User talk:Tseung Kwan O/Archive 1

Name

Just wanted to say you've got a cool name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Tejano Music Awards

Can you explain how it does meet the notability guideline because I don't see how it does.107.77.222.66 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:2016 Tejano Music Awards. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

11:40:55, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Ex-paparazzi

• Ex-paparazzi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BE OPEN Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Tseung Kwan O, Thank you for your review on my article. Unfortunately, this was the second or third time that my submission has been rejected afren an enormous number of changes and adding a ton of independent references. Nothig seems to work. It would be really, really great if you could help me fix this at last. English is not my native language and I might not know how to write things in a simple way so that they would not sound as a promo material. I really want this to get published and seek your help. Thank you in advance for your understanding. --Ex-paparazzi (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. Well, there seems to be a multitude of issues with your article. First of all, the subject of your submission is unnotable, and Wikipedia does not include these articles. For guidelines on how to demonstrate notability of the subject involved, you might want to read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability to understand whether this article is fit for submission. If the subject cannot comply with any of the notability guidelines, then I'm sorry to say there is no way to solve this problem.

If the subject does in fact comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then include sources that show demonstrate this in your submission. Next, you need to fix the formatting of the article. I noticed that the heading BE OPEN Inside the Experiment is way too large; you can consider shortening it by adding an = sign on either end of the heading to make it smaller. Also, you have double-spaced some of your words, please correct all of these. For some links to other articles, you might want to use the original name of the article, unless changing the name of the link allows the reader to understand it better (for e.g. Milans State University can be changed to University of Milan). Also, each section of your article is very short; you may consider expanding them with more information obtained from reliable sources and references.

Last but not least, the major problem of your article. When I read this article, I thought that it was an advertisement for an otherwise unknown organization. To make this article more like an encyclopedia entry, you can consider telling us what makes this company valuable, or what the importance of this company is. For example, ask yourself this question: If I'm a person unacquainted with the subject of this article, why should I read about it? What would it have to do with me? (Reminder: you should show the importance of this company in a neutral manner, please do not express your opinions on Wikipedia). In your submission, you have only shown what this company has done, and nothing concerning the effects of such activities. For this reason, your submission sounds a bit like an advertisement, with only superficial explanation of what this organization has done. Remember, whether an article sounds formal or not does not depend on whether English is your mother tongue. It depends on how you intend to develop the subject so that it becomes a proper encyclopedic entry.

I understand that you have spent quite a lot of time creating this article, and that it is very discouraging to have your article declined by reviewers. However, I hope that you can keep up the good work and improve on it, and if it fits the requirements for a Wikipedia article, your next editor will undoubtedly accept the submission. Cheers! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Significant coverage for Draft:Hong Kong Esports

Sure being featured in stories from Apple Daily and South China Morning Post qualified as "significant coverage" in reliable sources?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Apple Daily and SCMP are huge newspaper syndicates that basically churn out news stories for everything (especially Apple Daily; SCMP likes talking about irrelevant stories every once in a while through YoungPost and City). If coverage from only two newspapers out of >10 local newspapers (I only count the ones with a significant readership, excluding newspapers like The Epoch Times) is considered significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm afraid I would probably be eligible for a Wiki page (a lot of other people and things as well), as I've gotten a particular award before, and that was featured in an article. Needless to say, I'm only a Wikipedian who likes sitting at home all day long :)

To make my case a bit more clear, I should explain that there is ultimately a distinction between whether something (news articles in this particular case) gives a topic inherent notability as per Wikipedia guidelines, and whether the same material is usually associated with such topics. For example, the Amoycan Industrial Centre fire received widespread coverage in the media, and is considered notable enough to be included in WP. However, establishing a link between press coverage and the notability of the incident would be a misnomer. Applying it to this case, just because HK Esports was featured in Apple Daily and SCMP, doesn't make it notable (to say nothing of Apple Daily's inclusion of almost everything that isn't considered important by anyone's standards). Therefore, I'm afraid a bit more will be required to establish notability of the subject involved. You can consider talking about how this has revolutionized HK's gaming industry (if it has, of course), and I would be happy to accept the submission (given enough proof of its notability). Thank you. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

By Western standards, we can assume topics covered in The Times or New York Times are of importance to someone, and honestly, coverage in reliable sources are all that's needed for WP:GNG. Anyways, related to the content, doesn't the article already talk about the organization's role in the HK eSports' scene?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid comparing Apple Daily and The Times would be a bit of a stretch. As other Hongkongers would note, the news quality and selectivity of Apple Daily is even worse than the tabloids in Britain. Anyway, I guess if you would only like to meet WP:GNG guidelines technically, quoting from this news source would probably allow you to bypass the notability guidelines. Again, if you lowered the requirements to such an extent, then even I would have a WP page, despite having completely no notability. It really depends on whether you want to follow Wikipedia guidelines rigidly, or uphold the spirit of the guidelines and include only topics that are significant enough for WP to handle. I don't know whether this is the case, but I'm pretty sure when admins started drafting these guidelines, they wanted to make more room for people to demonstrate notability for topics, and therefore they set really lax standards concerning this guideline. However, I personally do not think that HK eSports is much a notable thing, just because it appeared in two newspaper articles does not make it more notable than the person who sells ice cream down the street (of course, under WP guidelines it does). I guess it's up to you. I won't decline your article again, now that you insist an article in Apple Daily and SCMP respectively can demonstrate notability of a subject, but I sincerely hope that you won't add unimportant and unnotable articles to WP for the sake of adding them. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This is also covered in a lot of western media, so there's that too. But anyways, thanks for your insight into Hong Kong media that I probably wouldn't have known otherwise.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Prisencolin. As I would like to note again, just because a topic is reported in the papers (even if it's widely reported in global media), it doesn't mean that a topic is particularly notable. Please read what I'm talking about. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 04:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:28:59, 7 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by PaintbrushArt

• PaintbrushArt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ralph Garafola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Tseung, I am not a technical person. So I do not understand how to create these tables that you are recommending. I did reference tables on this site however I am not clear on how to do this. There is am interview with Ralph that will be published in the near future so I hope this will suit the notability. I see many artists pages that do not have all that you are requiring and they are published here.

Thank you for any help you cas provide. Regards, PaintbrushArtPaintbrushArt (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC) PaintbrushArt (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

For more details on how to make tables here in WP, check how to make a wikitable. As for the notability of the subject involved, you need to check the guidelines for notability. If the article satisfies the requirements listed in that page, and you genuinely believe that your topic has sufficient notability, then go ahead and make another draft.

As for this statement: I see many artists pages that do not have all that you are requiring and they are published here, I have to tell you that I (and a lot of other people) am already submitting tons of unnotable articles for PROD and AfD. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

PaintbrushArt, as a much more experienced reviewer and administrator here, perhaps I can clarify the situation for you. I do not think the article should be accepted into WP for several reasons:

1. First, he does not appear to meet the criteria for artists at WP:CREATIVE--there aren o extensive discussions of his work, and of the painting visible in public section, none of them appear to be major museums.
2. The references are all or almost all to either mentions/routine notices, or to his own work.
3. The quote from ArtDaily seems to be deceptive. The quote is about the book being reviewed by Doran, not Garafola's own book. . It merely mentions Garafola as having said he liked Doran's book.
4. The book is self published and, according to WorldCat , is not owned by any libraries.
5. The entire article is written in a highly promotional tone, attempting to exaggerate the importance of the subject by the use of puffery. WP does not do advertising or promotion.
6. As this is the only article you have written, it is possible that you have some connection with the subject. If so, you need to declare it. See our policy on WP:Conflict of Interest, and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the situation for PaintbrushArt. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

02:36:30, 8 July 2016 review of submission by RoyBNZ

• RoyBNZ (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Manuka Health New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Draft Manuka Health New Zealand Hi there. I rewrote this article based on previous feedback from editors. Those editors that I spoke to via questions said to include more NZ Herald references and Stuff.co.nz - the 2 major news sources in New Zealand. I don't understand your feedback about adding more reliable sources given that I only referenced New Zealand government websites, NZ Herald and Stuff.co.nz (as recommended)? Also -this is one of New Zealand's largest companies, our largest honey exporter and one of the largest honey exporters in the World - so it is a notable company, but what more in terms of information do I need to add i.e. how can anyone verify that information? I based the article on a similar company on wikipidia Trimax Mowing (which is actually smaller). thanks

Actually if you add enough reliable sources, I think it's ready to become a Wikipedia article. However, there is something you can improve on (but it's not mandatory, your article will probably go through AfC anyway), you can make the lead paragraph a bit longer, and write a summary in that section. Also, you can consider adding pictures or an Infobox to make the page more user-friendly. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

11:38:57, 8 July 2016 review of submission by Stuartlipo

• Stuartlipo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Global Account Tax Compliance Acts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would kindly ask for you to review the submission for my GATCA definition, which was intended to clarify that GATCA is not the same as the Common Reporting Standards (CRS), whoever made the original re-direct is incorrect, the two are not the same, which is explained in the submission. I would also like to ask why if GATCA has a re-direct to CRS then why is there also not a re-direct when GATCA also includes BEPS, FATCA and AEoI?

GATCA includes CRS, BEPS, AEoI, FATCA and CDOT, which we is why we have submitted a separate Wikipedia page for GATCA.

I'll see what I can do about this. In any case, the re-direct page will have to be deleted to make way for your page. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

How would we go about deleting the re-direct so that our page can go up? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartlipo (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The redirect page cannot be deleted without admin intervention. I'm not one myself, so you'll have to request for page deletion. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 14:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, would you know how we contact an admin to delete the redirect? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartlipo (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've removed the redirect and directly copied the contents of your page to the redirect page. You can view it now in WP mainspace. As it has already been copied, I will now decline your draft. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

15:14:51, 8 July 2016 review of submission by 38.124.250.3

• 38.124.250.3 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Appian Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The rejection was unwarranted. The article as drafted (and rejected) contains substantial references to third party sources, including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Bloomberg, as well as Washington Technology, and Chiefexecutive.net. It is a fairly straightforward description of a software company and is not akin to an advertisement. It is very similar to other DC-area software company Wiki pages: Applied Predictive Technologies; Tenabale and GridPoint. The description of the company's software is derived from the report of a third-party analyst who covers the BPM field at a website dedicated to the BPM industry (BPM.com) that covers the industry as a neutral.

If there are portions of the text that read like advertisement and not from third party sources, they should be identified in the reasons for the rejection so they can be addressed.

Given that Appian is reported to be a "unicorn," http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2016/01/08/appian-crosses-1-billion-valuation/, it is clearly a company worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

I have no question of the notability of this company. Please read my review more carefully: it reads like an advertisement. If you refer to the section Products and capabilities, you will understand what I mean. It sounds like outright promotion of the company, something you would expect on its own webpage. Wikipedia only has a place for neutral articles. If you want your submission to be accepted, you must present a neutral article.

Also, there are minor formatting errors in your article. Normally, you should not use single "=" as a heading, and its also pointless to make the heading as it's already included in the article name. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

20:49:49, 8 July 2016 review of submission by Michael lone2004

• Michael lone2004 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Blank Banshee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello sir you recently declined my submission Blank Banshee. This submission's references do indeed adequately show the subject's notability. There is significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is a simple and short article and there is no reason why is should not be on Wikipedia. Thank you.Michael lone2004 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I checked this topic on Wikipedia's archives, and the page was deleted previously because the subject wasn't considered notable. So it's not just me, a lot of other editors also believe that the subject lacks notability. Sorry son, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the reply. (I'm a girl by the way - french name - like Michelle ) From the archives you probably saw what other editors saw, that someone or a group of people had created several articles on this subject beginning as far back as two years ago. There had been some issues with sockpuppeting which led to it being protected from creation. Unaware of this, I attempted to create an article on this subject in May of this year and an editor was kind enough to help me get it into the draft space. The subject would not have reached notability 2 years ago but does indeed now meet at least two of the criteria for musicians and ensembles; having been the subject of non-trivial, published works in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the musician. The subject has also become one of the most prominent representatives of notable styles [ See: Seapunk Vaporwave and more recently Simpsonswave ]. Michael lone2004 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, Blank Banshee fails all of the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC, so even if I accepted it due to an enormous amount of non-trivial third-party references, it would still be PROD-ed, which completely defeats the purpose of AfC. Also, significant coverage does not equal notability, check out WP:109PAPERS for more info on that. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 22:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The subject, Blank Banshee has become a prominent representative of at least one notable style, that is one of the criteria for musicians and ensembles on WP:MUSIC which states that musicians may be notable if they meet at least one criteria. Is that not correct? This is my first wikipedia article so I would appreciate your assistance. Michael lone2004 (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You're going to need some proof for that, and you also need to show this directly in the article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 04:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club submission

Dear Tseung Kwan O,

After waiting a month for the Burnaby Lake Rowing Club submission's review you rejected the article without comments about the article's structure and content.

I created a new user name Round4figure and I added a COI declaration upon an editor advice on 04:02:04, 21 February 2016 [1]. At that time I was also advised that "anyone with a conflict of interest should not make changes to the article once it is no longer a draft".

[1] "You can create a new name and use it, abandoning the old one. Edits done under the old name will not show up on your account, but you have only edited that one page, so it shouldn't matter. You should put on your user page under the new name that you once edited under the name Team BLRC but are no longer doing so."

I stated this in my account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Round4figure "User:Round4figure From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I once edited under the name Team BLRC but I am no longer doing so."

Could you please advise me on what options I have?

Thank you, Round4figure

Round4figure (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The problem with writing a topic that you yourself are affiliated with is that not only does it violate COI (As you have taken relevant steps of precaution already, I will not go further into the matter. I have already referred your case to the admins, and it's up to them to decide whether to accept your sock account), it's also reflected in your article. It doesn't really sound encyclopedic to me, and I'm afraid it will not be accepted if you don't show notability of the subject either. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed Wikipedia's criteria for sport organization notability, which I have listed for reference. When assessing the notability of a subject, a Wikipedia editor must consider it in its context. The subject in the article draft satisfies the following notability criteria for a sport organization (sport club).

"at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary":

The article uses three level of scope in its reference, all of which are general circulation newspapers:

1. local: Burnaby Now
2. regional (provincial): Vancouver Sun
3. international: Magazine Life

The artice also uses references to the Sports Reference LLC website that counts as a single source. You could find that Wikipedia's own template about sports references uses all the examples to the Sports-Reference.com website. Also a quick search would reveal that Wikipedia contains a few hundred articles that have one or more references to the Sports Reference LLC website.

"had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics[note 1], economies, history":

Below I have evidence of BLRC's effect on rowing sport history in Canada
"In 1973, Rowing Canada Aviron (RCA) established the first national training centre at Burnaby Lake."
"The Canadian national rowing team transitioned from a club to a composite crew development program ... Burnaby Lake was the center of this transition."
"setting up a provincial association to get a more equitable distribution of funds forthcoming from the province. After the Olympics, the British Columbia Rowing Association (BCRA) was founded in 1969."

"major achievements":

A major achievement of the BLRC was that it 
"helped produce many world-class rowers": it has a history of 16 Olympians that won 15 (6G, 4S, 5B) olympic medals in rowing all referenced by Sports-Reference.com, and many more participating in the national rowing team.

[note 1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_of_athletics The Athletics is a collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking.

Round4figure: It is poor language that an encyclopaedic organization refers to all sports as athletics.

Thank you, Round4figure (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, if you would like to continue editing this draft, you should request edits and not directly edit it as per WP guidelines on COI. Now let's get to the main point. A lot of your references do not meet the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. To be suitable for WP, they need to be reliable, independent and non-trivial. All of the Olympics at Sports-Reference.com references are trivial, as they are about the club's members, not about the club itself. A lot of your other references have the same problem, including the magazine Life entry, which only mentioned the club once in the whole passage (trivial & passing mention). For sources to be non-trivial, they must show significant coverage about the club, i.e. it should (but is not required to) include an in-depth history of it, quick facts and other important pieces of information, significant events that made it notable etc. I'm afraid only very few references actually meet all of the requirements of a normal reference (and if you've already exhausted all of your resources trying to find them, it's a sign that the topic is not notable). I suggest you find good references before you request additional edits on the page.

By the way, where does WP include all sports as athletics? Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 13:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

04:07:24, 9 July 2016 review of submission by Zkathir

• Zkathir (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aruvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thanks for the review. Have updated more references.

Kathir

Thank you for revising the article. Will check ASAP. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 10:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zkathir I've reviewed your article and generally it meets WP guidelines of an article. However, you may consider adding more to the Plot section of the article, as it only has one sentence. Although content-wise it meets WP guidelines, it still fails WP:TOOSOON, as the movie only recently premiered, and almost no results of the movie's theatrical run has been published yet. The only way to solve this problem is too wait for a few months before resubmitting the draft. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

06:41:22, 9 July 2016 review of submission by Regtify

• Regtify (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:RegTech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi and many thanks for the review! I have made the changes you suggested in the references and external links! My only concern is your comment on the fact that I have provided a dictionary definition of RegTech. Can you please advise on this matter ? :) Many thanks again!

I remember checking your draft before and it actually looked really good to me. However, I recall that were minor problems in the article, for example you misused bold in your article, and you also included a dictionary definition. The heading "What is regtech?" is unsuitable for WP, as it does not sound formal and encyclopedic, and you might also consider putting the definition in the lead section. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 10:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate your feedback! Removed the bold and the question on what is regtech, but I kept the rest as it is as the term is very recent and developments as such from big research centers fit in that particular section! Hope all is in order now! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regtify (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits! I'm willing to accept the article if you resubmit it :) Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 04:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitted! Thanks!:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regtify (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Attention required

Hi. Yesterday the draft article Draft: Farman Nawaz was declined on notability issue. However I want to bring these references in your notice once again. Kindly check the following references.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/30-Jan-2016/narrative-matters

http://www.associationdiplomats.org/publications/ifaj/Vol6/6.3/6.3%20DEBATE.pdf

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1765

http://www.memri.org/report/en/print3767.htm

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-kapoor-and-sons-why-fawad-khan-s-role-is-a-big-leap-forward-for-india-s-lgbt-movement-2194446

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2009440

Regards Sneha Hurrain (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sneha, I have read the references, and although there are traces of notability in the subject involved, the content in the article fails to reflect this, and therefore still fails WP:N. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 10:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

14:47:54, 9 July 2016 review of submission by Jennyabamu

• Jennyabamu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Guru (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do I have to change the name? He already has a large following and the video know he by the name Guru.

I understand that he is very famous. Like I said, your article is basically perfect already, but as there is an article with the same name in the mainspace already, the article cannot be accepted under its current name. You can change it to Guru (African rapper) or Guru (Ghanaian rapper) or simply Gurunkz to differentiate from the existing article in WP. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 15:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Tseung Kwan O, it's your job as a reviewer to select the proper name for a draft once it is accepted. If Guru (rapper) is taken, you should find a better one (or move that page to another one and create a disambiguation page). In this instance, the artist in question also goes by Gurunkz, so I have accepted the draft to that location. You'll note that I have also updated the DAB page as well as adding a hatnote to Guru (rapper). Jennyabamu, nice job on the draft! Primefac (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Primefac. I'll take note of this in the future. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft:Barry L. Houser

Hey there, I noticed you rejected my article about Barry L. Houser, the director of the Univeristy of Illinois Marching Illini. I do not understand why my article was rejected, as there were many sources about him, and he has been covered in the media many times.

Numerous other collegiate marching band directors have articles about them, so I do not understand why this would be different, some who have far fewer sources and media coverage.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Madden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Waters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Edwards_(marching_band_director) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjjozefowicz (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Whether a Wikipedia article is suitable for WP or not depends on its ability to meet established WP guidelines, not on how it compares to other articles already in the mainspace. We're already trying to clear out articles that do not meet the guidelines using PROD and AfD, and you should not compare your article with other ones to prove that it's good.

But anyway, that's not the main point. I've reviewed your article again, and I believe that your references have demonstrated notability of the subject involved. However, I've noticed another problem: a lot of what you've said in the article is opinionated, or decorated with lavish terms (such as, "the most visible and vibrant component ... collegiate band program", and Jeff Magee's praise of Barry). It's just a minor problem, and it will probably be accepted if this minor problem is corrected. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

23:42:44, 9 July 2016 review of submission by Markotomo

• Markotomo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Saint Kotar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you please specify why the article was denied? Unfortunatelly I cannot find the reason. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. First of all, your submission fails to meet the Wikipedia guideline WP:TOOSOON, as it will only be released in 2017. You can consider resubmitting the article after the game has been released, and has received widespread coverage in reliable sources.

You also need more references to support your claims in the article. For more details, refer to referencing for beginners. Currently, there is also lack of notability of the game you mentioned. You also need to show notability of the subject notability adequate references, and direct explanation in the article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 10:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

08:59:45, 10 July 2016 review of submission by Nehadixit123

• Nehadixit123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nakul Singh Sawhney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have inserted a number of references. Could you please tell me specifically what is the problem with the draft. Thanks Neha08:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. You have indeed inserted various references in your submission, however, references are used to verify the information stored in the article, and not the specific adjectives you've used. Therefore, you must revise your references accordingly. Some of your references also appear to be from affiliated sources, which does not satisfy the requirement of reliable third-party sources. You must demonstrate that the article has received significant coverage from reliable sources to be notable. As this has not been shown, your article fails WP:N.

In addition to adding more references, you also need to clean up the formatting of your article, for example, your references should be put at the back of the sentence or phrase it lends its support to. You also need to split the article into sections, and put your references under the heading References. Last but not least, you need to replace the hyperlinks in your article with Wikilinks. You can consider putting the hyperlinks under a section External links.

Even if you have corrected the above problems, your article still might be rejected, because there are huge structural problems in your submission. The submission seems to be an amalgamation of discrete facts about the subject involved, and lacks coherence. Furthermore, most of your article is about a particular film, rather than the director himself. Important facts about the director are also missing, such as his filmography. If the director has only produced one or two documentaries to date, you may have to wait until he produces more for this article to be published in WP, as it fails WP:TOOSOON.

I hope this answers your questions of why your submission was rejected. If you have any further questions, please reply on my talk page. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 10:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis ‎ references

Hi, thank you for taking the time to review my page, However, I have a question. I've currently cited all of my sources of information:

Rossman, Douglas (1995). The Garter Snakes: Evolution and Ecology. University of Oklahoma Press. Stebbins, R.C. (1985). A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Second Edition, Revised. Houghton Mifflin Company. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2000). "Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 57, part 3". Matthews, Moseley, J.R. and C.J. (1990). The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. Beacham Publications. California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. "Standford SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE Conservation Plan".

I'm really not sure what other references I could possibly include. Can you help me out here as to what it is you're looking for.

The references you have right now are quite good. However what I meant is that you need them to support most (or even all, in some cases) of the claims you make in the article. Of course, you don't need to flood your article with references or insert references for universal truths, but the general rule is that you should cite what you can. For example, I noticed that references are missing for the length of the snakes, which is something you want to work on. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 11:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

17:05:05, 10 July 2016 review of submission by JoJoJo2022

• JoJoJo2022 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Samir Alamad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

JoJoJo2022 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Dear Tseung Kwan O, thank you for your review and feedback. We feel that this article is adequately supported by very reliable sources, such as the Telegraph and Gulf News, however, we accept your comment. Could you please kindly point out any specific information in the article that requires further reliable sources as this is not clear to me at all, so I can ensure this is done or if not possible that piece of information can be deleted from the article. Many thanks in advance for your assistance.

JoJoJo2022, thank you for your question. Indeed, there are many references from reliable sources in your submission, however, many of these references are about irrelevant things such as a bank he has worked in before, bank mortgage and loans, and not about the subject of the article himself. A few of the references do contain his name at the very least, although these are trivial and passing mentions that fail WP:100W. When you remove all of the irrelevant and improper sources, you are left with very few of them, which violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Therefore, to establish notability of the topic you're writing about, you need to cite sources that are exclusively (or have in-depth coverage) about it.

With regards to the report on Samir Alamad in the Gulf Times, you cannot assume that a subject is notable because there are multiple references from reliable sources. Read WP:109PAPERS for more details on this issue. To establish notability of Samir Alamad, you need to check if he passes the requirements listed in WP:ANYBIO. If he currently does not meet any of the two requirements, I'm afraid your article will not be accepted unless he does in the future. I hope this clarifies the problem. If you need any help, just reply to this thread. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 17:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing and approving PEACH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEACH). Genericadm (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Genericadm, thank you! I will definitely treasure my very first barnstar! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 19:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Kunlun Fight submission

Hi you left a comment about page needing admin intervention since it's create-protected from other people trying badly to make the page in the past. In your opinion is there clearly something on the page that still needs work before the article is WP mainspace ready? Also is there something special I need to do to get an admins attention to create it or is it just a waiting game?

Just to point out to a discussion of Kunlun Fight's notability if that's in question to any admin who might see this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force#Kunlun_Fight.3F

Thanks. ShadessKB (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Actually, when I typed that comment I hadn't done an in-depth check on the topic yet. After searching for it on WP mainspace, I notice that 2 pages 2014 in Kunlun Fight and 2015 in Kunlun Fight already exist, and therefore there is no need to make another article talking about Kunlun fight. As a page called 2016 in Kunlun Fight isn't in the mainspace yet, you can consider transferring existing information into another article with that name and submit it for AfC. Many thanks for your effort though! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The yearly pages are different from the main article for a promotion. Each fight event used to have it's own page in the past on wikipedia and at some point results/event information got made into this yearly pages format. And not that it matters but I didn't make those pages, I started to make the main Kunlun Fight page and wanted to get that accepted into wikipedia before at least. Here's some examples of other kickboxing promotions on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_K-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(kickboxing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_Glory

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_Superkombat

The main article of Draft:Kunlun_Fight should exist in my opinion.ShadessKB (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid a new page patroller would quickly propose a merge after the draft is published, which kind of defeats the purpose of AfC, therefore it is better to follow what we have right now and split it into different years. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 03:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

But there is little purpose to the yearly pages if the main article to explain the whole reason for the yearly pages existing isn't there. The yearly pages are basically just results posted to other pages so to not clutter the main article. There is a clear format of how the promotions are generally handled on wikipedia in the example links of other promotions I posted above. ShadessKB (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Your article on Kunlun Fight only contains very few pieces of information that aren't already in the respective articles 2014 in Kunlun Fight and 2015 in Kunlun Fight. Therefore, you can consider manually editing both articles to include simple information you have in your draft. Generally, you should avoid making superfluous articles when there is another method of remedying the problem, due to AfD, PROD and other complicated procedures. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 03:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Seoul Saturday Soccer League

Rejected for what reason?

That took a lot of time to produce.

Please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.115.122.2 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it's an unfinished draft. The sections Champions and Records are left completely blank. If those were not intended to be sections, delete them from the draft to prevent confusion. Also, there are various spelling mistakes in your draft I recommend you put the draft through a spell check before submitting it. Last but not least, there are completely no references to verify your statements. You must add sufficient references for the article to be accepted. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 04:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out.

Champions and Records have been deleted.

There are absolutely zero spelling mistakes in the text whatsoever. It has needlessly been put through a spell checker after you mentioned that, and as mentioned, zero spelling mistakes.

The link of the SSSL website is the biggest reference itself. Everything is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.12.80.59 (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure there are no spelling mistakes? I took a look at it again and I found the same mistakes lying around in the draft. For example, Divison, Villans, etc. Please don't claim to have used a spell check without actually doing it. Also, you can not use the SSSL website as a reference. References need to be non-trivial, reliable and independent. Please read referencing for beginners. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 13:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My submission: SIT Group (July 8)

Good morning,

You said that the article about SIT Group need more "third-party sources" but I put a lot of third party sources in it. A lot of sources from the newspaper which are a third party. I don't understand why you declined it. Where I have no 100% fit with a third party source I filled it up with the webpage of the company.

I saw articles about other companies in Wikipedia and they ONLY have the webpage of the company. So I don't understand. I have no other sources.

Maybe you can help me what to do.

Thanks a lot!

Best regards, NatalieBoebel — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieBoebel (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. First of all, many of your references are repeated numerous times throughout the whole article, which in itself is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. For example, SIT Group's own webpage (which is not a third-party source by any measure) was repeated 6 times among 19 references, and a Bloomberg article was also repeated 6 times. The article you cited from Bloomberg also only barely fits Wikipedia's guideline of significant coverage, as it's about 200 words long, and it's just basic documentation of a huge amount of companies. See WP:100W and WP:109PAPERS for more information for why you have not added a sufficient number of references in your article yet.

If you have no 100% fit with a third-party source, you cannot just fill it up with the webpage of the company. All information that is unreferenced must be removed, as it cannot be verified. I'm afraid that a large part of your article must be removed, as a lot of it is either unsourced, or improperly sourced.

There are indeed articles about other companies in Wikipedia that have really poor references and citations. Those articles will probably be nominated for PRODs by random page patrollers. A lot of people try to make fake articles as well, and these articles occasionally enter the mainspace, but that does not justify creating fake articles, right? I hope I've clarified the situation for you. If you really cannot find enough references to support your claims, then I'm afraid it cannot be accepted until sufficient amount of third-party sources appear. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 13:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

07:47:52, 11 July 2016 review of submission by SAP Exchange Media

• SAP Exchange Media (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SAP Exchange Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As this is my first article on wikipedia, I wanted to make sure that it meets the standard requirements. After the first version was declined, because of reference issues, I added further references and quoted my definitions. I hope it now meets your requirements.

Hello SAP Exchange Media and welcome to Wikipedia. Your contributions are greatly appreciated, but if you are editing a page on a topic you are affiliated with, you may have potential conflict of interest. It is not acceptable to edit Wikipedia with COI, and you must disclose it formally when discussing a topic. If you wish to edit or change information about your article, you may use the {{request edit}} template. If you are receiving financial contributions for your work, please disclose it formally as well. You are also required to change your username, as it violates Wikipedia's username guidelines. You may request a name change or create a new account (and declare that you own two accounts. If you do not change your account name in 1 week from now, you may be reported. From now on, you should not edit your article directly, but rather request edits on the talk page after declaring your COI. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 14:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I already requested a renaming of my user to my name Rebecca Hambsch. I have not yet received anything. Regarding the COI I will look into the details again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAP Exchange Media (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Media of Rwanda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The New Times. 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) 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

11:07:42, 11 July 2016 review of submission by Johannes Arnold

• Johannes Arnold (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gregorio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Tseung Kwan O, thanks for the review. I think the criticism is a bit unfair due to the subject. Please see the discussion of my draft, where I commented this after the first decline. In a nutshell:

• The described software is the leading one in its niche. I admit that this notability is a bit difficult to verify. Monasteries using it do not talk about it online. Forums are no reliable source. I did my best to show, that many projects and important associations like the Church Music Association of America do use it. What else should I do to prove notability?
• FOS-Software articles are naturally based on websites belonging to there project. Where else should be the information about history, releases, usage?
• To emphasise the last point: Please compare the Lilypond article, a good comparison because it's also FOSS, also text-based music engraving and has not more external references.

If you have suggestions which subtopics of my article should be based on more external refs please write me. Otherwise ... I think I did the best to show notability and use as much external refs as possible. In applying the Wikipedia Standards one should consider the appropriateness to the subject. Thanks in advance. --Johannes Arnold (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Anything that is not proven and verified by non-trivial independent third-party sources should be removed. If there is no reliable source for Gregorio, I'm afraid you cannot make a page about it due to its lack of notability. If the subject involved fails to satisfy either criterion in WP:WEBCRIT, I'm afraid is cannot be approved, because someone will definitely PROD it. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 14:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 11:23:25, 11 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Slim cop

• Slim cop (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrew Watts (countertenor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Tseung Kwan O,

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to review my draft article.

I am a little confused, however, by the reason you gave for not approving the article - that it "doesn't really seem encyclopedic". My understanding was that the key criterion for an article about an individual is evidence of notability; once this has been established the article can be published, then improved upon by other users where necessary.

You suggest that I "could add more content to this article regarding Andrew Watts himself, and not just about his performances." Can you suggest what additional information of this type I could add?

Incidentally, the article was previously rejected because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources." Hence my addition of a whole series of citations of what I considered to be reliable sources, on the assumption that once that had been done the article would be approved.

I look forward to receiving you advice on how best to proceed with this article.

Many thanks!

simontcope 11:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with your submission is that is sounds like a CV, with extensive information on he's done this, he's done that, but barely any other content. Seeing that he's already performed in so many famous venues, I'm pretty sure there is extensive information about him on the Internet. Why not consider adding some extra information about him? Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 14:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

12:30:29, 11 July 2016 review of submission by Anushkabraganza

• Anushkabraganza (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Adlabs Imagica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I wanted to know why this page was declined? Do I need to add more images and reference? Do let me know so I can work on this page.Anushkabraganza (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It was declined because it sounds like an advertisement (I've given the reason on the draft page already). The information on the page is exactly the same information you would find on a brochure. I don't think there's an easy way to correct the problems on the page, as it's not encyclopedic at all. You may consider starting a new draft talking about Adlabs Imagica from a more neutral perspective, and giving extensive information about the theme park's history, annual number of visitors etc. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 14:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

16:21:15, 11 July 2016 review of submission by Dmulan123

• Dmulan123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Suiteness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my draft! I didn't quite understand the comment you left though: "Proof and explanation of the subject's notability needs to be directly shown in the article." Is this referring to the citations to prove notability? Because some of the articles I have quoted offer in-depth coverage of the company in leading third party media outlets. For example: TechCrunch article: https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/05/suiteness-wants-you-to-stay-in-suites-instead-of-regular-hotel-rooms/ Conde Nast article: http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2016-01-13/with-suiteness-youll-never-be-relegated-to-a-hotel-cot-again LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-tr-webbuzz-20160117-story.html

However, you have not demonstrated notability of the subject involved directly in the article. From what I've read, Suiteness is no different from any other hotel in this world, even with the references you have. Unless you show that it is notable, it will very likely be PROD-ed even after it's accepted at AfC. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am slightly confused as an earlier reviewer asked me to remove any references to the subject made by third party sources directly within the article. But since you have asked for proof of notability directly within the article, I have edited the article as per your suggestions and re-submitted again. Would appreciate if you could review it. Or any comments you could provide are welcome as I've been at this for 4 months without a positive outcome :(

I'm not aware of any editor providing a comment that tells you to remove references from third-party sources. In any case, independent references are strongly encouraged, and you should add as much of these as possible (given that they are also non-trivial and reliable). I have read the new draft, and I believe that it is still not ready to be accepted. However, I won't decline the submission so that you can have the chance to edit the article. The problem with Suiteness is that it's unnotable, and it's too new to be added into Wikipedia. You need to wait for a while until it receives sustained coverage in reliable sources for it to be included. In the meanwhile, you can work on other projects or drafts, which might save your time. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Curtis (composer) draft review

Thank you for your review and exceedingly brief comments. From your link I think your view is that the list of works or recordings or both should be omitted or shortened, but it would be most helpful if you clarified this and any other concerns. This is my first article and as I have already spent quite a lot of time following up on two previous lots of comments it would be good to have as complete a set of hints as possible. For the record, as I see you have asked this question of others on your Talk page, while I do know the person who is subject of this draft article, I am not connected with him in a personal, commercial or musical sense, am not paid to work on this article (no doubt would need to refund if I had been), and have not even lived in the same country in the last decade. UserSCL1958 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The only reason why I pointed out that some people have COI was because their relationship with the topic was unmistakable. Of course, I have not established this connection yet, so you won't have to worry about that :) If you've read the page about listcruft, you would know that Wikipedia is not a place to include trivial lists about unnotable things. Therefore, including an ultra long list of Selected works is unsuitable for WP. In addition, there's no need to use six references for a single sentence (WP:CITEKILL). It's better to spread them out over the whole passage (of course, given that the reference does lend its support to the sentence it's tagged next to). If you want this article to be accepted, you will need to establish notability of the subject involved, and remove all irrelevant lists without context. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 18:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)