Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 April 2
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 1 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 3 > |
| 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. |
April 2[edit]
14:30:50, 2 April 2018 review of submission by Neypar9[edit]
Hello,
I am working in conjunction with a colleague of mine (Neypar9) to submit a draft for publication on the wiki platform. The draft was initially rejected and re-edited to meet the guidelines, however the reviewer has rejected the article again requesting information not outlined by wiki guidelines.So we are requesting that the article be submitted to another editor for review. Neypar9 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Declined for citing no independent, reliable sources, and thus failing to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
16:38:32, 4 PMpMon, 02 Apr 2018 14:47:40 +000047Monday, 2018 review of submission byNewroderick895[edit]
Why is my draft not reviewed, C'mon, it has 25 sources and is good, Can somebody review it, either you can accept the draft or reject it.
Newroderick895 14:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Newroderick895. About 1,330 drafts have been waiting longer to be reviewed than Draft:Kronans Apotek. At the current rate of reviewing, you can expect it to be reviewed by the end of May. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm Is this how i will wait? for 2 months?!!? (dont ban me, i just didnt mean to be a jerk) Newroderick895 15:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
14:49:04, 2 April 2018 review of submission by Neypar9[edit]
This a follow-up to the request for another editor to review an article submitted by User "Neypar9". We are including the Wiki guidelines as well as links to information that meets those guidelines that I submitted to the last editor in hopes that after review he would approve the article for publication.
"A S.O.G. here and I'm responding on behalf of my colleague"NeyPar9"to your decision to decline our request to have a page created for the artist known as Qmoog. We have noticed that in your response you indicated a lack of notoriety for this artist as your reasoning for declining our page request. Having investigated wikipedia guidelines further we have discovered that the subject need only to satisfy one of the qualifications to be considered "Notable". As a result, I am including two of those guidelines of which this artist meets that criteria along with links to verify them: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crammed_Discs), "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album."(https://www.discogs.com/Various-The-Deepest-Shade-Of-Techno-III/release/8187).
After you have taken the opportunity to review this information, I believe you will come to the conclusion that this artist warrants inclusion on the Wikipedia platform and we respectfully request that you approve the article.
Thank you for your time
Best regards," Neypar9 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Neypar9. Having released two albums on Crammed Discs is a plausible argument for meeting WP:MUSICBIO criterion #5 (I make no comment on The Deepest Shade of Techno because discogs, being user-generated, is not a reliable source), so Qmoog may be notable. Use that in the first or second sentence or to tell the reader what Qmoog is known for, as described in MOS:BLPLEAD.
- The reason for notability guidelines is to ensure that articles comply with Wikipedia's policies. Our policy on verifiability says, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Also note that the bulk of any article should be based on secondary sources.) What reviewers may have failed to convey is that Wikipedia cares very little about what Qmoog and his label say about Qmoog. Almost all Wikipedia is interested in is what independent sources say about Qmoog, and the draft isn't citing any independent sources. Start over with at least three independent reliable sources, perhaps reviews by professional music critics in reputable publications of those two releases on Crammed Discs. Base the draft mainly on those independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Neypar9: I agree with Bruce, but just wanted to say, props for doing your legwork and checking your topic against the criteria of WP:Notability (music). A lot of people beat their head against the wall working a draft but never bother to read that policy recommended to them, so you've saved yourself a lot of hassle. Concur with Bruce that you need to make sure you don't "bury the lead" but rather make it explicitly clear in the first one or two sentences just what the band is Notable for. But yes, now that you've tackled that the next issue is finding WP:Independent sources covering the band. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
21:24:19, 2 April 2018 review of submission by Aparashar[edit]
Hi - how can one single line "Potpourri Group is a direct marketing company based in Massachusetts, USA. It was founded in 1963 [1] and now has 15 [2] brands in its portfolio" be described as "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." It is a matter of fact encyclopedic statement. Please review again. Aparashar (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Aparashar - Have done, and I'd agree with the original reviewer. We determine whether companies warrant an article on Wikipedia by assessing Notability. We assess Notability by looking for "significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject". In this case, the only source is the company's website. That's not significant coverage and it's not independent. So what you have is two sentences about a marketing company sourced to itself. On the world's biggest online encyclopedia. To me, that's an attempt to advertise. I see this is the only article you've ever tried to write. Do you have a connection to the company? If you do, that needs to be declared as a conflict of interest. Hope this is helpful. KJP1 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)