HeikkiHerttuainen

Your submission at Articles for creation: Uusikuu (August 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Uusikuu and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HeikkiHerttuainen! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing! Thanks for your messages and the feedback. In terms of "notability" I understand that this is more about the sources used than the standing of the band within the music industry etc. - there are plenty of newspaper articles about the band too and radio programmes etc. Would that be more preferrable? I was going simply for "factual" references for the collaborations section, for instance, just to provide detail of when and where the band has done collaboration with these other artists and bands but perhaps that is missing the point? HeikkiHerttuainen (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, first and foremost you need to show that this band is notable, as that determines whether the article can be accepted or not. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Passing mentions, press releases, tour/gig announcements, interviews, etc. don't count, as don't any primary sources. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that! So, just to be sure, I have now removed the "factual" primary links and replaced many of them with links to independent sources, mainly to newspapers and other media outlets. Before I resubmit, can I check if interviews really don't count. We have, for instance, multiple interviews by national radio stations or major newspapers and even being interviewed by, say, German national radio, could be considered as evidence of notability. But perhaps it isn't? HeikkiHerttuainen (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point, interviews can be a bit of a grey area. It basically depends on the quality of the media outlet in question. Some, eg. the likes of DW or Yle, are likely to fact-check what the interviewee says, and edit accordingly. Others (and I've no particular examples to give here, but you can probably use your imagination!) will just accept anything at face value, which means that the interview becomes an unverified, non-independent and potentially non-reliable primary source, ie. the interviewee and whatever agenda they are pushing.

Even then, I wouldn't want to rely on interviews only, no matter how solid the source, because they are likely to be challenged at review. But if you have, say, 3+ non-interview sources, then adding one or two interviews on top shouldn't hurt. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Superb - that's very helpful indeed! Thanks for your support. I had a slightly different understanding of what the purpose of the references in Wikipedia articles were but I now understand the logic behind this a lot better. I might start contributing more often though I can see how this could also be a rather time-consuming hobby! Once you start, it might be difficult to let go... HeikkiHerttuainen (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It can get quite addictive, indeed. :)

Still on the topic of referencing, I'll just add that sources serve two main purposes, which are related but separate. The first is notability, as already mentioned: Wikipedia mainly exists to summarise what other, reliable sources have already said about a subject, and that is taken to such an extent that if no sources have said anything of substance, then the subject is deemed non-notable, and an article on it won't be accepted. For this, you need significant coverage in independent secondary sources, per WP:GNG.

The other purpose is to verify what the article says, ie. that the content is factually correct. For this, the source doesn't need to provide significant coverage, or even be independent in some cases, as long as it is reliable (WP:RS). For example in your case, if this band's website says that they were set up in Tübingen, that is quite an uncontroversial fact, and can be taken more or less at face value even though the source is the subject itself.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi HeikkiHerttuainen! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi HeikkiHerttuainen! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Notability criteria for entry, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Uusikuu has been accepted

Uusikuu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)