Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 December 4
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 3 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 5 > |
| 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. |
December 4[edit]
Hi there
I think my article has been deleted altogether - but I'm not sure why as its still in draft form? There have been several comments from different editors - thank you for taking the time to rad my Instant Hedge draft. There seem to have been differing points of view though, so its confusing for a newbie writer. I was wondering, if the article is not substantial enough by itself whether it could a section within the Hedge (Hedgerow) entry already on Wiki. I have recently started working in the horticultural industry and have noticed that the term 'instant hedge' is used commonly, but that outside this environment it was not well-known, hence my thoughts about including it within Wiki's definitions.
You thoughts are welcome on whether it should be a sub-division, or if it is enough to stand-alone. I understand I may need to get permission for the link I made to hedgelink.org, which is an information and share source on hedges.
Please help! Many thanks.
Pracbrown (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Pracbrown: How could yo lose an Instant Hedge? It is there. Just follow the link. Fiddle Faddle 11:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
12:03:06, 4 December 2015 review of submission by KaranChopra271[edit]
I am trying to create this article and believe most of the sources used are notable news outlets and official websites.
KaranChopra271 (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting that you decided to forego the AfC process and moved it to the mainspace on your own. Will be interesting to see if it passes the AfD process, since it is currently so poorly sourced. Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
19:02:06, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Sunnylands[edit]
- Sunnylands (talk · contribs)
Hello! I am trying to find out what information I SHOULD put on this artists' wikipedia page and what information i should exclude. I feel like I am overwhelming the page with information in order to prove that this artist is significant enough to have a WIkipedia page. At the same time, the page is looking too full. DO you have any suggestions?
The artist is known for creating a huge walking monument through parts of Mexico. SHould I write a few sentences on that? The artist is also known for a 40 foot tall column at the National Museum of Anthropolog in Mexico City. Should I write more sentences about these major works and exclude his exhibitions?
Thank you for your time!
- @Sunnylands: It looks like your draft has been accepted to the mainspace and is now available at Tomás Chávez Morado. You're welcome to keep contributing to it there! /wia /tlk 08:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I am total confused!! When I initially submitted my page on Gustavo Velasquez for consideration I received a message saying that the page was being reviewed. Then I received a message from an editor saying that the page contained a copyrighted link. I removed the link and resubmitted the page. Then I received a message from another editor, Robert McClenon, saying that Mr. Velasquez "appears to be notable," but there's a formatting problem. When I sent a message asking if Wiki editors were going to correct the formatting problem or is that something I have to do, I received a message from yet another editor, SwisterTwister, saying that Mr. Velasquez does not appear to be notable and to submit additional language strengthening the claim. Mr. Velasquez was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And as an Assistant Secretary for a cabinet agency, he is one of the highest ranking Hispanics in the Obama Administration. How much more notable do you have to be?
170.97.167.69 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem is your choice of sources, government websites do not prove the notability of a government official, any more than a company website proves the notability of employees, managers or owners. What you need are mainstream hard news sources of the status of CNN, New York Times, and so on. On Wikipedia "notability" does not mean "status" or "importance". WP:Notability simply asks one question: "Have reliable sources that are independent of the subject, taken sufficient note of the subject such that they have been motivated to publish substantial information about him/her/it?" As the article promoter it is your role to answer that question. I did a quick "News" search on Google - got many hits which indicate that there are sources available. You need to pick out the good ones, drop the passing mentions and brief "soundbite" quotes - dig out the ones that actually discuss Velasquez in some detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)