Help desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 23

03:47:41, 23 June 2015 review of submission by Olga Rekovskaya

Olga Rekovskaya (talk · contribs)
- Draft:ISS Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Unfortunately, our ISS Art article was declined again for the reason of lack of "secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject". I would like to disagree on this point - the article contains references to such resources as IAOP, Clutch, Fortune 500 Magazine. These are completely independent resources, they don't have any commercial interest in promoting the company.

As for the notability of organizations, one should "consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". As described in the article, ISS Art is involved in community activities, and this is supported by evidence from independent resources (online newspapers and magazines).

Could you, please, clarify, what kind of information does the article still lack to get published?

Btw, I'd like to provide examples of two articles about software development companies that were pubslished (although they might not meet the above mentioned criteria as well):

Thank you in advance.

Hello @Olga Rekovskaya:, I'll leave it to someone else to answer your main question, but just wanted you to know that of those two poor-quality articles you brought to our attention, I've proposed the first one for deletion, and cut out about 75% of the second on as being overly promotional and not properly cited. Thanks for helping us find articles with inappropriate content so they can be removed or modified. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MatthewVanitas:, thanks for your reply. As for my main question - should I expect a reply in this thread? Or should I post a new request instead? Thanks.

@Olga Rekovskaya: I am unfamiliar with Clutch and IAOP. Assuming that they are independent and reliable as you say, they still do not contain significant coverage of ISS Art. Earlier you compared the draft with two low-quality Wikipedia articles. You may find it useful to compare it to a good article about a software company, Comverse Technology. Note that the article cites sources that describe the company in considerable detail, such as:

"At Comverse, Many Smart Business Moves and Maybe a Bad One". The New York Times. 21 August 2006.
"Story of a sinking ship". Haaretz. 15 August 2010.
"Comverse CEO Andre Dahan to step down". Globes. 28 February 2011.

A draft need not be as good or as long as that to be approved, but there do need to be multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage about the company. Worldbruce (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:39, 23 June 2015 review of submission by Zjwoolf

Zjwoolf (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ebates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was denied because of 'read more like an advertisement'. I took the advice from the first reviewer who denied it and took out almost anything that wasn't cited, so that there wouldn't be any question on the validity of what was written. Wondering if you could give me other advice if there are certain sections that should be reviewed or what part read like an advertisement. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

Actually, I think I see the problem. Would you suggest removing the entire Products section? I tried to figure out how to write it non ad-like, but now i think it is. What do you think?

Zjwoolf (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zjwoolf: I did some editing on the article to make it appear a little less promotional. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great thank you. Should i do anything else or just resubmit? :@Ahecht:

Request on 16:55:11, 23 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mttocs

Mttocs (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Western Telematic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I've been trying to post a short article about WTI (Western Telematic, Inc.) for the past eight months and so far, I've had about eight versions of the article rejected.

Initially, the articles were rejected due to insufficient citation or lack of notability, but today I received a message from your reviewer that rejected my latest revision article based on insufficient context.

I think I've been able to address the citation and notability issues over the past eight revisions, but I'm confused as to how to address the context issue. Is the reviewer saying that I need to add more text to explain terms such as "console sever," "power-distribution-unit" and "automatic transfer switch," or do I merely need to link to existing Wikipedia articles that explain these terms, or is there something else that I'm missing?

Thanks,

Mttocs

Mttocs (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has kindly wiki-linked these technical terms for you, and I don't agree with User:Anarchyte that there was insufficient context. However, I still don't see that the Draft could be accepted in its current form. A company having registered trademarks, being given a passing mention along with several other companies in a single sentence in a book, a one-sentence mention of it relocating, local "best places to work" mentions, and so on, do not constitute the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that is required to prove notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mttocs: Hello, sorry for the late-ish reply; I tagged it as insufficient context because all the article tells me (as someone who doesn't know anything about the company) is that it a device manufacturer and produces the 3 objects/devices/etc that you mentioned in the draft. The brief history of the company (quicklink) just advertises the company and the last line in the section, (WTI and the WTI logo are registered trademarks of Western Telematic, Inc.) doesn't give me any information at all and looks like a disclaimer more than anything. --Anar chyte 08:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]