Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 October 28
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 27 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 29 > |
| 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. |
October 28[edit]
I like to know why mine drafts for Chelsea (Season 1) and Chelsea (Season 2) were declined at Articles for Creation.
Silentstorm24 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Silentstorm24: Draft:Chelsea (Season 1) and Draft:Chelsea (Season 2) were declined for not citing any independent, reliable sources. The show summaries also violate copyright, and the subject of the drafts already exists in Wikipedia at List of Chelsea episodes (2016) and List of Chelsea episodes (2017). Please fix the problems in the existing articles rather than continuing with the drafts. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
15:04:37, 28 October 2017 review of submission by Crestol[edit]
My article was declined. Two main reasons were given: lack of published reliable secondary sources and no clear evidence of the subjects notability. In dealing with the subject, Mr. Don E.Stevens, there is a lack of independent material as there are no biographies yet available. Laurent Weichberger is currently working on an authorized biography. I used books that have been published and are verifiable-they simply needed to be researched. In the Meher Baba community , Don Stevens holds a prominent position. I think the reviewers are not familiar with Meher Baba and turned down the article for this reason. Can the article be re-reviewed by someone with knowledge of Meher Baba (possibly the reviewer of Baba's page and the pages that are linked to it)? Thank you.
Crestol (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Crestol: The form of the draft's notes and references makes them difficult to follow, but if I understand you correctly, the cited sources are: books written by or edited by Stevens, a document that mentions Stevens in passing, and a Facebook posting. The latter is not a reliable source. A passing mention doesn't demonstrate notability because it is not significant coverage. Things Stevens wrote or edited are not independent of him, and thus cannot prove that he is notable. Original research, that is your analysis of Stevens through his published work, is not allowed on Wikipedia. The bulk of any article should be based on indpendent, reliable, secondary sources. If, as you say, "there are no biographies yet available", then it would seem that the only way forward is to wait until some things along those lines are available. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)