After conducting more research into reliable and verifiable resources on Wikipedia, I can see why the article was rejected on the basis of 'reliable sources': The no.1 reference on the article has become a 404 (i.e. no longer exits as a page); the no.3 reference is from one of the oldest established blogs on the internet, however I can see how this could be construed as unverifiable; and the no.4 reference is on the news page of a commercial business - so, again, I can see why this might be interpreted as a questionable source. I have now removed those sources in an unsubmitted draft, and in order to substantiate the facts, I have added new and better sources from two accredited news portals: https://techcrunch.com/ and https://bdaily.co.uk/ However, I am concerned about a couple of other sources that I believe establish concrete facts but perhaps Wikipedia does not. What is the best way for me to show you these references and get feedback before I go through the review process again?

Also, I can't see clear evidence for where the 'article reads more like an advertisement'. Please can you help me identify why / where this is? I wrote it all from facts I found in the referenced articles about him. For note, I didn't come across any controversial or negative press about him. I can see that the tone is somewhat positive by virtue of the listed things the subject has done, but the sum total still looks pretty neutral to me. I would very much appreciate help / guidance here.

Many thanks. Amana22 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Amana22 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . You talk about TechCrunch and Bdaily, but haven't provided links to specific articles. The community's take on TechCrunch is: "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability." Bdaily is not a news organization like The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, or The Guardian. Bdaily produces advertorials for business customers. In all likelihood, either of these sources would be poison to the draft's chances.


 * You say you're concerned about a couple other sources, but again don't provide links. I examined five of the draft's sources at random. They are poor. I left a detailed comment on the draft. Using promotional sources can lead to a promotional tone. Beyond that observation, questions about neutral point of view are best directed to the reviewer who raised the issue. My gut reaction, having spent a couple hours on the topic, is that Peitersen is someone seeking publicity, not someone notable (not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article).


 * Articles for creation is an iterative process of improve, submit, review, repeated until the draft is acceptable or found to be hopeless. Reviewers are loathe to break the cycle by pre-reviewing before you resubmit it. Questions about a specific review are best addressed to the particular reviewer. The Articles for creation help desk is an option if you can't get a satisfactory answer from the reviewer or have a more general question, but it works best when questions are concise and tightly focused. If you want more of a back and forth chat, you may find the Teahouse more satisfactory. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for taking the time to look at this properly. It's much appreciated. Here is the TechCrunch link: TechCrunch article My interpretation following your advice would be that it is a relevant source for verifiability, but probably not notability given that much of it looks taken from a press release. I hear you re: Bdaily, although looking more closely, not all pieces are advertorial - some look bona fide. Sadly, this was not one of them. I have removed the other sources that I was concerned about.


 * Thank you for the detailed comments on the draft page. I think Peitersen may well be someone who is seeking more publicity now than he used to. Though I'm note sure that prevents him being notable - as long as there is independent interest in him. My take is that he is much more notable in China - where he looks to have spent twenty years - than he is in the West. And that is changing on his move back to Copenhagen. I'll ask the reviewer more about the tone. Here's a response to one of your comments in the draft where I'm not sure you are entirely right: (a) Berlingske is one one of Europe's oldest newspapers, first published in 1749. While it looks like there was an interview, there is more than just his age and job - it details him as a EMU researcher, an inventor of this radical think tank, Kesera, and his ambitions for the think tank. Btw, should I be responding to this comment in the draft itself?


 * Hmm. Yes, I can understand what you say about the cycle and the reluctance to pre-review. I'll go direct to the reviewer for anything more specific, or as you say, the Teahouse. Thanks again. Amana22 (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

15:37:53, 12 February 2021 review of submission by LucyArn
LucyArn (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi editors! I've taken over this project and have updated the copy and citations to re-submit a draft that is more aligned with Wikipedia guidelines. Would love any feedback or thoughts on our new submission. Thank you!


 * Abbreviation: ZERO TO THREE
 * Predecessor: The National Center for Clinical Infant Programs
 * Formation: 1977
 * Purpose: infant mental and physical health; early childhood development
 * Headquarters: 1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 350 Washington, DC 20037
 * Employees: 160
 * Executive Director: Matthew Melmed, JD
 * Website: https://www.zerotothree.org/

The Zero to Three Foundation (officially: ZERO TO THREE: National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families) is a national nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. The organization works to provide parents, professionals and policymakers with the resources to nurture early childhood development.

Neuroscientists have documented that the first months of a newborn’s life show a tremendous amount of brain cell growth. However, parents and caregivers can still be confused and misinformed on newborn development. Zero to Three conducts research and advocates for infant and toddler well-being to support families during this critical time. The organization has found in studies that large percentages of parents underestimate how early their children are influenced by their interactions.

In 2020, Zero to Three released its second annual report, State of Babies Yearbook: 2020, that examined how racial disparities can impact a child’s life, even before birth.


 * No that reads in an entirely promotional tone, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing! We tried very carefully to write in a neutral tone and find verifiable third-party sources for all of these points. I have stated my interest in my bio for all projects that I work on in draft and totally open to editor help for suggestions because I want to stay within Wiki guidelines. Any tips for how to get this updated? I could remove descriptive adjectives like 'tremendous'? All of the above content is pulled from sources. LucyArn (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your draft was rejected by another reviewer and won't be reviewed again and I have no interest in helping paid editors do anything, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

15:38:37, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Addyygaming
Addyygaming (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

17:25:23, 12 February 2021 review of submission by EditOnOccasion1818
I am requesting listing of a REAL company that has been in business nearly 30 years and has sold its products over those years to hundreds of other companies that are household names. I keep getting rejected by Wiki for "non-conformance" even though I have modeled the article to be like one of the company's competitors - for which you have allowed their article to exist. I have even offered to please make the changes yourself that you see as non-conforming, or tell me specifically what to do. I am willing to do what it takes to make it comply so the company is properly - and rightly so - listed on Wikipedia, just as you have listed all of its competitors. I have successfully submitted content to Wiki for two others companies and so I'm not sure why this one has been made so difficult??? Please help. EditOnOccasion1818 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia doesn't aim to list companies, it aims to have encyclopedia articles about subjects which have attracted significant attention by the world at large. The notability guidelines (inclusion criteria) for companies don't include how long the company has been in business, who they have done business with, or whether Wikipedia articles exist about their competitors. It doesn't even matter to Wikipedia whether a company is real or not. We have articles about fictional law firms and fictional restaurants, for example (although they probably qualify for inclusion under a different subject-specific guideline). The only thing that matters is significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. The guideline goes into great detail about what those terms mean in the context of companies.


 * Trade journals, for example, are presumed not to be independent for the purposes of notability. EE World Online, Electronic Design, Dark Reading, EE Journal, EE Times, Power Systems Design Magazine, Electronic Engineering Journal, EE World Online, and EDN are all trade journals, so worthless for establishing notability. Bloomberg and Thomas are indiscriminate directories that aim to list all companies, so they don't do anything towards establishing notability either.


 * 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 meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or has been explicitly "allowed". It may only mean that no one has noticed it and 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. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

18:52:55, 12 February 2021 review of draft by Tracksthegeneral
Hello, I need help to see if my article is in the encyclopedia format and is written in a neutral expression. I tried to fix this after being rejected for my article for the first time and would like to request help to see if I accurately fixed that problem Thanks! Tracksthegeneral (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral

Tracksthegeneral (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are very close to the subject, perhaps you don't see just how promotionally it reads? Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong Perhaps that might be the case. I read over it again, fixed the parts where you said it wasn't proper tone for Wikipedia, so I would like to see if there is anything else I need to fix. Tracksthegeneral (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral

19:44:35, 12 February 2021 review of submission by 103.240.79.52
103.240.79.52 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise your company. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

20:58:52, 12 February 2021 review of draft by Katesurinskaya
Hi there,

Could you please let me know where am I supposed to publish the note that I'm being paid to add the edits to the page? Thank you. Katesurinskaya (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Katesurinskaya. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: . --Worldbruce (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)