Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 5
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 4 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 6 > |
| 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. |
August 5 edit
01:41:14, 5 August 2016 review of submission by Yhone edit
Yhone (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The page was User:Yhone/Importance of reaction paper. It was blank. You may have submitted it to AFC for review before entering the intended article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
06:42:39, 5 August 2016 review of submission by Usseryroad edit
- Usseryroad (talk · contribs)
This article was reviewed by SwisterTwister, who seems to be a prolific and senior reviewer. I really respect the reviewer's point of view! The article was rejected on the grounds of notability because the company in question is too young. However, why can't a young company be notable if it has been mentioned many times in the news? It's true that in most cases young companies risk closing down, but so can older companies. In addition, I have seen plenty of companies, which are younger than ScholarshipOwl get featured. Case in point - GoodCall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoodCall. ScholarshipOwl had plenty of media mentions including ABC Televised interview and TechCrunch article. I would appreciate if you could please give a second look. I contacted SwisterTwister over a month ago on their talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SwisterTwister and didn't receive a reply. Thanks!
- @Usseryroad: The draft has been reviewed by five experienced editors. Notability has been found wanting four times, and it has been declined once for reading like an advertisement. You want a second look? Here's a sixth. Notability does not derive from marketing. Being mentioned is not enough. References used to demonstrate notability must be reliable, arms-length, secondary sources. There need to be multiple sources, and they need to provide a significant depth of coverage.
- Five of the nine cited sources (The Next Web, HelloGiggles, VatorNews, L.A. Biz, and TechZulu) were published on the same date (2015-07-22) and have strikingly similar structure, content, and tone. They appear to be regurgitating a press release, which makes them not independent.
- Three quarters of the ABC11 piece is direct quotes from, or paraphrases of, the company's media contact. The reporter provides no analysis, so the piece is essentially the company described in the company's words. It is not independent.
- Ross is a guest commentator on a blog (TechCrunch). As such, he's a reliable source for his opinion, but not for statements of fact or for notability. It's also a mere passing mention.
- Gigaom.com does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Blogs count towards notability?.
- Loeb (VatorNews) describes himself as a an "online media professional" and his position as "journalist", but has no journalism background (longest prior job was as research assistant/associate producer for a post-production company) or credentials (degree in film production/English). There is no evidence of editorial oversight. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Vator.tv.
- Student newspapers, such as the University of South Florida's The Oracle, are not usually regarded as reliable sources. The footer of the piece ("For additional information ..." followed by full contact details for the company, an about the company paragraph, and media contact info) are telltale signs of a press release, which makes the piece not independent.
- TechZulu does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a reliable source.
- In summary, the cited sources are junk. As for your "other stuff exists" argument, GoodCall has been deleted, as this would be if it were in article space. It may be unrealistic of you to expect a company barely a year old to have had the significant and demonstrable effects that would justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. A young company can be notable, but very few are, and this isn't one of them. Based on these sources the subject does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
08:19:59, 5 August 2016 review of submission by Tpetpe edit
I have created a draft article, in which i have made a mistake in the title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:S%C3%B8ren_S%C3%B8rensen_(Microbioligist)
As can be seen the title is "Søren Sørensen (Microbioligist)" and should be "Søren Sørensen (Microbiologist)"
I would like to correct this but cannot find a means of doing so.
Is there an easy way of ding so or is it necessary to make a new article?
Yours with thanks
Tim
Tpetpe (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Tpetpe, I fixed it, the draft is now at Draft:Søren Sørensen (microbiologist), the disambiguator is supposed to be in lower case (unless it's a proper noun of course). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I need help to make a page explaining about the company Advantech. I do not want to 'advertise' or post anything incorrectly, but it seems that's how its being viewed. I just want to share who the company is. If we could add information from articles published about the company that would be a nice bonus. As Advantech is an International Company and World leader in IPC and industrial hardware and embedded products, it should have a page on Wikipedia. Just to explain who they are and maybe their history?
What information can I share with you to help me get started on making a page?
Lauren advantech (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- First, your draft may not be taken directly from the company's own web site. It was deleted for copyright violation. Second, you must declare your association with the company. See conflict of interest and paid editing. Third, the language must be neutral, because otherwise what you view as "explaining about" the company will be seen as advertising. Fourth, you must show that the company is notable in terms of substantial third-party in-depth coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
22:36:17, 5 August 2016 review of submission by Hidden-noise edit
- Hidden-noise (talk · contribs)
The Submission “Yamaguchi Katsuhiro” has been declined on 5 August 2016 by MatthewVanitas because of WP:Notability (artists).
I can read no that page that
2. Notable art is:
a) A piece that has been purchased or displayed by notable expositions (e.g. Documenta, Tate, MOMA, Guggenheim Museum). b) A piece acquired by government (national, state or major city) and put on public display (e.g. Zygmunt's Column or Washington Monument) - but excluding vanity images/sculpture of living politicians. c) A piece that has been selected as the winner of a notable award (Abd-el-Tif prize, Marcel Duchamp Prize, Carnegie Prize see Category:Art awards). d) A piece sold at record value for its field to a purchaser independent from the artist, or that achieved the highest price for a given year if the purchaser is independent of the artist/agent/gallerist.
Yamaguchi’s works have been a) purchased or displayed by notable expositions b) acquired by government c) selected as the winner of a notable award d) sold at record value for its field to a purchaser independent from the artist
So what is the problem ???
- The draft has no references. References to reliable sources are needed to establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, Hidden-noise when an article has no references at all there isn't even proof that the subject exists! You need to add references that prove all of the notability claims you've stated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- And by references we mean in-line references, documenting the sourcing for the various claims made in the article, not just a bibliography dump at the bottom of the page. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)