Help desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

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 7

02:59:29, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Jwilbiz

Jwilbiz (talk · contribs)

I'm having trouble getting a company page for Let's Go Learn, Inc., approved. I've tried several times. It's a 20+ year old company, all of our competitors have Wikipedia pages, and the stated reason (not enough legitimate article sources) for declining approval of our page seem suspicious, since we have provided several already. What specifically is preventing our page from being approved? It was recently deleted by a bot, but I have requested the page to be reinstated.

Jwilbiz (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilbiz Hello, welcome to the help desk!

First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Our articles exist because they're notable, not because companies have created them themselves or because companies have paid for them.

Second, we highly discourage people with a conflict-of-interest from creating articles or editing articles related to them, because it's very hard to stay neutral.

Now, the article was draftified, meaning it was moved to the draft area as it was not suitable for mainspace. This is because the subject of the article does not appear to be neutral, and notability seems unlikely. Notability is generally established with 3 reliable, independent and in-depth sources. This means paid articles, company websites, interviews and the like won't work. This is absolutely crucial to any article.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this will happen for Let's Go Learn. I know this isn't what you'll want to hear, but notability and neutrality are 2 of our core concepts. Please do not recreate the article in the mainspace, it will just be deleted or draftified. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad EchidnaLives! I realize all this. Let's Go Learn *invented* an entire new category of sophisticated, online, AI-driven, adaptive assessments for children in math and reading, years before other companies dipped their toes into this area tepidly. These assessments continue to this day to be some of the only ways teachers can accurately diagnose super-specific math and reading problems in children. The algorithms for these assessments were developed over the course of about 25 years by the Chair of the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley (at the time). So in other words, while the company is not the largest edtech company by a long shot, I believe it's empirically very notable. You are not the first editor at Wikipedia to question whether the company is notable, nor the first to imply that the article is less than objective. Yet nobody will tell me any basis for why they believe this to be true? If something is not 100% objective in the article, please point it out! Please explain how the company is not notable? I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but I am; I do not understand how so many less-notable companies can have wonderful, detailed pages in Wikipedia, while our draft page continues to be the subject of straw-man arguments which have no basis? I think I can improve the 3 needed sources, which will help. But geez. Thanks. Jwilbiz (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jwilbiz.The second through fifth sentences of your comment above are overtly promotional, marketing-style language that read like they are taken straight from an advertising brochure. Rather than improving your chances of getting your draft accepted, such comments reduce your chances, since promotional, marketing and advertising content is forbidden from Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and compliance with it is mandatory. You are representing what you claim to be a prestigious educational organization but are trying to edit the #7 website in the world in an uneducated and uninformed fashion. Please do the basic work to educate yourself about how Wikipedia actually works, and conduct yourself accordingly going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The references in your draft utterly fail to establish that this topic is notable. High quality references are golden, and yours are more like zinc. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic are required. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable", as Wikipedia defines it, does not mean "large", "innovative", or even "popular". You say above that nobody has explained why the draft doesn't show notability for Let's Go Learn, but that's not actually true. The draft itself, and your user talk page, contains the following information box:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

None of the sources in the draft meets these criteria; they are primary and/or non-independent and/or passing mentions of the company. --bonadea contributions talk 12:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilbiz In case you weren't aware, all of the blue (or purple) words or phrases in Bonadea's answer above are clickable links that will give you a lot more information. David10244 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:44, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Evoqe.digital

{{Lafc|username=Evoqe.digital|ts=07:04:44, 7 March 2023|page=

Evoqe.digital (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@evoqe.digital: sorry, but Draft:Jubran Siddique has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight 晚安 00:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:44, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Srvban

Srvban (talk · contribs)

Hello, I'm usually on the German Wikipedia. I also wanted to publish one of my articles in English. Unfortunately it was rejected and to be honest I don't understand the reason for the rejection.

"This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Unfamiliar with the subject? He was a painter who is named and mentioned in the usual catalogs of painters. Since he was a German-speaking painter, it is only usual that the corresponding sources are in German, of course. Is that the reason for the rejection? A painter listed in Thieme-Becker is directly relevant in the German-language Wikipedia ([1]). But I can't just rely on English-language sources, although some exist and are indicated in the article. It is difficult to obtain more information about the painter, as the reference works often only contain the biographical data of well-known but not famous painters. I need your help and would very thankfully if you can explain me my fault.

Srvban (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srvban: Hmmm. Usually when another reviewer has declined a draft I can understand why, but I can't quite see that there is any context missing in this draft, nor any other obvious reason to decline it. I'll ping the reviewer: @Praseodymium-141:, do you recall why you declined this draft? --bonadea contributions talk 20:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srvban, of your five references, one is a database entry and the other four are auction house listings. On the English Wikipedia, what is required are references to published, reliable sources that are independent of the topic, and devote significant coverage to the topic. References in German are fine. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:54, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Anstil

Anstil (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

I'm wondering how to interpret the policy that editors like myself who have been on Wikimedia projects for over a year, though just dipping in to it now and then, are blocked from creating articles? I'm not a newbie, so I was surprised that there seems no way for me to work on new articles about the Codex Sassoon in advance of the upcoming auction, where one of the codices is expected to be sold for the highest price of any manuscript ($50 million), but the other manuscripts I've been interested in reading up on, have no article despite being considered just as notable if not on sale.

What are the current criteria for being sufficiently trusted to write a Wikipedia article? I'm feeling I'd have more impact from editing a different project, or just giving up on creating articles as it's so demoralizing.

Anstil (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anstil I am not sure what this has to with AfC specifically but as far as I can tell you are not blocked and are WP:autoconfirmed so you can move the draft directly into mainspace (see WP:MOVE). Just be sure to clean up any of templates and that sort of thing after moving it. S0091 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @User:S0091 for confirming what the policy should be. However, every time I try to create a new article, I get forcibly redirected to Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page with no option to proceed to create. If the policy is as you say, and I should be free to create an article, what am I doing wrong? --Anstil (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the policy, I think I'm falling under the long unconfirmed period of 90 days which is a technical restriction and nothing to do with my competence as an article creator.

As I'm not allowed to move articles or create them, probably until May 2023, could you please consider moving these two articles to main space where they can be worked on collegially? Time is relevant due to the May auction which will create a lot of public interest in the 'Sassoon codices'.

* Draft:Codex_Sassoon_823

* Draft:Farhi Bible

--Anstil (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anstil I'm afraid you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Time is of no relevance at all WP:NODEADLINE, Wikipedia is not interested in being used to promote an auction WP:PROMO. The reviews of the drafts will happen when interested reviewers get around to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'promo' to this, apart from being an academic, I have no possible connection to the S1 codex either. It's just a question of when there will obviously be a surge of interest in the codices, not just the one that happens to be up for auction. It would be a shame if all that journalists and the public get to see on Google when they look for Codex Sassoon is the auction website, rather than being educated about the thousands of other historic manuscripts from this collection.

Note that the two draft articles that I've worked on here, are not about the S1 manuscript, in fact nobody can even see the Farhi Bible as it's permanently locked away in a vault, and MS 823 can never be put up for sale as it's permanently in the University of Pennsylvania Library collections.

I guess what I'm interested in is the exact opposite of 'promo', in fact the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia of sharing knowledge for the love of it. --Anstil (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anstil according to xtools you are autoconfirmed so I am not sure why you are being directed to the New user landing page. Even so, you should have the ability to move pages from Draft to Article. Did you try using the instructions at WP:MOVE#How to move a page? If you still have issues, I suggest reaching out to the Teahouse as it has a broader base of editors than the AfC help desk. You can reference this conversation here by linking to WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:05:54, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Anstil. S0091 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I'll try the teahouse for advice to see if this is a glitch. I did follow the MOVE instructions. --Anstil (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]