Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 March 14
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 13 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 15 > |
| 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. |
March 14
edit
Hi. Article has been completely rewritten to focus solely on the takeover battle. How do I now resubmit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trace_Group
Shall22 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Shall. I've restored the reviewer comments and boxes that were removed when you blanked the page. You can now resubmit simply by clicking the button in the top-most box. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
18:08:08, 14 March 2017 review of submission by JoeTooSerious
editArticle Rejected, I'm a wiki newbie. Please advise. I am trying to prepare simple article for new professional athlete. Pro contract pending. I thought I saw on Wikipedia that a footballer needed a minimum of one profession game or contract. I thought I had that here. I reviewed other young soccer players that are new to pro ball as a guide. I want to keep article as draft and launch once contract is signed. Not sure what specifics to avoid rejection. Advice needed. Thanks so much for your help. Is what I'm trying to do impossible? JoeTooSerious (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
(part two of my query) I read WP:PAID and I am a volunteer. I also read WP:FOOT too and I thought signing a professional contract would qualify. Admittedly, I skimmed WP:PEACOCK too quick initially and I see where I can delete words and phrases that fall into the 'peacock' category. I hope I can address WP:PEACOCK issues and the subject would qualify under WP:NFOOT by signing a pro contract. Or am I pushing a boulder up a steep mountain here?JoeTooSerious (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Joe. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The advice you received at the Teahouse was quite good, and I'm confident that you'll be able to get the draft to look more like the football biographies that already exist here. As for waiting for the subject to actually qualify under our notability standards, that shouldn't be a problem. The draft can remain where it is (in your sandbox) until the notability criteria have been met. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pearll's sun (talk · contribs)
Famous medical forum with good alexa ranking so wanted to re-create a page that was earlier deleted, but every time i recreate something seems to be missing so requesting assistance to get this page passed. Thanks.
Pearll's SunTALK 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Pearll. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I took a look at the submission and found no reliable sources, other than perhaps for the Alexa ranking (which does nothing to help the subject meet the notability guidelines). The one reference to the Economic Times goes to a page that doesn't appear to mention the subject at all. With sourcing like this, I think it unlikely that the draft will be accepted for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks NewYorkActuary so much for your attention to the article. What would you suggest in such a case where the subject is popular (e.g. an active online forum with huge membership list, good alexa ration for traffic and huge collection of articles/posts by medical students) but little or no reliable source and we want it to be a part of Wiki as it is a notable website atleast for the medical students in India. I have been with wiki for quite some time and have worked on several nice articles but this one is highly confusing as you have mentioned it has little or no reliable source. Thanks. --Pearll's SunTALK 23:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Without in-depth discussion from independent reliable sources, there isn't going to be much of an argument for having an article about this particular Internet forum. To quote from WP:NWEB,
"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is.
The decision to accept or decline a draft is always going to come down to the existence of adequate sourcing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Without in-depth discussion from independent reliable sources, there isn't going to be much of an argument for having an article about this particular Internet forum. To quote from WP:NWEB,
- Thanks NewYorkActuary so much for your attention to the article. What would you suggest in such a case where the subject is popular (e.g. an active online forum with huge membership list, good alexa ration for traffic and huge collection of articles/posts by medical students) but little or no reliable source and we want it to be a part of Wiki as it is a notable website atleast for the medical students in India. I have been with wiki for quite some time and have worked on several nice articles but this one is highly confusing as you have mentioned it has little or no reliable source. Thanks. --Pearll's SunTALK 23:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)