Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 11 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 13 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


February 12[edit]

01:05:34, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Leila Jeffreys 72[edit]


Leila Jeffreys 72 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to re-review this submission. I have a couple of issues I'm hoping you can offer advice on.

1. This is not an autobiography. I am an independent contractor compiling resources for Leila and thought it best to create a page for her using details she can easily access when I am no longer working directly for her. If you feel it would be beneficial to create a new Wikipedia account with my own details rather than Leila's, I can resubmit that way. Could you pls let me know if this will be helpful?

2. I've received feedback that Leila does not satisfy the notability criteria for creative arts. I have reviewed these criteria and I am hopeful that you will revise this assertion. She's the subject of a 30-minute documentary commissioned by Australia's national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (criteria 3). She's exhibited her artworks in Australia, Hong Kong, the USA and the UK (criteria 3 & 4). Her work has been included in public exhibitions and is part of many private collections around the world (criteria 3 & 4). She has been featured in notable, reliable and objective publications all over the world also and with her most recent exhibition in Australia she was the subject of major features in numerous well-regarded titles (The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, Australian Geographic, Art Almanac, Art Daily, Artist Profile etc ) (criteria 1). She has been interviewed extensively because of the unique way she is able to present her subjects (criteria 2). She has also published her work in book-format at the request of major publishers both here in Australia as well as in North America and the UK (criteria 3). I've kept her entry deliberately brief and avoided hyperbole - there's nothing misleading in her entry. Some of the references I have supplied link back to Leila's website b/c she has been very diligent in keeping track of her own press and some of the articles published on her are no longer available online, however, they are genuine articles and can be accessed via her website.

To quote the former curator of Australia's National Portrait Gallery, Dr Sarah Engledow, Leila's work is "simultaneously serious and witty, gentle and impactful; technically, they are quite miraculous. Her rapport with her subjects, her technical ingenuity, her eye for colour, form and composition and her expertise in the processes of fine art photography combine to create singular works that have often – alas – been imitated but have never come close to being equalled.”

I am hopeful this clarification will aid the justification of Leila's case for a wikipedia entry.

Thanks again for your time,

Mel

Leila Jeffreys 72 If you are not Leila, you must change your username immediately. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to make a username change request. Once you change your username, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you review some other articles on artists to get an idea of how they are structured and what content is being looked for. Any article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. The draft as it stands now is just a list of work and accomplishments, little more than a resume. This is why Leila does not seem notable- if she is, you need to demonstrate that. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:10:47, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Contrary.Carrie[edit]


I would like to get feedback on the edits made .. I resubmitted in December with a much more comprehensive article and list of references. If additional edits are needed, I would appreciate feedback so I can make those changes. Thank you!

Contrary.Carrie (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Contrary.Carrie: Did you look at the specific advice that the reviewer gave last time? You have way too many references (see WP:REFBOMB) and most of them do nothing to prove WP:N. Remove all references to Youtube, Spotify, Facebook, Bandcamp, etc. Those do nothing for your article. Next, look at WP:NMUSIC. I assume that you are trying to meet criterion #1? You need to find substantial coverage in published sources, not passing mentions on websites. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. shoy (reactions) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoy:Thank you for your helpful and specific feedback. I've cleaned up the reference list to remove pages that were self-published by the band (youtube, etc.) as well as ones that just made passing mentions. I was struggling with the need to prove/document sources of statements vs. weeding out "noise", so your feedback is appreciated!

I believe the band qualifies for notability for several reasons:

  1. 1 - multiple published works -- including Fender, BMI, KROQ, and several magazines included in references
  2. 4 - Coverage from international performance (Corona Capital festival in Nov 2019)
  3. 7 - Has been featured on KROQ (Los Angeles) including a special interview video, being #1 on local radio weekly countdowns Locals Only, and the headline spot for KROQ Locals Only festival and compilation album
  4. 11 - KROQ, KCRW, Alt 1059, and other radio stations have had their songs in rotation and on countdowns.

If there is more needed to get this published, I would greatly appreciate the feedback. THANK YOU again!! Contrary.Carrie (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Contrary.Carrie: #11 specifically says rotation "nationally". You would need a lot more coverage to pass #7, "most prominent" is a high bar to clear. Pinging the last reviewer Bearcat to get their thoughts about #4. shoy (reactions) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you haven't really demonstrated that those criteria have been passed. Here's a more detailed explanation of why:
Criterion #1 - Please note that the "published works" criterion deprecates blogs, university or college student newspapers like The Daily Tar Heel, and Q&A interviews in which the band is talking about themselves in the first person. I'm not going to say that they definitely don't pass this criterion, because I haven't checked all of the sources, but it's not at all obvious that they definitely do pass it, because all of the ones I have checked were blogs and student newspapers and Q&A interviews. So taking into account what I just said, please review your sources again and tell us which are the three best sources that still count toward #1 after you ignore the blogs and the student newspapers and the Q&A interviews.
Criterion #4 - This criterion is not passed just because they got a 29 word in a listicle about a one-off performance at a single festival. It requires a full-on national or international tour that generated ongoing coverage, such as reliable source concert reviews in a variety of publications. It is not passed just because you can offer technical verification that they played at a festival — it requires a full tour that was itself the subject of substantive coverage (not just concert calendar listings or short mentions of their name in listicles.)
Criterion #7 - This criterion is not automatically passed just because you can show some local coverage in the local media — it's a very high bar that requires a lot more than just placing in a radio stations "local musicians" chart. For an example of how #7 actually works, a musician who was one of the original innovators of hip hop back in the 1970s, but never really became famous outside of New York City, could pass that criterion if his historical significance were established by significant reliable source coverage even if he never actually got to personally benefit from the genre's commercial popularity now by charting or touring — but it's not automatically passed by just every band that can show a handful of local coverage in their own city.
Criterion #11 - The airplay rotation criterion requires an entire national network, not just a list of individual radio stations. Basically, if you're talking about US radio airplay, the only way this criterion comes into play is if they got onto one of NPR's music shows (World Cafe or All Songs Considered.) This criterion exists primarily as an alternative to #2 ("single or album on a national music chart") in foreign countries that sometimes don't even have trustworthy record charts to use, and is not generally useful in the United States at all. The US really doesn't have any national networks that are devoted specifically to music, so the only way to actually pass this criterion in the US is a couple of specific NPR shows — and any band or musician who's actually getting onto those NPR shows almost certainly already passes other criteria anyway, so the shortage of ways to actually pass this criterion is not actually unfair to American musicians.
So you definitely haven't shown that they clear 4, 7 or 11, and you haven't proven that they clear 1 — please follow up by listing what you believe to be the three strongest sources left after you discount the blogs, the student media and the interviews, so we can review those and see if they're substantive enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:53:15, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Viditalk14[edit]


I wanted to check how to edit this article further. Are the establishments within the mall considered advertisement? What aspects of the mall should I focus on? Thank you! Viditalk14 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viditalk14 You need to focus on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the mall. Significant coverage goes beyond press releases and routine business announcements(such as a purchase, opening, etc.). The mall website is not an independent source. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:00:30, 12 February 2020 review of submission by VodkaWaka[edit]


This article is inspired by the same title in Mandarin. Please go read it. Everything written is based on what already happened. I don't see anything wrong here for truth being documented.

This Wikipedia, should be helpful to me, to create articles. That means I need serious advice.

VodkaWaka (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VodkaWaka, The version in Mandarin is up for deletion, and for good reason. It is intended to simply attack a living person, which goes against our policy on living people. This version is also poorly translated. It seems unlikely that the page would be approved, no matter what edits were made to it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:49:34, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Mahul sharma[edit]


I have already added the citation in the footnotes then why my draft is declined again. I want to know the real reason for rejection. Kindly help me as i want to correct my draft Lerocque.

Mahul sharma (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahul sharma: Did you read the reasons given in the pink boxes? Those are the 'real reasons'. Did you follow the advice given in those boxes? If so you'll have added inline citations that show where the statements you've made about Leroque can be verified, and you'll have re-written the draft to be less like an advert. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:31:07, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Samantakbhadra[edit]

The reviewer said that the article seems to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article. It is true that the article emphasizes the Brussels airport terror attack in 2016 as Nidhi (the article is about her) rose to prominence as a survivor of the attack. Post that, she has been a well-known leader of the employees agitation to revive the now defunct Jet Airways. She has also published her memoir last months and is currently touring the country launching her book. Therefore, given that she is a well-known person due to the attack, her Jet Airways activism and her book (along with multiple awards and talks), we would like to further emphasize the fact that the article is about Nidhi and her journey and not only about the terror attack although that is prominently mentioned in the article. Kindly do review the article and let us know if we can make certain edits which would allow the article to become notable enough for publication on Wikipedia. Thank you so very much! :) Samantakbhadra (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantakbhadra, On Wikipedia, we only cover folks who are notable. We also generally do not cover people notable for only one event. The only thing that might make the subject notable is being a victim of the bombing, not her memoir or her union activity. At the moment, I'm afraid that she isn't notable by our standards. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:43:47, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nayabks[edit]


Hello there,

I am requesting assistance to discuss the decline of the submission. My Wikipedia submission was based on another laundry company that is published here. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressto

I believe my referencing was stronger than theirs, because mine proves that "Laundry by time signature" was awarded by ISEA for being the best Laundry Service. In my understanding, anybody given prestigious awards that prove the quality of their services to be at the forefront of their industry is notable enough but I might be wrong. Can you please help me point out what might be lacking from my end?

Thank you for the support, I admire every volunteer for their service. I\


Nayabks (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nayabks Your draft only has two sources and does little more than state that the company exists. (the article you mention has its own issues as well, which is why it is not good to use the existence of other articles to justify your own, see other stuff exists) Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about companies that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Because of this, not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Please read Your First Article for more information. As for the award- which doesn't seem particularly remarkable at least without context- any organization can give out awards, but for the award to be significant there needs to be significant, independent coverage of the award(like for the Academy Awards or Grammy Awards or Tony Awards. The article on ISEA International does not even mention that they give out awards or why, let alone any independent coverage of them. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I read the articles and understand your points. So I'll forget the Pressto page. As per the Notability of a company or organization, I do understand now exactly what is required. I had mistakenly tagged the wrong ISEA page, I was able to find an article that will fulfill the requirement: here's the award being independently covered by a top Nigerian news source: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/04/16/laundrybytimesignature-others-win-award/

This Day has a wikipedia page too. If I edit this source into the article and change the ISEA part, will this page be good to come alive?

Thank you!

P.S. this is the ISEA page: https://www.iso.org/iso-awards.html these are called international standard excellence awards

Nayabks (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:44, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Nayabks[edit]


Hello Wikipedians!

I'm requesting help because I want to understand the objections on my draft so that I can effectively work on improving the draft. There are 2 main objections:

  1. 1 Sources are not good enough:

What I'm unable to understand about the verifiability of a reference is, what determines if the website is seen as a good 3rd party source? Because I have posted news sites like "Market watch" as one of the references but even those didn't pass. On top of that, some of the top Indian entrepreneur news sites were also declined, such as: "Silicon India".

  1. 2 The tone is not neutral enough:

I am neutral about the topic and had written from a neutral point of view. But I don't see what went wrong. If it's possible to get highlights of that, that will be very helpful, if not, how can I find an editor who will be willing to improve my writing?

Lastly, I have 9 more articles that were recently uploaded about this entrepreneur. Can you check the list and let me know if any of these websites are considered credible enough?

http://www.globestats.com/meet-romy-johnson-who-made-3-5-crores-in-a-year-being-an-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.vernamagazine.com/2020/02/08/brilliant-entrepreneur-romy-johnson-is-helping-thousands-to-study-abroad/ http://www.fabworldtoday.com/the-incredible-success-of-the-21-year-old-entrepreneur-romy-johnson-turns-into-a-sensation-in-the-business-community/ http://www.openthenews.com/romy-johnson-youngest-indian-edtech-millionaire-entrepreneur-speaks-for-the-first-time/ http://www.usaherald.online/romy-johnson-from-a-college-student-to-successful-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.featureweekly.com/amazing-success-of-romy-johnson-catches-edtech-industry-by-surprise/ http://www.broadcastcover.com/simple-edtech-businesses-earn-romy-johnson-3-5-crores-in-a-year/ http://www.ustimesnow.com/romy-johnson-indias-talented-self-made-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.allnewsbuzz.com/want-to-be-a-millionaire-learn-from-romy-johnson-who-made-it-as-a-successful-edtech-entrepreneur/

Thank you for your help, I admire and respect the service that every volunteer adds to the platform and makes it possible to be maintained. Cheers!


Nayabks (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:05, 12 February 2020 review of submission by DoeEyed[edit]


Added extra references to various websites. Updated information with latest band information. DoeEyed (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:55:54, 12 February 2020 review of submission by TomPaveySmith[edit]


I'm looking for guidance in terms of setting up the OakNorth page. I'm an employer at the company but i've been careful to follow guidelines provided in terms of ensuring the entry is fully factual and that all key points are linked / referenced with multiple impartial sources.

Please do let me know if you're able to help.

thank you

TomPaveySmith (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article(not just "page") seems largely sourced to press release type articles, brief mentions, or routine business announcements. There's also once instance where you use Wikipedia as a source- which you should not do as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, being user-editable. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case the definition of a notable company. These sources should have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to the company and not contain staff interviews or other routine announcements. Please read the information I have linked to here, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:46, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Nickkane8[edit]


I don't care to put work into this. If somebody else wants to fix it they can. Updating this info was harder than I thought it would be.

Nickkane8 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone else care to put the work in? Topic does not appear to be notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:14, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Redokcart[edit]


Redokcart (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:05, 12 February 2020 review of submission by 47.23.95.170[edit]

Hi, This page was created taking reference from the page of Jeremy Stoppelman. Could you please re-look at it and guide on how can it be improved. The references provided includes Forbes, Reuters, Yahoo Finance and Buzzfeed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanking you. 47.23.95.170 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are credible, however the articles on the page from those sources only mention the subject in passing, if at all. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sulfurboy: please find below a few additional citations found online. I am unable to edit and re-submit the draft for moderator review. Please let me know if they are fine and if you can add them to the draft. Thanking you.

1. http://www.openthenews.com/how-victor-smushkevich-cracked-search-engine-optimization/

2. https://www.bigtimedaily.com/victor-smushkevich-is-helping-businesses-grow-by-providing-digital-marketing-services-through-his-agency-smart-street-media/

3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/people/victorsmushkevich/#e22710c79717

4. https://in.news.yahoo.com/victor-smushkevich-built-7-figure-195259873.html

5. http://ritzherald.com/meet-victor-smushkevich-this-marketing-expert-explains-how-to-build-a-successful-digital-agency/

6. https://londondailypost.com/google-marketing-expert-victor-smushkevich-accepted-into-forbes-agency-council/

7. https://www.californiaherald.com/meet-victor-smushkevich-dominos-delivery-driver-turned-7-figure-media-mogul/

8. https://www.openthenews.com/how-victor-smushkevich-cracked-search-engine-optimization/

9. https://techbullion.com/how-victor-smushkevich-built-a-7-figure-business-without-finishing-college/

20:40:47, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Bank.jeanne[edit]

The content is based on the press release on ISO TC292 online website, but I wrote that press release and have permission to include it for the wikipedia page. Plus the information has been modified and restructured but some wording has to remain the same as it is referring to the content of a published standard so you don't want to change the wording too much

Bank.jeanne (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who wrote it, press releases are not independent sources so cannot be used. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:11, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Bapsyata[edit]


Bapsyata (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Deleted for advertising/promotion. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:24, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Mahadi H[edit]

multiple authentic sources have been added as the reference for the support of my article on Hi-Care Group Mahadi H (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadi H You've added what seem to be brief mentions or listings, and not the significant coverage required. Your draft is also filled with promotional language("has started it's journey", "top flourishing"). If you work for this company, you must comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:37, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Catture[edit]

I have added the full discography of the artist to the page, to prove the work of the artist. Catture (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catture The work of the artist in not in dispute, what is in dispute is if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician and if they get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The key phrase there is "significant". That's more than a brief mention or listing. Please heed the advice you have already been given on the draft itself. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_February_12&oldid=985274704"