Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 April 12

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< April 11 << Mar | April | May >> April 13 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


April 12 edit

09:52:18, 12 April 2020 review of submission by 62.238.220.59 edit


hi! I have drafted a site on Barakat-Perenthaler syndrome Draft_talk:Barakat-Perenthaler_syndrome. A reviewer rejected this, leaving a comment it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. This I do not understand, as the page is referring too well known medical journals (Acta Neuropathologica, Nature Communications, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) amongst others). So what do you think is wrong?

62.238.220.59 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the reviewer directly what their specific concerns were? 331dot (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did not hear back from him/her yet 62.238.220.59 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS. Just regular journal articles (studies) aren't considered reliable sources for the purpose of medical content. You should rely on review articles instead. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:22, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Zangosc edit


Zangosc (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zangosc You haven't asked a question, but your draft is completely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:34:55, 12 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mr Tejal edit



Mr Tejal (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tejal, "Republic World" can be an unreliable source at times. I would recommend you add a couple more independent, reliable sources to confirm the notability of this subject. Also phrases like "a funny dubbed video" and "Even today" are editorializing the article. That is, they are stating opinion as if it were fact. Hope this helps. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Tejal (ec) You don't ask a question, but "YouTubers" rarely merit articles according to the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It doesn't matter how many followers they have or how many views their videos get. They need to have significant coverage in multiple sources. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:22, 12 April 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:BC52:C7D0:89DB:3D3B edit


2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:BC52:C7D0:89DB:3D3B (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources are traditionally unreliable sources (i.e. instagram and youtube). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:42, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Prasad3455 edit


Prasad3455 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? There are zero reliable sources in your draft so it has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Can Help Me edit

Hey Anyone Can Help Me To Create a Wikipedia page and success approvel — Preceding unsigned comment added by James3354 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James3354 It is very hard to successfully create a new Wikipedia article, as you have found out with your draft Draft:JPixelite Studios. Note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Your draft has been rejected, meaning that there is little chance that the draft could be made acceptable. You seem to have a common misconception about Wikipedia. It is not a place to merely tell about something. It is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a subject that meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself. In the case of a business, independent sources must have chosen to give significant coverage of the business(not just press releases, staff interviews, or routine announcements) showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. No one doubts that this business exists, but Wikipedia must do more than tell that the business exists.
I assume from your draft that JPixelite Studios is your business or you work for it. If so, you will need to read and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked and the draft has been deleted. The block and deletion logs contain more information, but this is obvious promotion. --Kinu t/c 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:16, 12 April 2020 review of draft by Wwwf22345 edit


Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I would like guidance on what to add to show that I have sufficient sources for the entry. The listing includes a reference to a "New York Times" obituary and to a dedicated page at the site of "The Paris Review." Thank you.Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:57, 12 April 2020 review of draft by Whisperjanes edit


I have a couple of questions, because the reviewer's comments about notability have gotten me confused about my understanding of Wikipedia notability (since in my opinion, this article would survive an AfD nomination with the sources given).

I've never seen a Wiki guideline/policy that mentions that local or specific subject sources are less reliable or usable. Is this a common practice on Wikipedia that I just haven't run into yet, or am I misunderstanding something else? Also, does a draft need online/checkable sources to be accepted at AfC as notable? I'm a bit confused why the reviewer said they looked online for notability, because I thought AfC's weren't supposed to be rejected based off of sources being offline or behind a paywall (but maybe I'm misunderstanding something else about the review process). - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whisperjanes. For companies, organizations, and their products or services, at least one regional, provincial, national, or international source is necessary to demonstrate notability, according to WP:AUD. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. "Limited interest and circulation" has commonly been interpreted as trade journals and local newspapers. It is not customarily used to dismiss publications in ethnic and other non-trivial communities that have historically been underserved by the mainstream media (e.g. publications such as Black, Mennonite, or LGBT newspapers).
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable for demonstrating notability, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources being offline or behind a paywall would be an illegitimate reason for declining a draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you! I haven't participated in many AfDs about companies/organizations, so I apparently have more to learn :) For books, is the publisher what makes them regional/national vs local? Or is locality determined on a more case-by-case basis when the source is not a newspaper/trade journal? (For example, books that are available in nation-wide stores don't seem instinctively "local" to me. And I'm unsure if online store availability (e.g. Amazon) influences locality at all, either) - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Whisperjanes: "Local" rarely arises in connection with books. If the Ithica Chamber of Commerce published a book about a large employer in the town, it probably wouldn't convince reviewers of notability. But if Cornell University Press (also in Ithica) published the same book, it would probably carry great weight. The reputation of the publisher and the independence and qualifications of the author tend to be the most important factors in evaluating books about companies and organizations. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:44, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Oleg obsase edit

what is missing? I saw many Georgian's pages, and this is absolutlty same.

Oleg obsase (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg obsase: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence or not-existence of something can't be used to argue about the existence of something else. As far as I see, this Draft currently has zero relieable Sources. (No, Facebook/Twitter/Instagramm or anything written by the subject isn't considered relieable). If you find an article that you think is the same, please feel free to point it out here, and we can see that we either explain the difference or draftify/delete it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_April_12&oldid=985271265"