User talk:LaMona

Archive: 2015 October / 2015 November

23:43:47, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac

• Pianogac (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Olga Jegunova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I should have added that the last reviewer said "we were getting closer". You seem to be saying that we are still far away from being accepted. Does this show a difference of opinion by the reviewers? If so, it makes it very difficult to know what to do next! Can you please give explicit example of what is needed? Thanks Geoff

Request for assistance RE: Roman Zadorov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roman_Zadorv

I am not that active in Wikipeida, and wouldn't like to waste your time or mine. Regarding the entry in reference, I believe that I can easily address the criticisms, which led to its removal, except for the question of notability. Therefore, I would like to know, whether there is a chance at all to overcome the objection relative to notability. Would be grateful for your help in this matter.

In my view, the case is notable for the following reasons:

1) It's ongoing coverage by media for 10 years (I cited only English media, there are many folds more articles in Hebrew media.

2) The level of public engagement that it generated. One way to estimate it is by Google search:

In Hebrew "רומן זדורוב" yields About 28,500 results (0.62 seconds)

In English "Roman Zadorov" yields About 1,760 results (0.60 seconds)

3) The case resulted in unprecedented confrontation between law professors and the courts, where law professors openly and publicly challenged integrity of the courts.

4) The case resulted in unprecedented confrontation between NGOs and the State Prosecution, where an NGO filed a criminal complaint against senior staff of the State Prosecution (obviously - would never be investigated). Senior law professors called for major reform in accountability of the State Prosecution in the wake of this case.

5) The case resulted in unprecedented confrontation, and claims of lack of integrity in the State Medical Forensic Institute, and calls for its reform as well.

IN SHORT: Even today, the various aspectes of this case are in the headlines on a daily basis, even when the case itself is no longer mentioned directly, only its derivatives - e.g. the Dr Forman, Dr Kugel Affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Zernik, For sure there are court cases that can and do have WP articles. By their nature, however, court cases are contentious so it is especially important to use a neutral point of view in describing these cases. Unfortunately, your article has many non-neutral statements, things like "...The labor dispute became a farce in its own sake..." In fact, even without such statements it is very clear what your point of view is. To create a WP article you need to be able to step back and be neutral. So a court case has two (at least) sides: describe each side as clearly as possible. Describe the actors in the case. Describe the controversies, pro and con. Mostly you need to provide other points of view, and avoid inflammatory language. LaMona (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Zernik, I should also say that you are going to need to integrate your references into the text, following the formatting given at wp:cite. So while you are re-working the article you might as well do both changes at the same time as you re-work the text. LaMona (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona

Hi LaMona:

Thanks for the quick response. The comments that you brought up here I can easily address. Thanks! It would take me a few days to make all the corrections.

QUESTIONS:

1) In order to do that, I guess I need to resubmit the DRAFT?

2) Could you please give me 2-3 days from the day I resubmit? I would also inform you here when I am done with all the corrections.

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Joe You have LOTS of time to make the edits. Drafts are only cleaned out after about 6 months, so take your time. You edit the Draft page that you have there, re-save, and then when you are done you re-submit to review. It should work like that as a process. LaMona (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona

Hi LaMona: Thanks again for the information. As stated, I am not a usual contributor, so I didn't know the process. How about Hebrew refs? Some of the key refs , e.g., by law professors attacking the courts, the prosecution, and the State Forensic Medicine Institute, as well as the column by Zadorov's pro bono attorney, who said that the judgment records were blown in the wind, are in Hebrew. I guess with Google Translate you could check them. Can I incorporate them? Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona

One more question: My speciality is inspection of court records. In this case it was particularly interesting, since it turned out hat there are no valid court records. My publication in Hebrew on this matter is what prompted the attorney's column about "blown in the wind". I have a special Scribd.com archive site, where I post the scans of court records, discovered upon inspection. Can I cite these as external links? Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zernik (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Zernik, you can use non-English language materials, and you don't translate them -- readers can do that if they want. The problem with the court records are that they ARE the court case, they are not independent writings ABOUT the court case. You should read both wp:primary about using primary materials, and wp:or which talks about original research. What you would like to do is original research, but WP does not accept articles based on OR. WP relies entirely on secondary sources -- one of which could be a published article with the information you are discovering, if you manage to find a publisher for it. ;-) LaMona (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

16:25:45, 17 December 2015 review of submission by Niklasrudemo

• Niklasrudemo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tacton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I feel that the rejection of my proposed article was wrong and that it does fulfill the criteria (and yes, I did read them before writing the article).

"Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - Tacton for example has 7 mentions in the Swedish engineering weekly Ny Teknik, which is Sweden's premier technology publication with a print circulation of 158 000. I think both that Ny Teknik qualifies as a reliable and independent news source. I only included links to one of the articles in Ny Teknik, because I think that one mention should be enough. Similarly, it has several mentions in Dagens Nyheter (Sweden's largest general daily newspaper), Dagens Industri (Sweden's largest business daily) as well as Veckan Affärer (Sweden's argest business weekly). Moreover, it has several times been listed as one of Swedish "Gazelle companies", i.e. extremely fast growing companies. It didn't mention all of these articles, and instead just took some of the most important ones, but if this level of coverage doesn't qualify for notability, I don't know what would. Here are a few of them: http://www.va.se/nyheter/2010/01/08/nytt-regelverk-kring-arbetskraftsinvandring-har-forenklat/ http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/stockholmsforetag-har-storre-framtidstro/

User:Niklasrudemo Thanks for getting in touch. Your article unfortunately does not show notability, so that is what needs to change. To begin with, "mentions" are excluded as supporting wp:corp. Your second reference is a directory listing, and those are also not in support of notability. The third is not independent (it is a page from the parent company). The fourth is not very in depth. Looking at the first of the articles you list above, it seems to be a statement by the company, using terms like "We are a relatively small...". Valid references are independent of the company. The second article could support notability. Obviously, articles in English or in international sources should be included if they exist. Meanwhile, your article lists "references" twice and it isn't clear what the hard-coded references are meant to represent. You should fix that so it's clearer what you intend. And you do need multiple strong references to support notability. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Tacton Systems has been deemed notable enough to merit an entry in the Swedish version of wikipedia (it's a redirect to the https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Institute_of_Computer_Science where Tacton has a full paragraph, i.e. almost as much information as is in the proposed article). Niklasrudemo (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Donald D. Baals

Why did you not accept my Donald D. Baals article? It is all true information. NASA is a trustworthy source. You probably didn't even check the source to determine if it is reliable or not. I suggest doing so and THEN decide if the article is good enough. And also look up DOnald D. Baals on the Internet and see how many sources YOU can find.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.226.18 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you not accept my Donald D. Baals article? It is all true information. NASA is a trustworthy source. You probably didn't even check the source to determine if it is reliable or not. I suggest doing so and THEN decide if the article is good enough. And also look up DOnald D. Baals on the Internet and see how many sources YOU can find.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.226.18 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(70.184.226.18) A number of things would really help this conversation. One would be for you to establish a username, which makes talk page discussion smoother and more likely to reach you. Second would be for you to sign your messages on talk pages -- that is done by typing four tilde's in a row (and there's a hint at the bottom right of the edit page). Next, would be for you to actually read the comments that reviewers have made to you. Two reviewers in a row have commented that you have re-submitted the article without making any changes. This is not acceptable and it greatly annoys the reviewers who are already struggling to keep up with the article that have been appropriately modified. A few more of these resubmits and you may find your article deleted because you are abusing the AfC process. The very last thing is that the article contains NO SOURCES. NONE. I agree that NASA is a trustworthy source, but it isn't a source on that article. No, actually the very last thing is for you to learn to be wp:civil. Failure in that area will result in blocking your account. LaMona (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello LaMona, it's me (who wrote the Donald D. Baals article). I would like to apologize for resubmitting my draft many times without changes. However, upon doing more research, I have found three more sources on Donald D. Baals, and I have resubmitted my draft. If you see my draft in the Pending AFC Submissions and want to immediately decline it, please check it first because I HAVE changed it. If my sources are still not reliable, please tell me what more I must do in order to have my article published. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.215.26 (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Updated Peter Shankman page

Thanks for your feedback on the Peter Shankman page. I have updated it significantly, and appreciate the feedback :)Jgreene1333 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:34:30, 19 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Barrlauren

• Barrlauren (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hossein Fateh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

As you can probably tell, this is my first submission and I thank you for your help :-)

As founding CEO of a successful NYSE-traded coumpany, Hossein Fateh is a noteworthy guy -- one who has worked hard and not pursued a lot of media opportunities. That said, George Washington University felt he was the perfect fit for graduation speaker for their business school in 2014!

Here's the video of the talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE7FaqNHSJ8

Here's the GW newsletter article about it:

http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/tag/hossein-fateh/

He was also featured on REIT.com's CEO spotlight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiEQW9zmq_w

Can you help me do a better job?

Many thanks, Lauren Barr Barrlauren (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Barrlauren (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Barrlauren, thanks for stopping by. While this person may be notable in the "real world" Wikipedia has its own special requirements for meeting notability. Please read wp:n and wp:rs. Those will explain that to be notable the person has to have had independent sources write about him, and that blogs and other informal media do not attest to notability. Videos of him are what we call wp:primary resources - they are him speaking, rather than someone speaking about him. You need to find newspaper and journal articles that are expressly about him. The business press would be a good place to look. LaMona (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sid De La Cruz

Hello LaMona

I do have 3rd party sources that does talk about the composer. Did you want me to delete all other sources that do not specifically talk about the composer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid De La Cruz (talk • contribs) 08:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

08:25:37, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Sid De La Cruz

• Sid De La Cruz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sid De La Cruz Draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona, The entry was declined for not having sources. I have included third party sources that prove the statements. I am not sure what else is needed. I have seen other wiki entries on different people, without any sources and yet the entry was posted. Please help me. Thank you and have a great day.

User:Sid De La Cruz, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you say that you have included third-party sources. All of your references list Cruz as the author, and none of the ones I clicked on took me to a third-party source about him. You cannot use youtube videos as references, by the way -- they are crowd-sourced and not considered reliable, and most of these are BY the subject, not ABOUT the subject. See reliable sources. The SJSU blurb is of the kind that people send in about themselves, and are not fully fact-checked. So you have no third-party sources in the article. I also should mention that if you ARE Sid De La Cruz, as your username implies, that WP greatly discourages autobiographies, since no one is really able to write neutrally about himself. You should read WP:USERNAME and wp:Autobiography before continuing. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:11:03, 20 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Taylorcarson

• Taylorcarson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Donald Lavoie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help with references

Hello, I was wondering if it was possible to reference a book? And if so, how?

Taylorcarson (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can indeed reference a book. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books, but the bottom line is that a standard reference like you would see in a bibliography is fine. Here's a hint: if you look the book up at http://worldcat.org, when you get to the page for the book there's a click-on link on the top right that will produce a nicely formatted citation for you that you can use between the <ref></ref> tags. There are fancier ways to do it, but fast has its advantages! LaMona (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

15:18:08, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Taylorcarson

• Taylorcarson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Donald Lavoie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I also have other sources that explain and reference the points I have said. I revised the page to make it sound not so much like a story. Please help, if I could source movies or books i have that, that would be great.

20:36:32, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Room40

• Room40 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David MacNaughton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's unclear why the draft article for David MacNaughton was rejected on notability grounds, when other less notable Canadian political strategists have been approved (e.g. David Herle, Paul Rhodes, etc. In fact, MacNaughton is more highly placed than many of the people noted here: [[wp:Category:Canadian_political_consultants.

I'd be pleased to discuss this further as I am in Canada and know many of the people in that category. Please advise.

User:Room40 Thanks for getting in touch. We have a general rule that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to add an article to WP. Also note that not all articles pass through AfC, and it looks like these were created directly in the main WP space. Both of those article look quite weak, and could be sent to a deletion discussion at any time. These are the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians, which is the closest I think we can get to a category for these people. You should also look at the link to "outcomes" that is listed there to give you even more of an idea of what is desired. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that this page should be created because others exist. In fact, rather the opposite, the merits of this person far eclipse the the others. I've reviewed the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians and were that to be applied none in the Category:Canadian_political_consultants|Canadian Political Consultants group would exist. I appreciate your feedback to date and wonder if you can provide greater clarity on how to reconcile what appears to be a different standard that's being applied. Many thanks. Room40 (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not spend any time trying to "reconcile different standard" -- that's just a waste of your time. As I explained, the articles you cited are on the deletion path. That they are now in WP does not mean that they have passed any standard, since anyone can add an article to WP, and anyone can suggest its deletion. Instead, work to make the article meet the WP requirements for living persons and notability. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

20:52:00, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Cyclopsga

• Cyclopsga (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ALCO Villager threewheeler bicycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why is this article not acceptable? Is Popular Mechanics not a solid reference? Are the photos on the other web pages I listed not acceptable? Are the comments from a former ALCO employee on one of the web pages not acceptable?Not to mention that I worked for ALCO and sold its bicycles; all the facts I have listed I know from personal experience. The company is no longer in business, so cannot be used as a source. Cyclopsga (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyclopsga (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyclopsga, thanks for stopping by for further clarification. Photos do not establish notability. Comments from former employees do not establish notability. Please read wp:n the policy on notability which is entirely based on third-party, independent but significant and reliable sources about the topic. But the main issue is that you apparently did not read the comment that I wrote on the draft page: "References must be in-line with the text. See wp:cite for formatting instructions." We cannot accept articles that do not have in-line references, and your article does not. Again, that is wp:cite for how to create inline citations. LaMona (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Leyla Turkkan review (and others)

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Yougo so far above and beyond at AfC - your reviews are thorough and detailed, and your guidance is specific and helpful. A million barnstars.JSFarman (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i need your help

Hi, First thanks for contribution about my article.

03:25, 18 December 2015‎ LaMona (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,951 bytes) (+433)‎ . . (Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9))

As i have created this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumchit_Anand and you said to declining this submission, i have adding more reference sources which are available on google and other search engines.

This article has a lot of reference url more than other profiles which are already approved on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thapar_Group check this page is about a organization. and also check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karam_Chand_Thapar this is founder of this organization.

This only one, i have seen many profile like this. Now tell me, why my article is not meet with notability guidelines, as these both page only have external url.

Please help me out to approve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pay9891 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Pay9891, first, if you look at those two articles you should note that both have been tagged as not having sufficient sources. Articles tagged with that, if not improved, are eventually deleted, so you should not see them as examples to copy. Second, you should not remove the history of reviews at AfC because that history helps us when we re-review. My last comment is that your section "Other News" provides no information for the reader. If the person has been covered in articles, you should use the content of those articles to fill in information in your article. The reader is not expected to read the linked articles, but should get all information from the WP article. External articles that merely name him or have short quotes from him do not support notability, and should not be included. Including those is considered "ref-bombing" and is a detriment to the article. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:56:28, 21 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Pay9891

• Pay9891 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sumchit Anand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, First thanks for contribution about my article.

As i have created this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumchit_Anand and you said to declining this submission, i have adding more reference sources which are available on google and other search engines.

This article has a lot of reference url more than other profiles which are already approved on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thapar_Group check this page is about a organization. and also check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karam_Chand_Thapar this is founder of this organization.

This only one, i have seen many profile like this. Now tell me, why my article is not meet with notability guidelines, as these both page only have external url.

Please help me out to approve this article Pay9891 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please Submit for Review

Hello, Can you please submit this Draft:Amedeo_Scognamiglio for review? I don't know how to do it.Susana Hodge (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

17:33:39, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Josiemlee

• Josiemlee (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Christopher W. Jamroz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Submission for Christopher W. Jamroz for article Hello LaMona, My submission for Christopher W. Jamroz for an article was declined recently. The reason cited includes making sure the article says what Chris is notable for. I would like to make the case that Chris is a well-known speaker for the topic of cash. Here are some supporting materials for that:

• Chris was featured in Al Jazeera TV discussing the use of cash in North America --- source: Oct. 13, 2013, "Real Money with Ali Velshi and Chris Jamroz," Al Jazeera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNA20PqqPOg
• Chris was quoted in The Wall Street Journal about cash --- source: Dec. 1, 2014, "Reports of the Death of Cash are Premature," The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/reports-of-the-death-of-cash-are-premature-1417480600
• Chris was invited to speak at the Secure Cash Transport Association, Sept. 23-25, 2015. Here is the link to the conference agenda with Chris's session http://scta.securetransportassociation.org/agenda/

Do you consider the above three sources "reliable"? Is this enough to make the case that Chris is a notable businessman especially as an expert on cash? Thanks for your guidance. Best, Josie

Hi, Josie, thanks for stopping by. To assert notability, WP requires sources that are ABOUT the person, not BY the person. So the youtube video and the fact that he is a speaker do not say anything about him that comes from a reliable source. You have shown that he is an actor in this area, but you do not have content for what others have said about him. That's what you need to look for. And as a reminder, on talk pages you need to sign your posts using four tilde's. There's a click-on link at the bottom right below the edit box that helps you remember and that adds your signature. LaMona (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

About the page you moved to 62 in Illinois

Could you, next time, delete the corresponding redirect/disambiguation page before moving the article to the namespace. I'm informing you of this because road names use STRICT NAMING FORMULAS!!! (OH, AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU'RE AN ADMINISTRATOR, COULD YOU PLEASE DELETE THIS FOR ME?) HeatIsCool (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The disambiguation page was already deleted, or I wouldn't have been able to accept the article. If there was something else needed, it wasn't obvious. I also do not understand why you want the 60/62 page deleted -- it correctly lists the two pages that cover that topic. But you've added the G6 to it, so it's just a short matter of time. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

23:46:19, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Cfolch~enwiki

• Cfolch~enwiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Larycia Hawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the feedback on this, my first wikipedia entry. I am very open to suggestions that'll help strengthen the submission. The controversy around Larycia Hawkins mirrors the Salaita/tenure revocation and subsequent lawsuit/settlement (UofI revoked his contract because of tweets he'd written regarding the Gaza War 2014).

I have made some additions to the article--chiefly in the form of adding more links to illustrate the "notoriety" of Hawkins (particularly regarding the hijab/Wheaton College controversy) and to show more of her intellectual production as a scholar of race and American politics.

Please let me know if there's more that I can do--I don't mind working on this back-and-forth a bit.

Did you see the links I put on the talk page? You should not be citing the college but other news outlets, and there are plenty that have had articles on the topic. Look at Draft_talk:Larycia_Hawkins. LaMona (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

01:13:59, 22 December 2015 review of submission by Valerie Ross

• Valerie Ross (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wallace A. Ross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Template:UlLaMona, Thank you for all your help and feedback... I've been trying really hard to figure out all the right ways to cite and give the right kinds of sources and references. I would like to re-submit my page again for review, but I am wondering if there is a limit to how many times one can re-submit a page? If so, please let me know, and if you would be kind enough to look over the page and all the changes I've made in an effort to prove my subject's notability with verifiable, objective sources, I would be very grateful to you. Many thanks, ValerieValerie Ross (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you have enough and I'll send it on to main space. Note, however, that you probably have a conflict of interest of the family kind which means that once the article is in the main WP space you are not allowed to edit it further. Please read about wp:coi:conflict of interest and what that means for you. LaMona (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 01:35:52, 22 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Petra Kuraliova

• Petra Kuraliova (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Capital Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am trying to upload wikipedia page about one organization. As far as I am aware, company is already well known and mentioned on many third party sources. I have added some to references. Not all though. What am I doing wrong that company is still not notable for Wikipedia?

Can you please advise

Petra Kuraliova (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've added references where they were needed. You should resubmit for review. Not that "well-known and mentioned" are not criteria for notability for WP. See wp:corp to see what makes a company "encyclopedic." LaMona (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

13:08:35, 22 December 2015 review of submission by DFrancisIII

• DFrancisIII (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Canadian Property Stars Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

I feel that the Canadian Property Stars article provides more than adequate references to show the company's notability in Canada, particularly as they are featured on the news frequently. It was previously mentioned that the article "read more like an advertisement", however this has since been resolved. I have made revisions and have added additional references to the article as well to show notability, significance and community involvement.

Canadian Property Stars is a major property maintenance company in Canada, and they do get considerable media attention as well. The article merely informs the reader about who founded the company and when, where it operates, what services it provides and some information about its competitive orientation exemplified in its annual All-Star events and Hall of Fame.

I am in no way affiliated with the company or the owner, and so my intention is to keep the article as neutral as possible. I have used several other company article pages as a reference point.

Here are similar articles that provide no more information or relevant sources than the Canadian Property Stars page, and yet they have been approved and accepted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naparex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliv

I hope that you will reconsider the submission and I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you

Thanks for stopping by. Remember that on talk pages you have to sign your posts with four tilde's in a row. There's a click-on at the bottom of the edit box. Now, as to the article: "The article merely informs the reader about who founded the company and when, where it operates, what services it provides and some information about its competitive orientation exemplified in its annual All-Star events and Hall of Fame." That sounds like "business as usual" -- so what makes the company encyclopedic? All companies conduct business, so you need to ask yourself why this one should have a WP article, what makes it special? As for the other companies you name, we have a saying here WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- WP is always changing, and articles that exist at one moment may be updated or deleted at another. There is no use comparing your article to others to justify its existence - it has to meet the criteria for notability on its own. For that there need to be significant articles from reliable sources that are substantially about the company. You have three articles about the CEO (not about the company), some human-interest stories about charitable work (not about the business of the company), some photos of staff, and an article in which they deny wrong-doing. There's virtually nothing about the company and its business. If there are no sources that could supply that information, then the company does not meet the criteria, outlined at wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

15:48:03, 22 December 2015 review of submission by Hyperspec

• Hyperspec (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Headwall Photonics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have truncated the Headwall Photonics page entry to be very specific, addressing the products and markets only and steering clear of the technology, which I link to instead.

Thank you!

User:Hyperspec Great job, and I see you've re-submitted it. I should mention that based on your user name you may be editing with a conflict of interest. This doesn't affect the Draft process but does have consequences should be the article be promoted to mainspace. I will add an informative note on your user page - you should follow the instructions for managing a COI. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

18:58:46, 23 December 2015 review of submission by Helkins

• Helkins (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andreas Borgeas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know if my article fits the notability criteria. If not, which areas can I improve and edit? Helkins (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Helkins, you can re-submit for review if you have made changes. However, it does not appear to me that the person meets the criteria for a WP article, in particular WP:GNG, because most of the sources are not independent of the subject. See wp:rs for more info, but information from organizations he works for cannot be used to establish notability. That he took a local office does not automatically confer notability. You could also look at WP:ACADEMIC and see if he meets those criteria. To meet those you would need to show that his works have been frequently cited by other academics and/or that he has held high positions in his field. LaMona (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 05:08:20, 24 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bhavishacha

• Bhavishacha (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mic slayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey there as per your  review i will reedit the article and make sure it sticks to point and does avoid peacock tearms. and will be getting off all rapgenious.com references.  is there anything  more which i am missing to avoid deletation of this article ? 

Bhavishacha (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You will need more references, especially for un-referenced areas about his personal life. If you do not have sources to reference for those sections, you can drop the sections. They do not add to notability. Also, we'll need someone to do a copy edit for grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. LaMona (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, we need to decide what he will be called throughout the article. We generally use a person's last name in the article text. However, I note that you have his last name in lower case - "slayer" - not the normal name case, which would be "Slayer." It will be difficult to use the last name but in lower case -- could "Slayer" be used? LaMona (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

25 December 2015 review of submission by gast2011

Hi LaMona: I changed Draft:Stefan Gandler, following our proposals, making also clearer the actual university position (Tenured full time professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, permanent invited professor at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, category 2.) If you have any other commentaries, please let me know. Gast2011 (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain what "category 2" is? Generally, professors that have named chairs are automatically accepted, but others need more proof of notability. LaMona (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Most Mexican University Professors are not members of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (S.N.I.), only those who publish continously important scientific/academic contributions in internationally recognized journals and editorial houses are members (Gandler published his books in the two most important Mexican editorial houses for social sciences: FCE and Siglo XXI. The FCE- Fondo de Cultura Económica is the largest and most important academic editorial house in the Spanish-speaking world). For the higher categories (2 and 3), additionally is required to be the main adviser of finished PhD thesis and have contributed in a considerable way to the formation of the new generation of university professors. In total exist four categories of the members: candidate, 1, 2 and 3. Category 3 is the highest one. Categories 2 and 3 are very limited, especially in the humanities and the social sciences; for to give an example: at the Department for Social and Political Sciences of the Autonomous University of Querétaro Dr. Gandler is the only professor in the category 2 of the S.N.I.

Additionally, Gandler is the founder and chair of the research project "For a Critical theory from the Americas", which was recognized by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) as a project of "Ciencia básica", and got for this reason founds for three years from the "Fondo SEP-CONACYT", which are very difficult to get, and it was the first time that this highly prestigious support was given to a research project in social sciences and humanities at this University, which is the main University in the Mexican State of Querétro. Even in the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM, the most important university of Latin America, and one of the biggest in the world) exist in the humanities and social sciences only a very small number of this category of research projects, for example: in the Facultad de Filosofía y Letras of the UNAM exist only 3 of them.

Gandler's position at the UNAM is the following: he is officially recognized as PhD adviser in philosophy - most of the professors at the UNAM philosophy department are not. In Mexico, different also in that issue to the US, the position in an university in terms of labour contract is not automatically the same as the position in academic terms. Having a definitive full time contract does not mean automatically to have the right to advise postgraduate theses and to teach postgraduate courses. At the same time, the decision of the university to give to a professor the right to be PhD adviser and to teach postgraduate courses, does not automatically imply that the professor gets a definitive full time position in this university. A quote on Gandler's relevance in Latin American philosophy, written by the editor of the American Philosophical Association's Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy has been included in the article text.Gast2011 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gast2011, but now I'm a bit confused. If this fellow is such an important prof, why isn't there a @sp article for him? It seems that would be the logical place for people to look, not here, since he has no influence that I can see in the English-speaking world. I realize that @en WP has become kind of a catch-all, but that doesn't mean that entries here should mean no entry is created in a more appropriate WP. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point LaMona. In the German WP it exists since years, and in the Spanish WP it exist now too. Gast2011 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In the English WP it should exist now too (in addition to the German WP and Spanish WP, where it already exists):

• Gandler's main book was published in English this year and is now available at most relevant scientific libraries in the US.
• Book presentations are happening too, see for example the Marcuse-conference in Salisbury, MA in November 2015 (program, p. 29).
• At the same time, Gandler is now, for the second time, physically present in the US for a sabbatical year (now at Tulane University). Gast2011 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Barbara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Best Global Business and Financial School page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

00:33:24, 31 December 2015 review of submission by Sabermiresmailli

• Sabermiresmailli (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scientific Animations Without Borders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think SAWBO should have its own wikipedia page. The reference you mention is part of another page (ICT4D). Please reconsider this submission. Thank you!

We have this concept of "forking" in WP -- making separate or parallel articles to ones that already exist. The ICT4D page gives useful context for SAWBO which readers do not find on a separate page. The question is not whether it "deserves" its own page but what will make sense to a reader. There's also the fact that you don't say much on the SAWBO page, and quite honestly someone arriving there does not get enough information to understand what SAWBO does. There would need to be much more to say about SAWBO for it to have its own page. As it is, all you say is that it exists, and that it creates technology, which isn't really much. The first thing to do would be to provide more information in the ICT4D page, and fit it into that context. Then, if over time there are more sources and more information about SAWBO it could have its own page. But right now you have very little content, and by making a separate page you remove it from the context of the ICT4D page, where it makes more sense. LaMona (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

09:00:50, 1 January 2016 review of submission by Arminehjo

• Arminehjo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michel Hanna Haj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona Thanks for your review - however I am rather confused that this submission was not accepted. I have provided ample references and the title of books published by Michel Hanna Haj - perhaps a person who knows Arabic should review this page? I have added some more info today. Pls. let me know if you have anyone who knows Arabic and can review this submission, as I think since the author writes mostly in arabic and all the info provided is mostly in Arabic - perhapsthat would be the ideal solution - pls. let me know how else I can improve it. thanks very much Armineh Johannes

User:Arminehjo, my comments to you were not about notability but about the content of the article. Unfortunately the boilerplate that is generated isn't always helpful. First, your references need to be inline, linked to the statements they support, using the formatting given at wp:cite. Next, long lists of URLs aren't very readable, so you should instead give your readers an actual readable citation with the name of the work, where it was published, etc. Interviews do not confer notability, so the interview section could be reduced to a sentence talking about one or two important interviews. My final comment is this: given that this person writes in Arabic, why should there be an article in @en wikipedia? You need to make this person relevant to English-language readers. I would suggest first creating an article in an Arabic language WP, then look for sources in English that could make this subject of interest for this WP. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Tup Tup Palace

Hello User:LaMona, thank you for reviewing my draft article. I would be grateful if you would expand upon your reasoning for declining it, i.e "Still reads like an advertisement.". My article has been in development for quite some time, and I have taken some helpful guidance from User:Robert McClenon, User:Cullen328 and User:Onel5969 to remedy problems with the article (particularly to ensure neutrality and well-referenced factual content). Is your view that my draft violates neutral point of view, and if so would you kindly explain how so, and what I might do to remedy this? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Laurahartley (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In my conversations with Laurahartley, I encouraged removal of much of the lengthy list of "celebrity sightings" at the club, especially those that involved allegations of misconduct. Meticulously listing every celebrity that a news source says went to the club seems to have a promotional or advertising effect. It's namedropping. People who want to rub shoulders with celebrities eat that stuff up. Instead, I recommended more emphasis on the business itself. Another shortcoming are the repeated statements about how much media attention the club has received. Let the sources speak for themselves.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with User:Cullen328. Saying that the place has received media attention is WP:PROMO. Using those same articles to enhance the WP article is research. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:LaMona. I understand your points (and also those made by User:Cullen328 - thanks again Jim). I have now edited the draft accordingly and resubmitted. It was not my intention to promote the subject in any way, but I had found that the celebrity profile of the venue had made it difficult to avoid my writing coming across that way. To summarise, I have removed the exhaustive listing of celebrities and just mentioned 3 of the most notable. Furthermore I have removed the separate section of 'Celebrity Clientele' and simply incorporated a short paragraph at the end of the 'History' section. I have also deleted all statements about how much media attention the venue has received. Thanks for the quick response and I am grateful for your feedback. Laurahartley (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:55:57, 1 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Blessedtern2014

• Blessedtern2014 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alex Wyse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

I am hoping for clarification as to why you denied my article on Alex Wyse due to notability. He has been in two Broadway shows, one of which is currently running, a Broadway national tour, and has had multiple guest and recurring roles on TV. These are all credited and referenced in the article. I have seen several other articles for actors that only have one Broadway credit, and little to no TV experience. Wyse has exceeded these, so I do not understand how he does not meet the requirements. Thank you. Blessedtern2014 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Blessedtern2014. Thanks for asking. First, we have a saying here that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that can be used on WP. Because WP can be edited by anyone, that other articles exist does not mean that they meet the criteria. Literally hundreds of articles are added each day, and hundreds are also deleted each day, so what you see here today you may not see here tomorrow. Have you read the general notability guidelines? They say: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The key there is "significant coverage". It doesn't matter how many shows he has been in or how many TV shows -- what matters is the coverage in reliable sources. That is what you lack. What you have mainly are what we call "name checks" -- his name appears in an article about someone or something else, such as the show, and nothing else is said about him. The two articles that appear to be about him say very little about him. Note that interviews, while they can be used to source information in the article, do not support notability because it is the person speaking about himself, and thus is not a neutral, independent source. None of the Playbill articles with his name in the title say much about him, just a few sentences. I am unable to find the November 11 article, which looks promising but does not appear in Playbill. I didn't look at every reference, so if I missed specific reviews of his work, let me know. LaMona (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, LaMona!

Happy New Year!

LaMona,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

09:48:07, 2 January 2016 review of submission by 86.178.230.186

• 86.178.230.186 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Capital Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello LaMona,

Thank you for your review. Would you mind please to see the article again. I have added reference links from Bloomberg, Finance Magnates and some other news' providers. I took of few directories so it does not look that company just exists. I find a company highly notable, otherwise Bloomberg would not mention it. Capital Index is the company that is already respected brokerage and it is one of the google keywords that people are searching for. It would be good if the people looking for a company information or history were able to see it on wikipedia. What do you think? Thank you. 86.178.230.186 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Oddly, your Bloomberg cites are listed as "Businessweek". But in any case, one is a directory listing (Bloomberg makes listings of all companies, so that isn't notable), and the other is a rehash of a Capital Index press release, also not notable, and we discourage the use of press releases as references. You still have a number of primary sources (CI's own site, the regulatory site), and the rest seems to be normal business announcements. As for "It would be good if the people looking for a company information or history were able to see it on wikipedia" -- if the WP article does not say anything more than they could get from the company's own site and a Google search, then I'd say "no" there is no need for it. But the clue here is your mention of google keywords, because having a WP article is one of the main things that can raise the profile of a company in Google ranking, and so many people wish to create WP articles to gain this boost in ranking. However, that is not WP's purpose; WP is an encyclopedia, not a SEO service. So articles here really must by encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Review and approval of article on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights

LaMona - thank you for reviewing and approving (and enhancing!) my article on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. As you suggested, I have added/confirmed links in the 14 existing articles that already mention the VPs, so at least there is a start at cross referencing other articles, I will incrementally add references to other member organization articles. I am not as familiar with adding categories - but I will look into that next. I hope now that it is out there others will also contribute to the article. DiligentDavidG (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)