User:Jcc/AfC messages

Biographies need inline citations

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I've rejected this article, because it needs just two things:

1) Inline citations- as this is a biography of a living person, try reading Help:Referencing for beginners and learn how to insert citations.

2) Your article is not written in a neutral tone. At some points, the article reads like an autobiography.

Thanks again for submitting an article to Wikipedia; if you feel you have any questions, please drop a message on my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse.

external

This draft contains external links in the article body. They are not permitted.

Instagram and YouTube are not reliable sources.

citations

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I've rejected this article, because it just needs inline citations- try reading Help:Referencing for beginners and learn how to insert citations. This is a great article though, and as soon as you state where you are basing the information off, this will be accepted.

Thanks again for submitting an article to Wikipedia; if you feel you have any questions, please drop a message on my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse.

sourcing

You need reliable secondary sources to show the subject's notability. Instagram and Youtube are not reliable.

nmusic

Hi there! I've declined this article because you haven't shown how it meets the notability guidelines for musical groups. Put simply, there are some criteria for musicians and ensembles, and you need to demonstrate meeting at least one for the article to be approved. Please feel free to resubmit once you demonstrate that. Thanks again for submitting an article to Wikipedia; if you feel you have any questions, please drop a message on my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse.

Tone

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I've rejected this article, because the article is not written in a neutral tone. At some points, the article reads like an autobiography. You should analyse a variety of reliable sources and then write up the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. The Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial might help too! Thanks again for submitting an article to Wikipedia; if you feel you have any questions, please drop a message on my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse.

refspam (use with neutrality)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I have declined this article because I feel that you have inserted as many references as possible in an attempt to meet the notability criteria. This is strongly discouraged- see WP:REFOVERKILL. You should focus on clearly showing, in a neutral tone, how this software meets that criteria and remove references from unreliable sources. For a guide, see here. Thanks again for submitting an article to Wikipedia; if you feel you have any questions, please drop a message on my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse.

exists

Hi there! I've declined your article because it already exists on Wikipedia. You should make your edits on that page instead. Thanks again for submitting an article to Wikipedia; if you feel you have any questions, please drop a message on my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse.

non notable

The article's use of external links does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Please remove all links within the body of the article.

The sources as provided do not provide evidence of the notability of the person. Third party, independent reliable sources (interviews given to media outlets, coverage in the media of this person etc.) are needed to demonstrate why this person is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia- read the text in the box above.

notable/language

Move your references inline- there should not just be a dump of links at the bottom. A guide that might help you is Wp:Referencing for beginners but essentially place <ref>URL HERE</ref> next to each claim in the article.
You also need to make the article read less like a CV- if you look at some good biography articles you'll note that one thing they all do is talk about their subject in a neutral manner- currently, your submission (and headings) read like something out of a CV. One tutorial that might help is WP:NPOV.
As the reviewer pointed out (I haven't had time to check myself), you need to prove the subject's notability. All subjects on Wikipedia have to be fundamentally notable to get an article on Wikipedia. In the decline box on top of the article there's some helpful advice with a number of links showing how your subject can prove that they're notable. I shan't repeat the contents here fully but essentially what it boils down to is having a number of media reports or news coverage that talk about your subject in depth e.g. interviews.

just a name

The article contains no content. If you would like to request an article be written on this subject, place an entry at WP:Requested articles.

coi

[standard coi notice]

Essentially if you have a conflict of interest with X i.e. working for them, being paid to write the article let us know now to avoid problems down the line. If not, no worries, treat the above as a standard notice. Best wishes,

close

We're actually very close here in terms of meeting the "notability" criteria. I've reviewed the sources and the interviews are absolutely excellent- so that's two good sources. Unfortunately the passing mentions in the NYTimes article and the mini author's biography and book listing is insufficient. I'd say perhaps one more interview and this poet would meet the criteria and I could accept it. Remember that sources don't have to be online- they can be in offline magazines too.

All articles have to be fundamentally "notable" to show it deserves a Wikipedia article. In this specific case, the online sources are product listings and primary sources, or mere mentions on lists which are insufficient.

Schooloutcomes has changed

essentially Wikipedia's policy on the inclusion of schools has recently changed. It used to be the fact that any secondary school, as long as it could be proven to exist was worthy of a Wikipedia article. Now all schools have to show they are notable- i.e. covered by newspapers, media reports etc., and existing schools are slowly being gone through to check that they comply with the new policy. As another reviewer, Worldbruce, wrote, the relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. Being large, old, or growing does not demonstrate that a school is notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what proves that a school is notable.

More specifically with this draft you have provided X references, all of which are to this school's own website. These are called primary sources, which do not help us demonstrate that this school is notable. To do that, you need to add more sources from newspapers or local magazines that talk about this school.

nsoftware/sources not demonstrating notability

All subjects on Wikipedia must be fundamentally notable to have an article. Our guideline on the notability of software mandates that a piece of software must be "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". Whilst the references you have provided are adequate at verifying claims, they do not demonstrate the media coverage required to pass this guideline.

The issue with the references that you have provided are that they are mainly about venture funding reports/non-notable awards, which do not meet our requirements.

Specific next steps: To demonstrate this, you should cite, or add at the bottom magazine articles, industry news, industry websites etc. that talk about this software performing tool in depth. This'll probably mean in your case more reviews like the ones you already have. Let me know if you need any help.

corpdepth

The reliability and independence of the sources

Many of the sources point to blogs or niche industry-related online magazines. These don't have the significant audience required and are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's guidelines. A striking example of this is the chalkbeat reference. Where their tagline is "Education news. In context."

The depth at which the subject is covered

When determining notability, the depth of coverage is also taken into account. A good example of this is the Guardian reference. It's a reliable, independent source. However, the referenced article isn't focused on the subject, it simply mentions the subject in the context of a listing. This doesn't constitute in-depth coverage, as per Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.

simply not notable company/out

I’m a bit concerned that this company might not be notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. That link goes to a guide, but basically any coverage of a company on here is supposed to be based on being covered in reliable sources, like newspapers, in the form of full articles and not just things like business listings. A lot of the article also reads like a press release or promotional copy, not a factual encyclopaedia article. Unfortunately it could be that the coverage simply isn't there for this company at present. If you find this topic interesting, perhaps you might want to host this content on your own blog or website? Since the article reads like you might be marketing the company, you also should look at this, an automated text on editing if you have a conflict of interest. All the best, any questions just let me know and I'll try to help.

copyright (help desk)

Hello, Yeshal9000. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The reviewer who expressed concern about copyright violations was very explicit as to the original sources that were copied. For example, you did not simply cite the biographical sketch found at http://www.christimbersmusic.com/about/ -- you actually copied portions of the text. This is against Wikipedia's rules.

no question (help desk)

Hi, and welcome to the AFC help desk. Did you have a question?

run of the mill

The media reports are not substantive enough and merely 'run of the mill'. What this means is that the sources are mainly venture funding reports, acquisitions etc. which in the current AfD climate, do not help demonstrate notability- basically if this page were to be accepted, it would get deleted. Please add sources showing more substantive coverage- interviews, in depth reports etc. from reputable sources.

linkdump

Far far too many trival mentions and run of the mill coverage. What's happened is that someone's gone "you need more sources to prove notability" and you've dumped every single source, trival mention, press release you can find. This is inadequate and makes it harder for us to evaluate the true content in here beneath the dump of links at the bottom and harder for us to discern if this company is truly notable.

Specific next steps include reducing the link dump into true in depth coverage e.g. the "Investment Magazine" article, getting rid of all the press releases e.g. "Reporter, Staff" is ridiculous and minor coverage. What this does it is makes it easier for us as reviewers to follow say every other link, and check notability, which means your article is more likely to be accepted.

award notability

Hi, and thanks for submitting an article to Wikipedia. All subjects have to be fundamentally notable to have an article in Wikipedia. To show that this award is notable, we'll need to show that there has been 'substantive coverage'- that'll be things like media reports of people being awarded this prize and interviews with people. To add these to your article, you can use the citation tool; a helpful guide is situated at WP:Referencing for beginners. Let me know if you need any help.

draftify

An article you recently created, $1, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of \"Draft:\" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

general ncorp

All subjects on Wikipedia must be fundamentally notable to have an article. Our guideline on the notability of companies mandates that a company must be discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field to be proven as notable. The sources you have added are primary sources (which do not help prove notability or other associated websites).

Specific next steps: What you need to prove notability is things like interviews with the company founders that have been published in industry magazines/news, in depth coverage of this company in reliable independent sources (e.g. the same trade publications). A good example of such a source is the X article you have already added. Add more of these and ask me if you need any help.

It could be the case that it is simply too soon for an article, in which case, if you find this topic interesting, perhaps you might want to host this content on your own blog or website?

close company

We're very close here in seeing the coverage we need and you've got the right idea with the sources but we don't accept venture funding reports as evidence of notability- see our WP:RUNOFTHEMILL so you'll need to add better sources e.g. reviews. Additionally you need to make sure they are from reliable sources e.g. the "insights successes" source below is not. Also make sure they're not just reprinted press releases; sources can be in any language.

non notable person haliography

Two issues here: 1) reads like a CV or a hagiography of Netka which breaches our fundamental rules WP:NOT. Some of this would be more suited for a LinkedIn profile 2) the person himself doesn't seem to be notable. The sources you've provided focus in depth on his companies rather than him

Given all of this the conclusion is that this person is fundamentally not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, please do not resubmit unless you have substantially improved sourcing focusing on the person himself; it could be the case that this doesn't exist, in which case perhaps you'd like to host this content on on your own website?

apologies

Apologies. Evaluating the provided sources and cross-comparing them with the high standards expected for notability, the conclusion is that the high level of sourcing to demonstrate notability might not exist, and that this person is fundamentally not notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. I know this may be hard to hear, but if you find this topic interesting, perhaps you might want to host this content on your own blog or website?