Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 6

= September 6 =

Request on 00:49:20, 6 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by DisabledEditor
I created Draft:Andrew Straw and this article about a living and notable civil rights attorney was rejected with comments several times, and each time I made changes to improve the article. It went from being a Start-Class article to FA-Class according to other editors and it only took about a month. Now, someone with a clear axe to grind has put a total stop on the article without anyone else being involved and made a bunch of hostile comments that do not help anything. I have put a great deal of effort into researching the citations and making sure that the facts presented are true and accurate and supported by citations. Just about every sentence has a citation supporting it, over 100 in total. The editor justified the stop with vague and unsupported attacks and I think there should be a committee reviewing this article, given the FA-Class it has reached according to others. One person's sour attitude should not be allowed to destroy this article. I simply ask a neutral committee of editors to decide this, not one person coming in after over a month of work with the attitude of a vandal, someone who never made any edit at all. DisabledEditor (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

DisabledEditor (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize you've put a lot of time into this. has been an editor here since 2006, and instead of calling him a vandal you might consider his experience and knowledge and the possibility he might be correct. In looking at your work, I can't disagree with him. Mr. Straw is pretty much the only topic you have edited about(or things related to him). Do you have an association with him? 331dot (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the kind of fly by night "drive by shooting" comment I am complaining about. What difference does it make how long he's been an editor if he is wrong? How many times do I have to state that I am a member of Mr. Straw's Disability Party, and there are literally thousands of us? Democrats can write about Biden, yes? Republicans about Trump? How about stopping the vandalism and ad hominem attacks and stick to the article? FA-Class, according to some editors here. Why are the sour attitudes allowed to have absolute control with an iron hand? Look at the talk page of the article. I linked to where this article is rated. I didn't rate it. Others did. DisabledEditor (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * AfC_sorting DisabledEditor (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's where it was rated FA after steadily improving from Start, then C, B, GA, and finally FA Class. Now with the "stop" and ad hominem attacks, it does not appear there at all. DisabledEditor (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How about if you explain how this article is significantly different from the other "living person" civil rights attorney articles? I listed them so people like you would not be able to justify vandalism. There are several precedents for an article just like this. DisabledEditor (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does WIkipedia discriminate based on disability? Is that the issue here? DisabledEditor (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't examined every single comment you have ever made, so pardon me if I missed one. Please note that assume good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and referring to DGG as a vandal and me as having a "sour attitude" are not in keeping with this principle.  I get that it is frustrating to have something you spent hours on criticized and have things happen to it that you may not understand. This doesn't mean that we are acting in bad faith. We want to help you.  If you are accusing someone of having "a clear axe to grind" or "ad hominem attacks" or "vandalism"(note that word has a very specific meaning here, an attempt to deface an article or page) you should have hard evidence to support such claims; if not, I suggest that you withdraw them.
 * You seem much closer to Mr. Straw than being a member of a political party- if you aren't, okay. Perhaps someone else seeing this section will feel differently, but again, I can't say I disagree with DGG. Please see other stuff exists; it could be that these other articles that you have seen are also inappropriate, and simply unaddressed by us volunteers- for this reason, each article or draft is judged on its own merits.  Not every member of a field will merit an article. Good day.
 * If you are disabled, that has no bearing on this matter. I wouldn't know with any certainty if you are or not. If you say you are, I believe you. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy note for others reading this thread. DGG rejected the article and suggested the editor not edit it anymore. In my opinion, there's too much intricate, unsourced and unnecessary detail. It would require a drastic revision WP:TNT to be approved, and only if the info is limited to what the sources say. It would also need to be more chronological. Lastly, there's no rating now, but I'm unclear how an unaccepted draft is getting a FA quality rating, unless someone changed the parameter incorrectly. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Excluding because you don't like the content when you never offered even a single edit is pretty disingenuous on its face. This article is better sourced than those for other attorneys. Look at the citations.  Almost all of them are TV, radio, newspapers, journal articles, academic works. I would call the attacks "niggling" and not the major errors that you say. I addressed each and every refusal with edits and made the article better in response.  Now there is the big STOP because I guess getting better and better is not good enough. You sour types just wish the article had never been presented at all. I don't have to make up your attitudes. You quite conveniently reveal it.  Thanks.  Now, with the BIG STOP, I can't do anything else and the article is dead in the water unless someone else steps in. I hope they do because this is a good article.  Maybe not one of the best on Wikipedia, which has some extremely long articles, but good, anyway.  DisabledEditor (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, how hard is it to understand that someone called DisabledEditor would be disabled? DisabledEditor (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem is more than this. The draft is either a personal autobiography or written in the style of a personal autobiography, giving the minor details of all of his uniformly unsuccessful campaigns and many attempts to get legal attention to his  law suits. It doesn't really matter who wrote it,, though I note the persistent refusal of the editor to state what coi he might have besides being a member of the party.  I've removed 100s of similar attempts at vanity articles for many years, but  I have yet to be called a vandal except by an insistent coi editor--sometimes by a paid one trying desperately to earn his money, sometimes by someone feeding their self importance.
 * The FA and other ratings of the article were given by ORES, the AI software at WP:AfC sorting. ORES is sometimes helpful, but but perhaps it needs a little more attention. I'm glad to know no human editor was involved.  DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why glad? Because you are poltically opposed to the content and the subject matter. Your glad emotion shows your bias, right? DisabledEditor (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That there is a conflict of interest is made clear in this section of the draft creator's user talk page. I'm not sure why is so reluctant to disclose it when asked about it directly. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought anonymity was fundamental on Wikipedia. Otherwise, why not make everyone use their own names as usernames? My not revealing my actual name is a right and privilege encouraged by Wikipedia and if you are such an advanced editor, you would already know this without me having to remind you. All you are doing is baiting with ad hominems. Anonymity There are many reasons why someone involved in politics or law would want to keep anonymity. You may wish that there was some conflict because you are against the content, but your wishful thinking does not make it so. DisabledEditor (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please WP:DROPTHESTICK the draft is entirely promotional and was correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @DisabledEditor No one is asking for your name.  They are asking if you volunteer (or intern) for the party; volunteer for  the candidate; or work for either one. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article hadn't been rejected, I'd have pblocked. DE is trending perilously close to an indef for clearly being here only to promote Shaw and doing so disruptively. Star   Mississippi  18:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Star Mississippi its not just the draft. See also this and this. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @S0091. @Ad Orientem beat me to it, but I certainly endorse the block. Star   Mississippi  20:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * and for the record, I'd recuse based on this, but I think 72 hours is generous for blatant NONAZIS nonsense. Star   Mississippi  20:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Star Mississippi Didn't even know this discussion was going on. They were reported at AIV for spamming and while I won't say they are NOTHERE, I concluded that their editing had become disruptive enough that they, and the community, needed a break. If this resumes once the block expires, an indef would be the most likely next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

01:35:10, 6 September 2022 review of submission by SayyedAbidShah
SayyedAbidShah (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 06:57:04, 6 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by شاہ فہد
Hello, i need help with submition as I am new on Wikipedia I don't have much knowledge to improve my submission.

شاہ فہد (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * (presumably?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @شاہ فہد This draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. What is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually one of admin asked me to improved it
 * Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
 * if this issue was not resolved it will be deleted within 6 months شاہ فہد (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, this draft has been submitted and is awaiting review.
 * However, I did notice on your talk page that you've said you were asked by the article subject to write this. This is a clear conflict of interest and possible paid editing, which you must disclose properly. I've posted a message on your talk page with more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

08:29:08, 6 September 2022 review of draft by SmartScience
Hello. I started drafting an article, and it was submitted by mistake by a toddler pushing keys on my keyboard. I want to 1.) find the original rejected draft; 2.) erase the new draft that I placed for submission; 3.) place the corrected material in the old rejected draft; 4.) submit the completed original draft for review and publishing. Please, help. Thank you.

SmartScience (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @SmartScience: one copy is in the sandbox per your link above; the other at Draft:Oko Drammeh. Decide which one you want to keep, and edit it so all the content you want is there. Then either blank the other draft, or place the tag on it; it will be deleted in due course (assuming you're the only editor who has made substantive edits in it). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 19:16:11, 6 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Tony.hynes
I am trying to get a corporate page published. I have modelled it on a number of companies in the same industry, citing the same or similar sources. Examples of other pages VAST Data -AND- Pure Storage The company has been covered in numerous trade publications and is based on a technology--created by the founders--that is already listed on Wikipedia. XtreemFS I had not added that I have a commercial interest--but have put that in now. I am a vendor working with the company. I have been at pains to make the submission objective. Any additional advice would be much appreciated.

Tony.hynes (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made your links standard internal links, the whole url is unnecessary; simply place the target page name in double brackets, as I did here. You did disclose, but used a template meant for article talk pages. I have posted instructions on your user talk page for how to disclose on your user page.
 * You have several misunderstandings here. Wikipedia does not have "company pages", not a single one.  Wikipedia has articles about companies, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic.  Those articles 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 a directory of businesses were mere existence warrants inclusion.  The notability criteria must be met in order for a topic to be included.
 * "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of the activities of the company and what it does, and goes into detail about the significance and influence of the company. Sources must be independent, meaning they should not be press releases, staff interviews, brief mentions, product descriptions announcements of routine business activities, or other primary sources.
 * Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist; see other stuff exists. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate; at least one of your examples has similar problems.  If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, as those have been thoroughly edited and vetted by the community- something which does not happen to every article.  331dot (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the pointers and guidance. Understood that this is not a forum for "corporate pages" I misrepresented that. I will review all articles in accordance with 'classified as good articles' and ensure the article about Quobyte focuses on why it is notable.Tony.hynes (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the excellent advice above, the draft's promotional tone is more suitable for a brochure than an encyclopedia. It will never be approved if you don't adapt a more encyclopedic tone. You'll need to address fluffy phrases like Quobyte specializes in turning commodity servers into a unified, high-performance, scalable software storage system that can efficiently manage the rapidly evolving complexity of data storage infrastructure and Whether it’s in the cloud, on-prem or hybrid, Quobyte’s POSIX compatible, distributed parallel file system empowers users to build a truly flexible software-based storage infrastructure. Also, rethink your content organization. It's a company article, yet the "Features" section isn't about the company at all. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Great advise. I am going to rework the article to address. Tony.hynes (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

23:36:16, 6 September 2022 review of submission by Jamesmclennan69
Hi Wikipedia,

Recently, I spent a day creating a page for my favourite comedian, Luke Kidgell. Luke is quite a prominent stand-up comic here in Australia, and has a significant audience. It was declined on grounds of Luke not showing to have "significant coverage". A simple 'google' search for Luke Kidgell will disprove this claim. Please review this. Jamesmclennan69 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not up to others to prove your claims, you must do so. The sources you have provided do not seem to have significant coverage of Mr. Kidgell, that goes into his importance and significance. It isn't enough to merely document his existence and work. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)