• Sophie corey (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

i MADE AND ARTICLE ABOUT RICHARD COREY MEMBER OF FRONT END LOADER AUSTRALIAN BAND AND I FIND IT RIDICULOUS THAT IT WAS DENIED PUBLICATION BECAUSE I AM HIS DAUGHTER. I KNOW MORE THAN ANYONE ON HERE SO I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECLINED.

Sophie corey (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have a conflict of interest, as you are related to the subject. Please read the conflict of interest guideline.

2. Please do not SHOUT in caps, as it considered rude.

3. "Knowing more than anyone" isn't a valid argument, nor is it likely true.

4. Your submission was rejected not because you are his daughter, but because this musician is not considered to be notable, as there is no evidence of it. Please find reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and add them to your submission.

Regards, CoolSkittle (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Awiki1310 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Awiki1310/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am asking for a re-review because Arya M Patel is a very famous boy in my community who has helped many people and animals. He also had a small charity going on. I want to make this Wikipedia page to honor him. He started this at a young age and has a bright future in front of him.

Awiki1310 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awiki1310. What you want to do is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not the place to honor or commemorate someone. You may wish to explore alternative outlets for your writing, ones that have different inclusion criteria, such as FamilySearch. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• LeuleBerry (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Berry Advertising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Berry Advertising Wiki page.

The page was rejected for lack of notability. I've added a few references to fix the problem, assuming it was due to a lack of coverage and reliable sources. As I find more reliable sources, I will continuously update this page.

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure; see User talk:LeuleBerry#Disclose any connection. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeuleBerry. The two Addis Fortune articles are reliable, but with only three sentences about Berry between them (and some of that is quotes from Berry execs), they do not constitute significant coverage. I'm not sure marklives.com is a reliable source, but even if it is, the draft is still a long way from demonstrating that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia).

See Oliver Typewriter Company, Panavision, and McKinsey & Company for examples of the range of sources expected for an article about a company. (Not that a draft need be that long or cite that many sources to be accepted, but if it cites 6-8 sources, aim for them to be as good as the 6-8 deepest and most reputable sources in one of those articles). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Camando2 2000 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Camando2 2000/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Camando2 2000 (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Camando2 2000: - Hi there.

The sources on the draft/sandbox are not sufficient. 2 are from facebook, which is both unreliable and a primary source, and the other two "just" demonstrate works that he made. Much like articles about small newspapers, drafts like these can struggle to demonstrate notability because they require in-depth reliable sources about them - not just about other topics, with photos/content by them. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• JamesGoll (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

JamesGoll (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC) I tried to change the article about World Bloggers Awards according to your wishes. I would appreciate your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesGoll (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesGoll. The draft should be based on multiple, reliable, published sources, independent of the awards organization. Think academic journals, magazines, or newspapers such as Le Monde, The Times (London), or The Washington Post. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MaxPower33 (talk · contribs)

Good Morning, I would like to know why my page about the company was rejected. I am new in Wikipedia and I know that I have a lot to learn, but I would like to fix it properly if you can tell how to do it.

Thanks MaxPower33 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:MaxPower33#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Allanapratt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Allana Pratt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per the request of the reviewer, more authentic major publications have been added and a more complete bio has been included. Allanapratt (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Allanapratt: - I haven't checked the sourcing, but the draft is currently still too promotional to be included. As well as its relentlessly positive nature, it includes lines such as "With such a wonderful working dynamic,".

Additionally, the Author section reads more like the back blurb of the books "7 Steps to Manifest Your Beloved teaches readers how to heal from trauma, let go of the past, and gain self-confidence by daring to be vulnerable with someone. Allana urges her readers to trust themselves and persevere through difficulties.

It may not be easy, but Allana emphasizes to singles that love is always worth moving through scary challenges into deeper connection. Her steadfast encouragement reminds people not to give up in the face of dating or relationship challenges. [...] Allana's freshman novel, How to Be and Stay Sexy, explains why some women find attracting quality men so difficult, while others are practically drowning in potential suitors"

This reads as flat out marketing. Have a read of some other author pages and see how their content is phrased. This will need to be dealt with before the draft can be accepted, even if the sourcing is now fixed. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wood creepers (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Girish Kumar B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the page was created for the kannada language(India) Film Director Girish Kumar B. He mainly Directed Feature film Aavahayami in 2017 . and he started his next film Named BHAVACHITRA. he need this Wikipedia page for production house purposes . in the comments mentioned by DAN ARNDT " Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NCREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO - requires inline citations (see Referencing for beginners. Must be independent reliable secondary sources. YouTube, IMDb and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)" , we have removed youtube source links so hence please let us know if we need to make any changes to Wikipedia page .

Wood creepers (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Wood creepers#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ragnar0766 (talk · contribs)
  • Sten H. Vermund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Sten H. Vermund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ragnar0766 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not have the opportunity to finish this draft. Can I designate another Wikipedia user as the new editor?

Hi Ragnar0766. Pages are not owned by editors, anyone is welcome to edit them, so there is no need to designate an editor. However, if an editor has a conflict of interest, they should declare it, and are strongly discouraged from editing around it. The purpose of editing is to improve the encyclopedia, not to promote any personal agenda. See Wikipedia:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• JS in London (talk · contribs)

I'm confused as to why this page was declined. This is a legitimate company in an industry (Expert network) that Wikipedia acknowledges, with the company's competitors, such as GLG and AlphaSights also having Wikipedia articles associated with them. The article as drafted is currently 8 sentences, with references to legitimate and verifiable third-party sites for all statements other than the former name of the company and the partnerships the firm has entered into. I'm happy to remove reference to some of those, but I note the competitors' pages are full of references to company press releases at best or no third-party citations at all.

If you could please provide some guidance here, it would be much appreciated. As stated in my original creation, my aim is for this page to be purely informational and not promotional, which I believe I had achieved at first edit.

JS in London (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "Other crap exists": we are painfully aware that some of the articles currently in WIkipedia are poorly sourced, full of references to company press releases at best or no third-party citations at all. That is a problem we continue to seek to address; but we do our best to prevent more such articles from being added. Your draft article cites press releases, a non-notable industry website, and an article in a Wharton PR publication calculated to make a company founded by Wharton grads look good. Where are the articles from Forbes, Barron's, the Financial Times, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Wired and the like? You also don't help when you regurgitate flattering marketing-style language like "insights" and "unbiased". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orangemike. I take your points and can address as best possible on the next round of edits. There are some additional sources I can cite from the Financial Times and from Bloomberg, etc. I appreciate the guidance.--JS in London (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IrfanAli512 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ascentium Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft article was first reviewed on April 12, 2018. I made changes to reflect the comments and noted them on the reviewer’s talk page. I felt it was best to wait for the reviewer’s response, rather than resubmitting the draft for review. The article was deleted due to it being idle. The reviewer seemed busy, so I went ahead and requested the article to be reinstated and then resubmitted it for review. What I did not realize was that when the article was reinstated, the talk page was deleted, which contained my conflict of interest. When the article was rereviewed, it was tagged with paid contributor. I’d like to note that I don’t consider myself a paid contributor. I often reference Wikipedia for all sorts of information and that is why I am interested in creating a page for the company that I work at, as I strongly believe it meets notability.

Here are my comments around notability: It seems sufficient notability can be described as such: ““Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.” Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Further, I believe the sources listed qualify as quality content—“Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs.” Here are example of few quality references: Reference 4, The Wall Street Journal; Reference 10, Michigan Saves; Reference 16, The Monitor; Reference 15, Houston Business Journal

I asked for help on the Help Desk page and the reviewer did find sufficient corporate notability (75%) with the sources, and it seems the concern was only around me being a paid editor, which I’m not, as stated above and on my talk page. After clarifying my COI again, I asked for further help, but have not received a response yet. To avoid this article staying idle and being deleted, I have requested re-review.

I have put a lot of effort into this article and would appreciate a review with considering what is stated above.

IrfanAli512 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest, and disclosing that is good. The page has been rejected. I agree and habe sent it for a deletion discussion. If it survives then a case can be made to send it to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Phend020 (talk · contribs)
  • Element AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is it normal for a Wikipedia editor to steal your work wholesale and post it under their own name? I created an article in December, it wasn't reviewed for weeks, then an existing editor took my work and citations and created a slightly edited version of the article. Why would someone do that?

Phend020 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phend020: - it's possible that there wasn't a duplication, though it is possible - a lot of the content is fairly standard to include (funding etc), so it's not surprised it was grabbed if using the same sources. There is content that isn't shared between the two. It's worth raising the query with the Article creator - they are entitled to use the material, but if they used any of your material they should attribute it to you - if need be using a blank edit. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thanks. While I appreciate the concept of independent invention, you can see the history of the article and see that it was created by pasting the exact copy from my article and then editing it. Also, the use of the exact same sources for stories that were covered in multiple outlets is another indication that this was lifted wholesale. (Unsigned)

Basically this is rude but not prohibited. I'll request a history merge. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pugh.jeremy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Frak\ture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have updated the references to include further substantiating external references so that the primary reference is not a link to the website itself. Pugh.jeremy (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pugh.jeremy. None of the cited sources are independent of frak\ture. They are capsule business descriptions provided by frak\ture, and a profile written by their chief editor. For the purposes of evaluating notability (whether there should be an encyclopedia article about it), Wikipedia is only interested in what arms-length sources have to say about it, which apparently is nothing at all. It has not produced award winning work, does not have a significant history or serve some sort of historic purpose, is not considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in its subject area, is not frequently cited by other reliable sources, and is not a significant publication in ethnic or other non-trivial niche markets. It isn't notable, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is not the place to publicize your business. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Vbrynz123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Illest savage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vbrynz123 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbrynz123: - as has been stated repeatedly, the draft lacks any sources (other than an external link to the company website) - articles require multiple high quality sources. The blue links in the declines will provide lots of extra detail. Please DO NOT resubmit unless you make major improvements Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]