Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 2

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< January 1 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 3 >
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.


January 2 edit

09:05:33, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Moinformation08 edit


Hello, I wanted to clarify what determines notability, particularly in public spaces such as this one. Other similar spaces of similar notability in my area have been allowed on wiki and I was wondering if it's just how I've written my article. Thank you! Moinformation08 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is our policy. There will be some items that are currently on article space that don't meet this policy. That doesn't mean yours gets a free pass. See our policy at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:50, 2 January 2020 review of draft by D at Trendera edit


First, I would like to disclose that I work for Trendera on behalf of Lilia Buckingham. I submitted a draft about Lilia Buckingham that was declined twice, most recently today, despite my claim that the subject passes WP:NACTOR#1 (if not WP:GNG outright). The reviewer, User:MurielMary, wrote in her most recent decline comment that "No evidence that the shows she has appeared in are notable, or that the roles she had were significant." However, four of the television shows in which Lilia Buckingham has appeared have been established as notable on Wikipedia and have extensive articles. In addition, Buckingham co-produces and narrates Crown Lake (source: Deadline) and she is referred to as one of the "stars of 'Chicken Girls'" in this Seventeen article, also cited in my draft, indicating that these are significant roles.

It appears clear to me that the subject passes the notability barrier easily. Please help me understand if and why I'm mistaken, or otherwise consider accepting this AFC submission. Thank you! D at Trendera (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D at Trendera (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D at Trendera, Well you need more sources for sure. You have a mere three sources, which do not show significant coverage of the subject. Also, her roles do not appear to be substantial. Furthermore, very few 16 year olds qualify for an article. Unless you're Greta Thunberg, most young folks just haven't done enough to be notable. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, wherein it might take a few more years until the subject is notable enough. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D at Trendera, If you'd like to reply, please do so on my talk page or I won't see it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:45:51, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Johnchhana edit


I have sited indiatoday and shillongtimes for my article, but my article still did not pass the review; I seriously cannot think of better coverage than our state and national news. I compared it with other articles about similar subjects and some with much less references are online. Is there something else about this? Johnchhana (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnchhana, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Several issues remain in your article. You need significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. In general, I recommend at least half of your sources to have significant coverage. The article is also not neutral, and overly promotes the subject. Remove the Constitution section. Remove the office bearers section. Also, large sections of the article are unsourced. Every claim should have a reliable source that backs it up.
You also appear to have a conflict of interest, which you should declare by following the steps at WP:COI.
You might appreciate this guide on how to successfully write an article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:26, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Joe.sanchez1631 edit


Hi - I'd like to know what needs to be done to get this page live. I took the time to create it in an effort to better the automotive aftermarket industry content here on Wikipedia, but I'm having trouble getting this page live. Does it need more sources? Anything to help would be great. Thank you. -Joe (Joe.sanchez1631 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Joe.sanchez1631 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe.sanchez1631, I find it quite unlikely that this page will go live. It's an issue of notability. Wikipedia only covers subjects that have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A small time car company is very unlikely to meet that requirement. I know it feels bad to write an article and have it declined, but writing an article from scratch is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I recommend you work on improving existing automobile content; you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:12:24, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Ap27956 edit


Ap27956 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most nine year olds are not notable enough for Wikipedia purposes, you are no exception I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:31, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Ronaldo1948 edit


On or around the 24th October I submitted a new Draft page entitled Matthews Southern Comfort (band). It was quickly reviewed by an editor Calliopejen1 and declined as it did not have sufficient references/citations. Some 30 odd references were added along with new text and it was resubmitted on October 28th. I had assumed that the same editor would re-review the article after I had complied with the reasons for rejection....but it seems not. Nearly 3 months has gone by and it seems Calliopejen1 is taking a break from Wikipedia according to her Talk page. Could I politely ask if someone else could do the re-review of this submission, it seems an extraordinary time to wait after the first review was so swift. Thanks Ronaldo1948Ronaldo1948 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Ronaldo1948 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronaldo1948: There is a massive backlog right now, please be patient. Reviews are averaging five months at this point. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the additional references show notability. Discogs, autobiography and Wikipedia show no notability. You also can't source a private conversation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:16, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Saravicca edit


I have substantially changed the draft page of Reinhart Ceulemans. It would be helpful if an experienced editor could indicate if the style now is acceptable for Wikipedia, and if not, which parts need to change. It is the first time I try to make a Wikipedia page.

Thanks in advance


Saravicca (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:26:39, 2 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Arthurmingard edit


Hello!

I wanted to get a rough outline for some details about Foundland Ltd but it has been rejected. I can write a lot more and add some links to external sources that have covered the company, but perhaps I'm missing something more fundamentally important?

Thanks for reviewing!

Arthurmingard (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthurmingard, This article is about a run of the mill company. We don't write about every company. Only those who have been given significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Since you submitted your draft with zero sources, it was rejected. I did a cursory google search, and did not see substantial external coverage. If you can find such coverage (at least 3 sources that meet WP:NCORP, and ideally more), the subject may be notable. But I find that unlikely. A single, recently formed business with one location is unlikely to meet our requirements. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:25, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Speakersden digitals edit


Speakersden digitals (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speakersden digitals, This article is about an average person, like you or I. We don't write about everyone. Only those who have been given significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I recommend you find something else to edit on Wikipedia. You may wish to take The Wikipedia Adventure. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:40:39, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Mahnoortarique edit

The content has been revised to avoid any promotional language that was highlighted in the previous submission. Please review the new draft.

Mahnoortarique (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnoortarique, It is still excessively promotional, and full of buzzwords. Its notability is also questionable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:09:49, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Psurajit edit


Hi, I don't understand why the reviewer said there are not sufficient secondary sources. I included two newspaper articles from major newspapers in India that had full-length interviews with Ranjani and called her one of the leading talents of her generation. Why does this not qualify? I think the reviewer is just wrong—both Pune Mirror and Hindustan Times are prestigious and reliable outlets.

Psurajit (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:24:26, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Godswitness111 edit


hey I recently created a article and it was decined I was wondering if someone more experienced then me could explain to my why it was declined and how I could go about making the proper changes to get approved Godswitness111 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godswitness111: There's a few different reasons I'm seeing, such as properly citing independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. I've written a guide that gives plain step-by-step instructions, as part of a larger guide covering a variety of matters (like finding sources). If you follow that guide on how to write articles, the draft will not be rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Godswitness111, Well the main issue, as the reviewer noted, was that you need to properly format the references inline. Please see referencing for beginners for a complete guide. You also should not have external links in the body of the article. All such links should go in a separate "External links" section at the very end. The internal links are good and fine though. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:39, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Lobstercrossing edit


I have supplied additional sources and added more content. In addition, I have reached out to the record label in Germany requesting any links to additional articles written about the band in Europe. Also, sidenote, this page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_X_Day' references World Of Pain as well, however placing reference brackets around the name doesn't link to the World Of Pain draft. Is it because it is only a draft and not published? Thank you for your time.

Lobstercrossing (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lobstercrossing, Links in the mainspace only link to articles in the mainspace, not drafts. Note that you have not supplied additional sources between reviews. When a reviewer declines it, you then need to improve the article. Submitting it multiple times and hoping a different reviewer will approve it doesn't work. We're hip to that. Your sourcing does not show significant coverage of the band. Unless you can magically find some amazing sources, the subject is just not notable. Sorry. You would be better served by editing some existing articles to get a feel for how things work. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_January_2&oldid=985274897"