Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 21

= June 21 =

03:10, 21 June 2024 review of submission by CyberIntel33
I was asked to draft a page to be linked to Mr. Rawlins’ section (Final years) on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Planters. I modeled the page after the approved and published page for Mr. Rawlins’ successor, who is linked at the end of the Final years section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_W._Moore.

After an early rejection saying the subject was not of sufficient significance, many more sources/citations were added, and that objection seemed to be resolved. The draft has since been cut down considerably in response to further reviewer feedback, but there are inline citations from 10+ different sources, that go well beyond passing mentions. Now somehow we’re back to the significance objection. Mr. Moore was deemed sufficiently significant with fewer cited sources, and some of those questionable. Please advise why we’ve hit this blocker again and how we can overcome it?

Thank you!!!

Please CyberIntel33 (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @CyberIntel33: this draft has been rejected (several weeks ago), and will therefore not be considered further. The sources do not establish that the person is notable enough in Wikipedia terms. A third of the citations are to a book published by his employer, which is clearly not independent, and most of the rest seem to be routine business reporting.
 * You say you were "asked to draft a page" – asked by whom? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fast reply. The request came from a former Union Planters colleague of Mr. Rawlins. CyberIntel33 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jackson W. Moore predates the drafting process entirely and was never drafted or "approved" in any fashion (first edit Oct. 05, 2008). —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fast reply.
 * Wasn’t the Jackson W. Moore page submitted for publishing approval prior to being published? I don’t understand why the same notability standards would not have applied. CyberIntel33 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CyberIntel33: the Moore article was published in 2008. Back then, Wikipedia was more interested in getting articles created. Notability and referencing requirements became the focus much later. And yes, even old articles should meet today's standards, but with nearly 7m articles in the system, it will take a long time to work through all of them, if indeed that can ever be achieved. For now, the best we can probably do is make sure that any new article is compliant, while dealing with any blatant problems in older articles, as and when we become aware of them.
 * You didn't answer my question, who was it who asked you to draft this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The drafting process as we know it today - including reviewing drafts - didn't begin coming into existence until 2011. The article on Moore predates that by roughly three years, when Wikipedia operated more under a "publish and be damned" ethos where standards were not so rigourously enforced. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

03:23, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Blakedes2
Hello, i am requesting some assistance with my draft here, in regards to ResearchGate, is this not a verifiable source and if its not, is it possible I can remove this and add another source or do i need to rewrite my draft from the ground up?

Thanks in advace! Blakedes2 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Blakedes2: ResearchGate is a bit like Google Books, in that it hosts all sorts of content, from entirely reliable to complete rubbish; therefore you need to evaluate individually the specific content you're talking about. The fact that it will happily host rubbish, however, tends to mean that it is the preferred choice of publishers of said rubbish; hence its somewhat dubious reputation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Thanks again. Blakedes2 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

04:39, 21 June 2024 review of submission by ManTheCat
This draft got rejected because it the subject lacked notability. From what I can gather it was lacking in independent secondary sources from this page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). The draft has 11 references total and 7 of them are reviews of the subject’s written work. I assumed those qualify as independent secondary sources. Please let me know if I am mistaken or if I need to add/remove any sources. Any help would be greatly appreciated. This is my first draft article. Thanks. ManTheCat (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @ManTheCat: book reviews might make the book(s) notable, but not necessarily the author, unless they also include significant coverage of them; notability is not inherited. Interviews are not independent or secondary, as they are the subject talking about themselves. Goodreads and YouTube are user-generated, and not generally reliable. Not sure what there is left after that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Really appreciate the information. I figured the Goodreads, YouTube and interviews would be primary. Just figured I had enough reviews to count as secondary. Makes sense now. ManTheCat (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

07:35, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Meena1998
Hi, I just wanted to know how an article can be tagged as its sounds like an advertisement, I need to sort out my writing style, My recent article got declined because of this even though I tried my best to keep it as simple and neutral as possible, please point out with an example so that i can improve my writing and provide as edits as possible for wikipedia! Meena1998 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Meena1998: I have just answered this question at the Teahouse, please don't ask the same thing in multiple venues.
 * Also, please respond to the conflict-of-interest query I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, if you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest and paid editing.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. Wikipedia articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Awards (especially niche industry awards) contribute nothing towards notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(such as Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award or Tony Award).  Investigations of a company, especially ones that don't result in charges or punishment against the company, don't usually do that, especially if all the sources say is "they were investigated and nothing was found". 331dot (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

10:12, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Ysultankpg
Could you please let me know how I can enhance this to ensure it gets approved? Also, what are the specific requirements for getting a Wiki page approved? Ysultankpg (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ysultankpg: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please read our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. If you want to tell the world about yourself, find some other platform, such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a reason userpages are bundled into MediaWiki; on WP, though, you're allowed to express yourself in the context of your activity/goals hereon. Anything beyond that is best left for other avenues or wiki hosts. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

14:27, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Bdicoccosix
I thought that I had a good list of reliable sources for this page. Just wondered if I could get more specific feedback. Bdicoccosix (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Refer to my /Decode subppage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
 * I can't assess https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/6747988Z:US (walled), but I will note that company profiles are generally not good sources (too sparse).
 * We can't use https://www.syracuse.com/galleries/PLUXSN2SFFDCBA22EET5ECJQFI/ (too sparse). Photo gallery with virtually no text.
 * I can't assess the Gale source (walled). The source seems to have been accessed thru a school and requires an access password thru the NY library system, though I imagine anyone with a Gale account can access it and provide a URL that is not tied to a location or otherwise do a conversion.
 * https://nccnews.newhouse.syr.edu/green-hills-farms-85-years-of-service/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Most of the article is quotes or attributed claims from current employees; what little isn't is not enough to cite.
 * https://www.supermarketnews.com/archive/new-world-independents-1 seems okay, but I'd want a second opinion. I'm not 100% certain here.
 * I can't assess https://www.cnybj.com/green-hills-farms-other-small-businesses-receive-county-grants/ (walled).
 * Since half your sources are behind a pay/registration wall of some sort, I can't really give you a good assessment due to not being able to access them. But two of the rest aren't usable, and the last is potentially usable. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 15:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Bdicoccosix (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, Gale pages are available at WP:Library--the catch being that they're only available for longstanding accounts with 500+ edits. As an ally, I might take a look for myself soon enough. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good news: The Inc. "case study" cited in this draft (via Gale) passes WP:SIGCOV! I'll leave it up to others to get the next two that satisfy WP:THREE.
 * By the way, this page should be retitled Green Hills Farms once it's approved. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

18:33, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson
This G13 rehab candidate, which has doubled as the guinea pig for my new AFC queue, may need a little help re: this Instagram announcement post from the band's official account. Instagram isn't usually considered usable, but this instance might fall into the "acceptable" category. Before I move ahead soon, remind me if I'm right or wrong here. (Filing on behalf of original draft creator .) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

18:38, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Humanitarianpeople
Hi

My article was declined although I had references from the BBC, BirminghamLive and BirminghamWorld. Please help me with how to overcome this problem. Humanitarianpeople (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I restored the decline message- it must remain on the draft even if you rewrite it. You have not summarized what independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

19:07, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Sasseren
Is there a resource that can help me write this? I've included a significant number of resources but they all get declined as not "significant." This person has written several books and their project's have won notable awards but Wikipedia does not accept the association's website listing and the articles I've included that mention them have been rejected. I've reduced the entry to just the bare minimum and it is still rejected. I'd appreciate advice. Thank you. Sasseren (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You wrote that he is "known for his contributions to high-tech campuses". By whom?  For what? Wikipedia doesn't want a mere listing of what he does and his accomplishments.  Any article about him needs to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling what he does, and goes into detail about what the sources sees as significant about him.  If you had such sources, he would seem to be notable, but notability does not guarantee an article- there must be independent sources to summarize.  If those don't exist, there can be no article about him.
 * I'm wondering, is there a particular reason that you are writing about this person? 331dot (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

20:25, 21 June 2024 review of submission by IDorbian
So for the draft of Sunbury Press to be accepted, it would have to be written about in major or notable media outlets--instead of passing or casual references? IDorbian (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That's correct, @IDorbian. We require significant coverage.  Qcne  (talk)  21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

20:48, 21 June 2024 review of submission by Citysetonthehill
Hi,

Please can you kindly highlight the specific references that are deemed not to be reliable in this draft to enable us make necessary amendments where required.

Many Thanks. Citysetonthehill (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Who is "us"? Only a single person should have exclusive access to your account.
 * You have much unsourced information, I think that's the main issue. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)