• Leafeator (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rob Fee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I tried submitting my first article today, but it looks like that years ago the same article was deleted for not being notable. I believe that the person may be notable now (I guess, ultimately I'm not sure?) but I was asked to "request a copy of the deleted article so that a reviewer can compare and can verify that this is better than the deleted article." I was just looking for help on how to request a copy of the deleted article? Thanks!

Then once I get the copy, if I think that the new article is better than the deleted one, how do I present the old copy to the reviewer? Leafeator (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the deleting admin RHaworth. shoy (reactions) 13:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is significant that each creation of this bio has been by a different SPA, quite likely socks or successive agents of Rob Fee: Domo man882 (talk · contribs), Carl Cook11 (talk · contribs), IhilaLesnikovaGersh (talk · contribs) and Leafeator (talk · contribs). Leafator, I suggest you follow this advice and see if you can find any established editor who thinks the guy is notable. I have emailed four versions to Robert McClenon but don't get too hopeful. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what that was on my talk pagein my mailbox. I will take a look at it. (Given the wide separation in time, I would guess successive agents, but it doesn't matter.) I will look. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, User:Leafeator. As User:RHaworth says, don't get too hopeful. I have looked briefly at the four files. They are in an unformatted state, so that I will have to load them into sandboxes to view them properly, which I will, within 72 hours. It looks as though the original one is longer than the one that I rejected, and the original one was deleted at AFD, so it is unlikely that I will conclude that the recently deleted one is better. Two of them, including the one that was the subject of the AFD, look to be Start class, and two of them, including the one that I rejected, look to be in between Stub and Start. I think that it is more likely that the subject or the subject's publicist was paying four different editors than that this is suckpoppetry. I won't release the results of the examination until the requester makes a conflict of interest disclosure. (It isn't that I think that they will be honest, but only that if they lie, that gives us more rope.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information User:Robert McClenon. To confirm do I need to be the one making a COI disclosure? Maybe I should just try cutting my teeth on another comic author who doesn't yet have a page but may qualify for one? Looking to learn more and it seems as if I may have stepped on a landmine, sorry. Leafeator (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Leafeator, it is the editor submitting a draft who is sometimes asked to make a conflict of interest disclosure, because conflict of interest disclosure is a Wikipedia policy in accordance with a WMF Terms of Use provision. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RHaworth or some other administrator, can you please check the spelling of IhilaLesnikovaGersh (talk · contribs). If that is correct, there is no message on their talk page indicating that the draft was deleted. (Two of them have no record of contributions, but that is because the draft was deleted and they didn't ask about it on a talk page or in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I run xtools on this. The result is that this account has exactly one (deleted) edit to Draft:Rob Fee, which was creating the page. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Victor Schmidt mobil - In that case, the editor was not notified when their draft was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What does it matter if IhilaLesnikovaGersh was not notified? She created the page on 2016-02-02 and did no further edits to it. It was not until 2017-08-24 that deleted it. The real reason for deletion was "stale draft" but the six month rule was not in force at that time so I used a credible alternative deletion reason and saw no reason to notify an editor who had not been seen for eighteen months.

Leafeator, no landmine - just normal wiki-worrying over individual articles. Better to cut your teeth improving existing articles. Tell us your connection with Rob Fee and we will tell you if any CoI declaration is needed. If the only connection is that you have read his work and liked it, then no declaration is needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth I followed him on twitter from some of his earlier internet stuff, and then read both the comics and remembered the name. Wanted to look him up and was surprised there wasn't anything. Seemed like a good opportunity. Leafeator (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really care if the author was notified. I simply am aware that usernames are sometimes misspelled, which causes confusion, and was checking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neaifefe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Galaxy Software Services Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Added the infobox. Neaifefe (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neaifefe: This article is still a blatant advertisement for the company with no reliable sources. Please read WP:NCORP and specifically the WP:CORPDEPTH section for examples of sources that do not establish notability. This company is not notable enough for Wikipedia. shoy (reactions) 13:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bethany m m (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:EnviroVent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've tried to edit this content for approval but keep getting knocked back even after making amendments. A competitor has a similar page so the content must be relevant. Please can someone advise exactly what needs changing.

Thank you.

Bethany m m (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany m m Just because a competitor has an article, doesn't mean your company qualifies for one, see other crap exists. Your draft includes 9 references to your own website, Wikipedia requires independent sourcing to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Bethany m m#November 2019. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Catalystico (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Symington W. Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor DGG posted this in comments in regards to rejecting the article: He might be notable someday. But he is still a student, from a wealthy family, and it does not seem he has yet any substantial accomplishments. The references are PR, and WP does not do that. Much of the article doesn't even refer to him, but to his family, and their wealth, and the notable people he has met. the part that is about him is about his childhood, and high school education, and his stay at university. His claimed "notable work" is an undergraduate student paper. One highlighted quote is a student recommendation, quoted from WeChat. The other other is a tribute to him from his younger sister, quoted from a blog. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some objectively untrue statements that are of concern: 1. Yes, although the subject is a student and from a wealthy family, it does not mean the subject in question "has yet any substantial accomplishments". I think its safe to say that there are plenty of successful and notable individuals from wealthy family's and students. A subjects background, race, current job or situation should have no bearing on whether or not he is included in an encyclopedia, as long as his achievements are notable.

2. DRR claims that "the references are PR, and WP does not do that. Much of the article doesn't even refer to him, but to his family, and their wealth, and the notable people he has met." Again, DRR uses the subject's family and wealth as grounds to reject the article. Aside from the "Family" section, which is naturally about the subjects family, the rest of the article refers entirely to the subject in question - from a child to later adulthood, and is clearly not PR. DRR's statement about the article 'not referring to him' is clearly questionable. Regarding the 'notable people he has met' - why is this criteria for rejection? It's almost guaranteed that individuals on Wikipedia, who are by their very definition of inclusion 'notable', have met notable individuals throughout their life.

3. "His claimed "notable work" is an undergraduate student paper." I am in agreement here, and it should be edited / deleted. This however, is still not grounds for an outright rejection of the entire article. It is easily amendable, and the article could have been declined instead. Also, one could argue that DDR's statement about the subject's work being "just a undergraduate paper" is condescending and patronizing - there are plenty of remarkable undergraduate-level academic studies created by a multitude of students worldwide, and the level of research should not be grounds for rejection. At a neutral and fair encyclopedia like Wikipedia, a PhD is not necessarily more "important" than a "BA" level paper, nor does a subject's educational level have a bearing on if the subject is included or not in Wikipedia's encyclopedia.

4. Editor DRR claimed "One highlighted quote is a student recommendation, quoted from WeChat.The other other is a tribute to him from his younger sister, quoted from a blog." There are many issues with DDR's statement here. First, upon review, this is clearly not true. The quote in question is not from WeChat itself, but from Peking University Youth, a campus based magazine from a reputable international academic institution, which has its official digital channels through WeChat. All major news outlets, major publishers, and corporations in China have official WeChat accounts. They are not created randomly - it's a process much like Wikipedia, that requires identification and submission of materials, before being granted permission by the government. Secondly, the article states very clearly, in Chinese, that the comment is from the subject's supervising teacher, and not a "student recommendation" as mentioned by DDR. Lastly, upon further review, in not one of the sources does it mention the subject's "sister". In fact, further research shows that the subject clearly does not even have a sister. Where DDR got this information from is unclear.

5. It is very clear that the subject in question has significant notability in China. A quick search on Chinese search engine Baidu shows over 29,000 results of admittedly varying quality. There is also a Baidu Encyclopedia (China's equivalent of Wikipedia) article about the subject. A search on Google turns up much less results, but that is not surprising, nor should it affect the acceptance of the article - a subject's area of notability, and again, language and nationality, should not affect the editors decision to reject a submission regarding the subject. A fine example would be - Winston Churchill, for all his fame, is relatively unheard of in China. Does this disqualify him immediately from Wikipedia? Absolutely not. The same could be said of Greta Thunberg, a student. Just because she is unknown in China, and vice versa, does not disqualify her from being included in Wikipedia.

Lastly, Editor DDR stated in my "talk" page that "it is written in such a way as to indicate that you may very possiblyb e is paid press agent--for even were he notable , no objective person would write such content in such a manner." I can't see how any of my activity makes me a highly susceptible paid press agent, and I also don't see how an objectively written, cited and referenced article could be considered improper in "manner". Wikipedia should not be a place where editors of more senior experience can label another contributor like myself in such a way just because they want to, and with questionable evidence.

In summary, I believe editor DDR's grounds for outright rejection of the submission should be seriously reconsidered by the Wikipedia community. There's no such thing as a perfect article, but this, again, does not give the editor the right to outright reject it. Instead, if the editor has reason to believe the article need improvement, he / she should decline the submission instead, offering both myself and the Wikipedia community the chance to edit it again for resubmission. I conclude, using the evidence above, that the two main reasons for rejection of the article given by the editor, as stated on the draft page: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is clearly not true. The subject is obviously notable in China, and has a track record to show it. I agree that the article should be edited further, and that the "notable work", should be edited off.

Catalystico (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this should be rejected, absolutely no evidence that he even begins to pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been blanked by the creator, but for what it's worth I concur that notability is not shown, amidst other issues Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Liber8er (talk · contribs)

Hi. I created this page in July. At that time the article was rejected, I expected that since it's my first. I'm trying to learn:). I made several changes to the draft since receiving my first set of feedback. I've added external, reliable sources, I've moved external links from the body of the article to a table at the bottom. Basically I've tried to follow the format for other wikipedia articles about national library programs.

My question is this: is the draft ever going to be reviewed again? I was making changes with the anticipation that I would receive some feedback, but I've not seen any. Should I try again? It's not a huge article, but I have spent some time writing and editing and learning the wiki markup.

Please help and thank you. Liber8er (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liber8er. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since 23 July. The current backlog is roughly 4.5 months, so you can anticipate a review by some time in December. While you wait, perhaps you'd like to help fulfil requests at WP:RX. Or see Wikipedia:Community portal for other ways to improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]