Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 December 13
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 12 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 14 > |
| 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. |
December 13
[edit]00:26:40, 13 December 2018 review of draft by Rontl
[edit]
It was earlier decided that this organization does not meet the standards for Notability, and it is true that the Wall Street Journal only has had brief mentions of the organization. However, the WSJ only asks for information from recognized experts in a given field. The fact that the Wall Street Journal and Forbes have turned to the Reverse Logistics Association, multiple times, for information, is what should validate the organization as being thought leaders in the field. The Wall Street Journal didn't just make a passing reference to the organization or something it did, it turned to the organization for its expertise and knowledge of the field.
Quoting from the page on Notability WP:ORGIN, “Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. “
This organization has not only attracted the attention of reliable sources, these reliable sources clearly believe the organization is, in turn, a reliable source, having quoted it so many times. It is true that we do not have a long article about the organization in the WSJ, but no trade organization gets that kind of article written about itself. The fact that the WSJ and Fortune find the organization to be a reliable source of information seems like “verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources.”
Moreover, my claim that Notable trade organizations do not get long articles written about them seems to be supported by other pages, as well. It seems that the standard for professional organizations that is in use is not the one outlined in the Notability page, and I would say that this is a good thing.
I just looked at some of the organizations listed here: List_of_industry_trade_groups_in_the_United_States
I only looked at National organizations, and I only looked at the first column of “Advertising, Business and Marketing” organizations, representing 13 organizations. (There appear to be 14 organizations, but “Ad 2” redirects to American Advertising Federation, so there are only 13 unique organizations there) However, all of the following 10 articles, I would argue, have received less media attention that has the RLA, and have less to point to, in the way of “substantial” coverage.
- American_Advertising_Federation
- AMC_Institute
- American_Independent_Business_Alliance
- Association_for_Convention_Operations_Management
- Association_of_Chamber_of_Commerce_Executives
- Association_of_National_Advertisers
- Center_for_Audit_Quality
- Community_Associations_Institute
- Compete_America
These 10 organizations don’t provide links to any substantial coverage anywhere outside of their own publications. In this very small sample, the RLA has more media coverage than over two-thirds of the trade association organizations’ pages I looked at. A small number of those organizations are able to point to something outside its own publications:
- Association_for_Information_and_Image_Management - Only has a mention in a guide to trade associations
- Commercial_Real_Estate_Women - Three very short descriptions of the organization creating new chapters, etc.
In short, it would seem that the de facto standard for professional and trade organizations is not as stringent as that which is described on the Notability page.
Either 2/3 of those organizations have to have their pages taken down, or it must be admitted that the standard for trade organizations is not as stringent as the general standard for organizations. Because the RLA has more evidence for significance than these organizations, I would argue that either the RLA page needs to be allowed, or else these other groups need to have their pages taken down. And I believe that these other organizations deserve to have their organizations listed in Wikipedia.
I would argue that a different standard should be applied to not-for-profit trade associations than for other organizations. Every adult in the US is a potential customer of a car company or electronics company, so magazines like to publish articles about them, because people like to read articles about them. For trade associations, however, there is a very small number of people who might be interested in any one organization, so there is no incentive for magazines to publish articles about them. Magazines just don’t write in-depth articles about trade associations the way they do about companies or other groups like the League of Women Voters or AARP, etc.
Notability is an important criteria, because it prevents someone from writing an article about their favorite bowling alley. But I would argue that for professional organizations, notability should be based on what an organization has done, and who else finds it credible and notable, not just where it has been profiled. And if the Wall Street Journal and Fortune think that an organization is notable enough to cite as a source for information, it seems to me like that should be enough.
Thanks.
Rontl (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
13:07:26, 13 December 2018 review of submission by Shivkarandholiya12
[edit]
There is a lot of buzz for the show. It is going on-air in 2 days. There could be many edits to make the page proper if it comes online before the show.
Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Veltriwolf (talk · contribs)
Hello, I am hoping you can help me tweak my article so it is no longer delayed in getting published. The musical album and band that I have written about is clearly an ensemble of notable musicians who are already listed on your Wikipedia site. Also, I included multiple citations and/or references including Billboard magazines recognition, praise and ranking. This combined with the ensemble of world famous musicians should be more than sufficient. It captures an album created by some of the leading artists in the industry. Artists who were popular in the 50 and 60's and combined together under a hot label in the 70's. Also, observe where it was recorded. It would be inaccurate not to capture and log this real and unique record that may interest many. What more do I need to ommit, revise or include?
Veltriwolf (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
13:26:28, 13 December 2018 review of submission by 41.78.82.102
[edit]- 41.78.82.102 (talk · contribs)
41.78.82.102 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
16:50:34, 13 December 2018 review of submission by Warsamedhuje
16:50:34, 13 December 2018 review of submission by Warsamedhuje
[edit]- Warsamedhuje (talk · contribs)
Warsamedhuje (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
18:35:19, 13 December 2018 review of submission by MaryGaulke
[edit]- MaryGaulke (talk · contribs)
Hi! This draft was rejected on grounds of insufficient notability. The subject has been the focus of extensive coverage in La Información, CIO Mexico, Forbes Mexico, and La Segunda, and all of these pieces are used as references within the article. Furthermore, he is a corporate vice president of Microsoft, and four other Microsoft CVPs have their own articles—Gabe Aul, Joe Belfiore, Richard Rashid, and S. Somasegar—with, as far as I can tell, comparable or even slightly lower levels of media coverage. In my opinion, Mr. Cernuda clears the bar set by WP:BIO. Could someone please take a look and help clarify where there is room for improvement here?
Please note, I have a conflict of interest: I work for a communications agency for which Microsoft Latin America is a client. However, I never draft and submit an article on behalf of a client if I don't believe that the subject has encyclopedic value. If nothing else, I would really appreciate any feedback that can help me realign my expectations for future endeavors.
Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Accepted Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
20:11:03, 13 December 2018 review of draft by Junaid428
[edit]
Junaid428 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I am interested to Learn to use Wikipedia Editor but its very complex. I have a School Project to complete but I don't know how to publish it. I did write some of the information about a Famous Person but I am not sure how to publish it.
- Creating new pages - finding a notable topic that does not exist and correctly putting it all together - is one of the hardest things at Wikipedia. Try getting permission to expand an existing page about someone/something already notable. Some inhabited place near you that needs more detail would be a useful project. Good luck. Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
22:30:18, 13 December 2018 review of submission by Tealkimball
[edit]- Tealkimball (talk · contribs)
I have been confused and there is no real help to figure this situation out. this seems to be a pain and waste of 3 hours out of my life i will never get back.
Teal Kimball (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Tealkimball Stop spamming your personal info and links all over the place. Your account should be blocked. This is not facebook or linked in Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)