Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 31

= January 31 =

00:45:37, 31 January 2021 review of draft by AlikotoSam
I saw that Tex Earnhardt has an article on him but his company that made him prominent did not have one so I decided to start a stub for it. I want to be sure if the references I used are accepted. I also need the main title corrected to Earnhardt Auto Centers. Thanks.--AlikotoSam (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

AlikotoSam (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

09:22:56, 31 January 2021 review of submission by Shish Mohammad Jakaria
Shish Mohammad Jakaria (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

09:37:24, 31 January 2021 review of draft by AlikotoSam
Hello, my draft was declined because the moderator thinks it is more of an advertisement than an article. I do not understand his opinion and would like further clarification as I used the tone read in the founder’s article here Tex Earnhardt. Is there something I need to improve on in terms of my writing? Thank you very much.

AlikotoSam (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC) I tend to agree. "Started one car at a time" isn't very encyclopedic. That sort of sounds like you are praising them. It isn't the only place, but it is the place where it jumps out the most.Naraht (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Naraht Thank you very much for your response on this. I have taken out that statement completely as I think it does not affect the article much when taken out. Please do read through the draft now and see if what I have written is much better now. Thank you very much.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , however the fact that they sell 32,000 vehicles (a year?) as of a given date I think is. Have you looked for similar articles?Naraht (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Naraht I realised that that statement sounded like an advertisement so I took it out and rewrote the article in a much better way. Thanks.--AlikotoSam (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the information as to *where* the Auto Centers are is not part of the Article. That should be present, Tertiary sources (like the company website) are fine for that.Naraht (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Naraht Great suggestion. I will add it right away. Thank you very much.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

10:24:39, 31 January 2021 review of submission by Rakku1432
Rakku1432 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Your article as it currently stands is entirely unsuited to Wikipedia. It has no content and no references. Internet celebrities generally need a very high bar of notability to cross which means lots of high quality WP:SECONDARY sources, which are not visible here. You haven't even stated why he is  notable.    scope_creep Talk  10:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

11:38:05, 31 January 2021 review of draft by Wrk1945
Although my references are in the draft article, they have disappeared from the editing section. Then, when I try to add a 'further reading section' in the editing section, the references in the draft article are dislodged. I have therefore omitted the further reading section for the moment, but need to reinsert it. Can you help?

Wrk1945 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The location of the references looks fine. Do you need additional help? And as a note, the problems with the article appear to be mostly tone, that the phrasing doesn't look like a wikipedia article. Take a look at the articles for other british Diplomats at the time. That might help.Naraht (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

18:22:03, 31 January 2021 review of submission by Oliver Ricketts
My page has been turned down because it needs more reliable sources however, I am writing as the grandson of the person the page is about Oliver Ricketts (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Oliver Ricketts, since you seem to be the grandson of the article subject please have a close study over here Conflict of interest. There you will get some insights why this is generally problematic and why yourself can not be a reliable source. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

22:18:57, 31 January 2021 review of draft by AlikotoSam
Hello, this draft got rejected the first time because according to the moderator it sounded like an advertisement. I went back and rewrote it to make it not seem like an advertisement. Can anyone please help read through to see if it still sounds like an advertisement or not? Thank you very much for your time.

AlikotoSam (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi AlikotoSam, do not know what Theroadislong might say right now but is still looks like an advertisement for a local company. Please have a close look at WP:ADMASK. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CommanderWaterford thank you for your response on this. I have acknowledged the tone and I have rewritten it and I am still trying to improve the draft. I believe Theroadislong has an eye on it and I hope I am able to do well with my wording and approach this time. I am still learning and trying to improve my writing skills so I try to write a bit when time permits me. Thank you.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , he already left you a comment on the AfC Draft but I personally totally agree, I also do not see any chance to pass WP:ORG, it needs to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CommanderWaterford I am still working on the draft trying to find reliable sources. Hopefully this can help. thank you very much.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I saw that you also got some answers at the Teahouse - looks like the Redirect being done to the Founder seems to be the best solution. BR, CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CommanderWaterford Alright. Let me still keep improving the draft just in case there is the slightest chance. Making time to write is not an easy task but I am fueled by the desire to learn and better my writing skills. thanks.--AlikotoSam (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

22:25:26, 31 January 2021 review of draft by Longdogfan
Hello! Thank you for the quick review. I am a first time article submitter and current Remitly employee which I disclosed, but was not asked by the company to do a writeup or paid to do so. The submission was declined quickly for reading like an advertisement and lacking independent sources. What can be done to fix this? I tried pretty hard to remain neutral and objective, stating only short facts without editorializing and linking to independent sources to substantiate all claims like the Economist, WSJ, NYT, the WorldBank, USFG archives, the UN sustainable dev goals, and in one case the Remitly home page for a basic fact (what countries are served by the product).

Eyeballing other pages such as WordlRemit and TransferWise in the space - they appear to be substantially more editorialized - quoting long passages of corporate copy and origin story.

Happy to make edits or modify the approach - I am having trouble interpreting the feedback into specific changes because I thought the reference materials met the guidelines for independence and notability.

Longdogfan (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that other similar content existing does not automatically mean yours can too; see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected.  We can only address what we know about.
 * It appears to me that the vast majority of sources that you offered are press release-type sources, the company website, or announcements of routine business transactions. These things do not establish that this company meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. That the CEO was called to testify before Congress might be something for an article about him, but not about his company. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification and the link to explanation pieces. After reading those I'm imagining that at least 10-14/16 other remittance provider articles are not notable, or this one is. My thinking here is that of 16 other remittance providers referenced on the wiki navbar for remittances, Remitly is the only one without a wiki page. The others appear as this one to include a mix of non-corp press pieces, like the NYT references, and corp press for basic facts. Based on the crucial global role of remittances as economic aid and percent of remittances sent by a service - Remitly is one of the handful of most significant providers, which is also included on the Remittance page. Is mention of the firm in ~6 of the non-PR pieces + the extreme consistency of the other added entries insufficient here? I'm seeing few or no deletion challenges on any of the other pages so this would appear to establish a different standard for Remitly and other companies linked to from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_remittance_providers.


 * Please remember to sign your posts. You're right, some remittance provider articles are about notable companies, others are not. I've nominated Azimo for deletion. That's as much cleanup of the area as I have time for now, but other editors may mark additional companies in the category for improvement or deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder : - I'll try to make sure to do that. The take that few of these are notable makes sense. If anyone has a minute - here are some test cases to make sure I'm understanding the notability guidance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independent_sources. I would interpret that this GeekWire article fails the test for the same reason Forbes does - many GeekWire articles are based on marketing materials (not reliable or independent). I would interpret that this Seattle Times coverage almost passes because the Seattle times is reliable and independent, but it maybe reads too close to churnalism: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/seattle-startup-remitly-nearly-doubles-its-global-reach-for-immigrants/. This Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/trumps-immigration-policy-has-foreign-tech-talent-looking-north-of-the-border/2019/01/10/c199bf4a-03bb-11e9-958c-0a601226ff6b_story.html actually pretty easily passes all tests except significance, clearly being reliable, independent, and secondary. Remitly is discussed as the employer of one of the main interviewees, and its CPO is also quoted - so it gets included as a main support of the article's point, labor is impacted by Trump's immigration policy, but is not the main subject of the article - so I think it fails significance - but is close?. Is this piece https://www.americanbanker.com/news/in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic-two-remittance-startups-thrive by American Banker a clean pass as it covers both Remitly and a competitor, the paper has 50 reporters and a reputation for fact checking, and features Remitly/Transferwise as the primary topic + does analysis beyond just the churnalism rewrites? --longdogfan

Request on 23:07:23, 31 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Restorativejake
No sure why my page was deleted - I am trying to write one on a professor of mine. He sent materials to reference.

Restorativejake (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * in re Draft:Mark Umbreit We do not accept material plagiarised or closely paraphrased wholesale from elsewhere. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 23:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In order to try to write an article, you must first try to write. Copying is not writing, and I'm surprised that someone who went to university doesn't know you can't copy from other sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)