Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 May 27
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 26 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 28 > |
| 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. |
May 27
edit03:00:51, 27 May 2017 review of submission by Oulipo Oui
edit- Oulipo Oui (talk · contribs)
I just would like some help as to what, if anything, can be kept of the article and how to shorten it or fix it so it meets Wikipedia's standards. Oulipo Oui (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Oulipo Oui: Hello, Oulipo. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Before posting here, I took a look at your submission and, frankly, I found it well-nigh unreadable. It appears to be little more than a curriculim vitae expressed in prose form. Three sections devoted essentially to telling the reader exactly what college courses he's been teaching? Some even with course names and catalog numbers? My overall impression is that there is nothing particularly interesting about the subject. I expect that you disagree with that assessment, but you haven't done a good job of presenting the subject as someone worth reading about. And there is a second major problem -- you haven't demonstrated that the subject is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. A person who works and teaches in the field of film should be able to demonstrate satisfaction with the criteria set forth either in WP:NFILMMAKER or WP:NACADEMIC. I think you haven't demonstrated satisfaction with either set of criteria. But maybe you have. Your references are mostly in the form of "bare URLs", a practice that forces readers (including reviewers) who want to know essential bibliographic information (i.e. who wrote an article and when/where it was published) to leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. I wasn't inclined to do all of that research myself. But I did click through a few of the URLs and found that only one treated the subject in more than passing fashion, and that one exception was an article in a college newspaper. If I missed a more substantial discussion of the subject, please let me know. But right now, I don't see how the subject of your draft merits an article on Wikipedia. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)