Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 November 23
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 22 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 24 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
November 23
edit09:28:28, 23 November 2014 request for review by TENNY JESSE
edit- TENNY JESSE (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
- Hi, you don't appear to have any articles in the AfC process, what is your question?
15:02:20, 23 November 2014 review of submission by Vidhubhushan
edit- Vidhubhushan (talk · contribs)
We want to get the page active on wikipedia as it will help everyone.
Vidhubhushan (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You have written an ad-profile masquerading as an encyclopaedia article. The magazine is a niche publication that has been in print for less than one year and there is no evidence it has a large reader-base. Therefore, there is no evidence the magazine meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Bellerophon talk to me 20:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I am an author of three publications on the subject of science .... I am trying to get my biography out there so I can use it as a reference when making contributions to subjects that are science based ... "Tim G. Meloche" is the page I am trying to establish ...
Professor Gravity (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there Tim! In order to have a page on Wikipedia you must be a notable person. Please provide some references to publications that reference your work but were not written by you or someone that works for you. You may also meet the notability criteria by virtue of WP:PROF. Please add details of any relevant academic positions you're held and point us towards some evidence of having held these. Once we can see that you meet the criteria, we can help you build on the article and get the format correct. Bellerophon talk to me 20:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
19:35:00, 23 November 2014 review of submission by AmbieBambi187
edit- AmbieBambi187 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
I doing Snowboarding styles for my college assignment. I was hard to find thats not already written.
AmbieBambi187 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- We already have a comprehensive article on Snowboarding and many related areas. Wikipedia is probably not the best place to fulfil you college assignment. Bellerophon talk to me 20:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
23:48:57, 23 November 2014 review of submission by 110.175.94.146
edit
Hello - My article has been declined on three occasions and I'm starting to think I don't have a full understanding of what is required.
Each time it has been rejected, I've made significant changes to the referencing, and after alot of support from the reviewers and Live-Chat I thought it was good.
Now, I'm a bit confused about what is required and would appreciate some help so I can get an understanding of what is needed. In some instances, references were initially rejected for being too close to the source. i.e. "Company Y is a sponsor of organisation in the article" - Press release from Y stating they're sponsoring was deemed insufficient. - These references have now been removed, however I'm still unclear on the nature of the ongoing concerns.
Any help would be appreciated as I'm confident once I see the variance between the current article and it in approved state I'll be clear on where I've been going wrong...
110.175.94.146 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- One thing that might help is to better format your references. At the moment they are all what we call "bare URLs", and at least one of them is repeated identically in two separate references. You can see how to fix these things in the "Manual referencing" section of Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Other contributors might have other ideas on how to improve the draft. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- A reference as a bare URL is a style guideline and has no bearing on whether or not the article meets the inclusion criteria. Timtrent has already given you a rationale as to why your draft was rejected, but the principal issue is that the article still reads too much like an advert and doesn't give any real information as to what makes the company important or significant compared to others. For example, comparethemarket.com looks just like a typical run-of-the-mill insurance broker, except it has achieved great recognition over its Compare the Meerkat advertising campaign (which is arguably more notable itself today). Also, I notice that this SMH source says "Cover-More Group became the latest float to disappoint investors this year, after shares in the travel insurance group failed to trade above its listing price of $2 a share on Thursday." but the article has no negative points. Provided views are documented in reliable sources, Wikipedia can print the good and the bad about the company. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)