Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 10 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 12 > |
| 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. |
January 11 edit
00:17:50, 11 January 2017 review of submission by UND08844 edit
I have been encouraged by previous reviews to use a neutral tone. I have been working on it and would like a re-review to point out any changes that need to be made. Thank you.UND08844 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, UND. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I see that the current version of your submission is not wholly given over to promotional or flowery language, though I do see some room for improvement. Specifically, the "Leadership style" section serves little purpose, especially given that half of it simply repeats eulogizing comments made by friends/colleagues in the immediate aftermath of the subject's death. And the other half of that section doesn't really seem to be about "leadership style" at all. On a different note, the lengthy external links section probably could be pared down according to WP:ELNO, though I must admit that I haven't looked at each of the linked items. But all of this is minor compared to what I see as the more serious problem you will face in getting this submission accepted for publication -- there's little evidence here that the subject meets Wikipedia's notion of "notable" (for which see WP:GNG). I don't see much in the way of substantial coverage from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, which is what will be required as a necessary condition for accepting the submission. Most of the references address a company that the subject headed, and I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that this company itself was notable (in the Wikipedia sense). I suspect that you likely feel differently about the substantial nature of your sources, in which case I suggest that you look through your references to identify the two or three that you feel most clearly provide substantial, reliable independent discussion of the subject (and not his company). If you can identify such sources, you might indeed have the basis for an acceptable article. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
00:33:13, 11 January 2017 review of submission by Chemical.investors edit
I have written this article on a thought leader and a dealmaker in the chemical space. Independent references (from the most respected chemical industry trade group AICHE, a newspaper in the middle market investment space listing him as a top dealmaker to follow, his Bloomberg profile), yet it is rejected by reviewer with the reason being "it is just a business listing,.... no notability...". The article is on the person, not his companies. I have provided additional references since the rejection. Please help.
- Referring to the subject of an article as a "thought leader" always strikes me as marketing buzz-speak. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
20:03:41, 11 January 2017 review of submission by Benjamin Messmer edit
Any help on article improvement would be great.
- Hello, Benjamin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. As for improving the submission, I can offer the same advice that has already been provided by previous reviewers at the top of the submission. First, you have not addressed the concern about "bare URLs", which force the reader to leave Wikipedia if they want to learn essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote the reference or when and where it was published. (You will find that using the {{cite web}} template makes it easier to provide this essential information.) You also have ignored two reviewers who asked that you provide some demonstration that this particular military unit meets Wikipedia's notion of "notable". Our Military History project has stated (at WP:MILUNIT) that a battalion-level unit might be notable if it is "capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations". From reading your submission, I get the impression that this is not the case for a police unit located in New York. But if you disagree, you will need to demonstrate -- with reference to reliable, independent sources -- that this particular unit meets the criterion set forth in WP:MILUNIT. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello - I have tried to submit information regarding a software company ClioSoft and I keep getting denied. Can you please help me so that this could get published for one of our clients?
Stephvanb (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Stephvanb - I have a comment and see two issues. You say that you "keep getting denied", but it appears that your draft was submitted and declined once. That is a minor point. There are two major issues. First, your draft has no references. In order to establish corporate notability, the references should include independent (third-party) coverage of the company. Second, you acknowledge a conflict of interest if the company is a client. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing by editors who are affiliated with the subject (in this case, the company). Wikipedia is based on neutral point of view, and editors who have a special interest can seldom write neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)