July 17 Information

• MSmuzynski ( talk · contribs)

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia. My recent article submission was denied due to lack of notability. I have referenced 15 media outlets who have written about the topic, including CBS News, ABC News, Fox News, NBC Today Show, the BBC, and various reputable, international travel magazines, all of which have covered the topic in depth. I've read Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, the golden rule, and the mistakes to avoid pages numerous times. I feel like I have followed the guidelines meticulously, siting verifiable, well-known, independent, secondary, published sources. I don't understand why this article's topic isn't deemed notable. Can someone please explain further? The attraction in which I'm writing about has been featured in hundreds of media stories. How many of those do I need to site to make it notable? Thanks for your help!

MSmuzynski ( talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ MSmuzynski: What is far more serious than the question of notability is that you appear to have a conflict of interest, and may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use by failing to disclose that you are engaged in paid editing. See the note on your talk page for more information. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Harveyjakes ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alpha FX ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to get an article published on a company called 'Alpha FX' but it has been declined because the subject's references do not adequately show notability.

I would value some guidance from more experienced member's of the Wikipedia community on how the article could be amended to achieve inclusion.

Jake

Harveyjakes ( talk) 06:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Harveyjakes: Hello, Jake. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. My initial view of your submission suggests that you are going to find it difficult to get it accepted for publication. The basic problem is that the company has no realistic claim to encyclopedic notability. It's a company that does not appear to be a major force in its industry and, being relatively new, can not point to any historic significance. And this overview is born out in the shallowness of the sources that you are using as references. Two of them are just directory listings (and the FCA listing doesn't appear to even support the statement that it is linked to). And the rest are routine press-release type of articles, merely reporting hirings, funding actions, etc. In all, I think the reviewers were correct in declining the submission. One final note -- I've "commented out" the company web site link in the infobox because it triggered security warnings when I tried to use it. I was able to visit your company's web site via a web search, so perhaps the problem with the link was a simple mis-typing. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@NewYorkActuary: Hello! Thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback. Would you be able to take a look at the wikipedia page of 'Global Reach Partners', another corporate foreign exchange provider? I feel the content is a lot less notable than Alpha FX and yet they have a Wikipedia page, so I must have missed something. If I know what Global Reach Partners have done right, I should be able to achieve the same for Alpha FX, as this is a much larger force in the UK foreign exchange space than Global Reach in terms of growth and plc status. Many thanks - Jake.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. My initial view of your submission suggests that you are going to find it difficult to get it accepted for publication. The basic problem is that the company has no realistic claim to encyclopedic notability. It's a company that does not appear to be a major force in its industry and, being relatively new, can not point to any historic significance. And this overview is born out in the shallowness of the sources that you are using as references. Two of them are just directory listings (and the FCA listing doesn't appear to even support the statement that it is linked to). And the rest are routine press-release type of articles, merely reporting hirings, funding actions, etc. In all, I think the reviewers were correct in declining the submission. One final note -- I've "commented out" the company web site link in the infobox because it triggered security warnings when I tried to use it. I was able to visit your company's web site via a web search, so perhaps the problem with the link was a simple mis-typing. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Chackoge ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Clark L. Anderson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello- I'm just checking in on the Draft: Clark L. Anderson page. The submission was declined on 6 July 2017 and revised the same day to fix external references. It's about 11 days now and while I understand that the process has a backlog, we're well past a week now so I thought I'd make sure that some action on my part isn't slowing anything down. Thanks Chackoge ( talk) 13:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Chackoge ( talk) 13:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Chackoge. The draft is in the pool, and will be reviewed in due course. Reviewers will be looking for something in the draft that shows the subject passes the notability guideline WP:PROF. The draft contains no such evidence, and no independent sources, so it will be declined. Rather than citing works written by the subject, base the draft on things written about the subject by arms-length reliable sources. In addition to studying the aforementioned notability guideline, you may find it useful to contrast the draft's sourcing with that in some of Wikipedia's finest writing about academics in medicine: Golding Bird, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Ray Farquharson, and Michael Woodruff. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Hrmrlf17 ( talk · contribs)
  • User:Hrmrlf17/sandbox/Louis DeJoy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We are not understanding why the article was declined. I reached out to the person who declined it on July 7 and he/she said they are no longer reviewing. We did not include any inline citations. Our references are at the bottom as footnotes; so not sure what we need to do to get this submitted. Please advise. Thank you. Hrmrlf17 ( talk) 15:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Hrmrlf17: Hello, Hrmrlf. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. Your submission has a great number of problems, only one of which is the substandard method of showing footnotes. Regarding the latter, I've converted one of your references to an in-line citation that uses "ref" tags. You can learn more about this technique by reading our Referencing for beginners. And after you've converted the rest of them in this fashion, they will still need to be formatted using the {{ cite web}} template, which makes it easier to provide the reader with essential bibliographic detail (such as who wrote a piece and when/where it was published).

But that still leaves many other problems. Indeed, your submission displays a lack of familiarity with even the most basic elements of our Manual of Style. I strongly urge you to work through our Tutorial, which will provide you with the basic techniques. And you can also take a look at some of our better-quality articles on entrepreneurs, such as Satoru Iwata or Walt Disney. Doing so will show you how those techniques get used in practice. But even that will not be enough, because you will still have the problem of not providing sources for all of the material in this biography of a living person. You simply can not rely on your personal knowledge to add material to the draft. This is true for any Wikipedia article, but is an especial concern with biographies of living persons.

Because your submission was so poorly formatted, I didn't actually read through it. But a quick glimpse suggested that you haven't really made a strong claim for encyclopedic notability. Being elected "Entrepreneur of the Year in the Carolinas" is not going to be enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. But perhaps there is more substance that will become evident after you've made your submission more presentable. If so, I'll be happy to take a second look at it.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 12:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Shkidd ( talk · contribs)

Hi, This is my first Wiki doc, however the category that I selected was not the correct one (promotes a company, group, product, service, person) but I couldn't find a close category to use.

If the deletion was for this reason, please advise what category can it be listed under.

If it was for other reasons, please advise.

As you can see, there are no direct link to any business

Thanks

Shkidd ( talk) 16:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Shkidd: Hello, Shkidd. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. Because your submission has been deleted, we are unable to provide any detail as to what exactly could have been the problem. In general, a page that gets deleted as "advertising" has failed to show that it was doing anything other than promoting a particular product or service. And so, the issue was not (to use your terminology) an "incorrect category". The issue must have been more basic -- you weren't discussing your subject as an encyclopedic topic. If you would like specific advice, you will need to contact the person who nominated your submission for deletion. You will find that person's name and Talk page link on your Talk page (as part of the notification of the deletion nomination). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 12:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply