Help desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 19

00:25:53, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Abigail Christine

Abigail Christine (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Endeavor Business Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I had multiple people question the quality of the Wikipedia entry I am trying to create for Endeavor Business Media. One user said my article was a "well disguised advert bh a self identified paid editor" when my intent was to write a factual entry about the company I work for, Endeavor Business Media. I disclosed that I worked for the company. I cited verifiable sources, yet was accused of using "regurgitated press release" or "PR material" in the entry. If you look at the draft I created, all citations lead to reputable media outlets. I am having a hard time understanding what qualifies as a quality Wikipedia entry. M

Abigail Christine (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Christine Like many in your position, you have a misunderstanding as to what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do. It is not for merely telling about a company and what it does. That's considered promotional here; you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. A Wikipedia article about a company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases and announcements of routine business activities like changes in staff or sales information or the acquisition of a competitor do not establish notability. Your draft is almost exclusively sourced to such sources. That's not what Wikipedia is looking for. Wikipedia is looking for information from sources that goes beyond routine activities and provides a more overarching look at the subject(in this case, a company). Ford Motor Company does not merit an article because they produce motor vehicles that get reviews, or close a factory, they merit an article because independent people have extensively written about the history of Ford and it effects on things like assembly lines, manufacturing, and labor relations. If independent reliable sources have written about your company's impact on its industry, community, or something, that would be a good start for an article. But just telling us what it does is not. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Christine I have had a pretty thorough look over your references. For an editor with only 37 edits to her edit history, you are remarkably adept. That aside, I looked into the related company, PR News, and its various awards. It looks like PR News is a bit of an awards mill, charging "winners" several hundred dollars to receive their awards and additional fees to attend the annual awards banquets (for which there-- is it hundreds?-- of categories). I even attempted to generate a nomination for an entry for the "Top Woman" award but was unable to do so because of a website error of some kind. As near as I can tell, Endeavor is a segment of Access Intelligence LLC., which also owns PR News and about six other brands. There is an office in the Trump Building in NYC on the 50th floor shared with two or three other firms. I can find no evidence that someone with your name works for them in any capacity, which may mean you "made up" your name to conceal your identity (which, why would you do that, given 37 edits and your paid editing disclosure?). A Google Books search only turned up books in which Endeavor was involved in contracting for, not any in which it was the subject of discussion. The publications in Folio: are the most viable evidence of notability, but Folio: seems to be just another branch of Intelligence, which means it's publications lack independence. Given the additional ties between Access and Endeavor, it all looks like a lot of self-derived hot air trying to inflate itself.

Look, I am sure your employer is paying you well for your attempt to generate a Wikipedia article about them, and you know their lingo ("strategies", "insights", "revenue", "ignite connection", "media relations", "flagship", "webinars", etc/ the list is long). They may even be notable! But given the intrigue of who you are and who they are, it doesn't look like Wikipedia is going to be willing to host an article on them. Maybe once the New York Times or the Washington Post has taken an interest, Wikipedia will be willing to follow suit. In the mean time, good luck with your 38th edit. A loose necktie (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think you are talking about a different company. May I ask why you think I am affiliated with PR News? I have no idea what PR News is or what their "various awards" are, and my company is not part of Access Intelligence LLC. We are not located in the Trump Building on the 50th floor. My company is Endeavor Business Media. Here's our website: https://www.endeavorbusinessmedia.com/

When I started my Wikipedia account, I was actually prompted to NOT use my real name ... I'm not sure why you're questioning my identity? I've disclosed myself as an employee of Endeavor Business Media.

Abigail Christine (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:54:41, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Delbarital

Delbarital (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Next Insurance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, The company is well established, has more than 600 employees, its valuation is above 4 billion dollars, its revenue is reported to be over $400 million USD. It didn't get significant press coverage so far besides the references I added to the article (as far as I could find). I checked the status of this article again after I read that Amazon started to collaborate with Next Insurance to offer Insurance, and saw that the article submission was declined. What can I do to help it published?

Delbarital (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delbarital As noted by the reviewer, "All references seem like trivial coverage, namely: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, see WP:CORPDEPTH". Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about the subject and what it does. They must do more- a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft just tells what the company has done, and is sourced to nothing but press release-type articles or announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. Please review the links I've provided here, as well as Your First Article.

If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:43:48, 19 March 2021 review of submission by Ssavannah.walk

Ssavannah.walk (talk · contribs)

Hello, this is the second attempt to publish a page about Sqooasha. It is not at all my intent to advertise, but rather to inform. For that reason I would like to revise the page in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. However, I'm not sure which portion of the page violated the policy, so I would like to request some specific feedback. Hopefully someone can tell me which part of the page is promotional in nature.

Thank you.

Ssavannah.walk (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ssavannah.walk There is no difference between "advertising" and "informing" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Your draft just tells about the platform and what it does- Wikipedia articles must do more. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:59:00, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Christopher michell

Christopher michell (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Graeme McLagan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Christopher michell (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more information about what changes reviewers would like to see. I have added in-line citations and references as requested and believe that the subject (not myself!) is sufficiently well known and experienced in his field to qualify for an entry. A book he has written already has a long Wikipedia page.

I am also intrigued about why a draft text I submitted has appeared without changes in something called Wikitia which I know nothing about! Can you help with this?

Thanks

Christopher michell Wikitia is a site similar to Wikipedia, but who has a group of verified editors(unlike Wikipedia where anyone can edit) and it appears that one such editor used your draft as the basis for an article.(it looks like they have made some superficial changes to it) Since they gave attribution, that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:44, 19 March 2021 review of submission by CNDS 2011

CNDS 2011 (talk · contribs)

I am wondering why the publishing of this page was declined. The Centre exists and it is a very important research centre in Sweden and brings together researchers from around the world. It is my first time trying to create a Wikipedia page so I would like some guidance on how to make it get publish. I am one of the Centre's employees.

Kind regards CNDS 2011 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CNDS 2011: I think the problem is that all the sources provided in the draft are primary sources and not independent. Secondary sources are needed to be added to satisfy WP:NORG.

Also, your username is likely to violate WP:NOSHARING. You should request a username change. See Wikipedia:Changing username. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNDS 2011, first of all you did not provide any sources for your article at all - please have a look at WP:YFA, of help might also Help:Referencing for beginners, further you should make yourself comfortable with WP:COI. Your username also does violate our policies. Better request a username change asap. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:58:37, 19 March 2021 review of draft by Or-Kitt

Or-Kitt (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Zinnia Naqvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry for the repeat ask, I'm still trying to fix up this article on the artist Zinnia Naqvi. I'm having difficulty with the "notability" of this artist. She's an award-winning artist and pretty notable in Canada — photography award from the National Gallery of Canada, exhibits nationally and internationally, and I've included citations on her work in Canadian Art magazine and an interview on her work on Global News (one of our national news networks). I'm not using any sources that I think are questionable (eg. her artist's website), and I really just don't know what to add at this point! Any suggestions are appreciated.

Or-Kitt (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or-Kitt Your draft just tells about the person and their work. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. The last reviewer must think that is at least possible, because they only declined your draft instead of rejecting it. Instead of just describing their work and what they do, describe what the sources say about her and her work beyond the mere fact that it occurred. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]