Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 2
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 1 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 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. |
February 2
[edit]
14.139.183.114 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
06:41:11, 2 February 2020 review of draft by FelixtheNomad
[edit]
Hi, I am trying to create my first article, but I've become really confused by what different editors have to say. Given my understanding of notability and citing independent sources, I think I've provided many references which are in line with the guidelines. The subject has also won many awards which I believe also add to the 'additional notability' criteria. The subject has also been written about in news, articles, and books. There is even a book dedicated to his work. Can somebody take a look and provide specific details as to what I might be doing wrong and how can I improve? Or simply help me publish this one, so I can learn by reference and do better next time? Much obliged. FelixtheNomad (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
FelixtheNomad (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Reviewers are often skeptical of drafts about living businesspeople, especially those described as speakers and consultants. Too often, such drafts
- Hi FelixtheNomad. A Pulitzer Prize or Canadian Screen Award would demonstrate notability, but the listed awards do not help. If there isn't a Wikipedia article about an award, it may be because it is insignificant. A good rule of thumb is that if an award is covered only by the awarding organization and the recipient, then it isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Removing the entire section would also help with the draft's promotional tone.
- You write that there is "a book dedicated to his work." Is it from a publisher with a history of fact checking and accuracy (ideally a university press), or is it self-published, such as through Lulu.com? With a few narrow exceptions, self-published books are not reliable sources, should not be cited, and do not help demonstrate notability.
- Quality of sources is far more important than quantity. I recently started an article about a journalist with eight sources: a book entirely about them, two reviews of that book in academic journals, a chapter about them in another book, a magazine article entirely about them, two theses entirely about them, and an encyclopedia entry about them. When a large number of sources is cited, but each is used to support only one fact, or many are cited to support the same fact, it implies that none of them contains much depth about the subject. Make your best sources do most of the work, and throw away poorer sources. You may find the essay WP:THREE a useful exercise.
- If, at the end of the day, the subject simply is not notable (not suitable for inclusion), try a different topic. We have more than 6 million to choose from, 98% of which are assessed as less than "good" by the community, so there is much scope for improving existing articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Worldbruce, thanks for the detailed response. This is all extremely helpful. I've been asking around for this kind of guidance for a couple of days, so thank you for sharing these insights. I have a whole bunch of subjects I want to write about, but I thought this person is notable enough to begin with. I will try to rewrite segments, find more reliable and independent sources, and improve the article. In the meantime, I plan on writing about a bunch of other things. Hopefully, I'll get the hang of it soon enough. Once again, thank you. FelixtheNomad (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
10:08:57, 2 February 2020 review of submission by Abhishekgi1988
[edit]
My Article got rejected, Can you please review it.
Abhishekgi1988 (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Abhishekgi1988: The company just is not notable for Wikipedia, because there are no quality sources. Sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it. And please do not remove the rejection template, this will not help the draft get accepted, and you are only making it harder for us to review it in the future. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
12:12:29, 2 February 2020 review of submission by Itspirantee
[edit]- Itspirantee (talk · contribs)
This blog contains all the content with proofs and references and does not voliates any policy of wikipedia
High authority reference links are attached with respective to the content written in the blog
Please review the article taking in mind all the rules and regulations
Itspirantee (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Itspirantee (talk · contribs)
I have provided all the references to the information provided in the article and After publishing I got "Speedy Deletion" , the blog was in accordance with wiki guidelines and policy . Itspirantee (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- No Itspirantee, it was not "in accordance with wiki guidelines and policy" as none of the sources were independent reliable sources and clearly self promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
18:20:26, 2 February 2020 review of submission by Fibdg
[edit]
I will expand this page through the years of my life. It's about SerHack, and if you search on Google there is a little template of Google about him, but no Wikipedia link. Please consider this page and let it grow.
Fibdg (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fibdg, This person doesn't seem to be notable. We only write about folks who are noteworthy, and this individual does not seem to be. That requires coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, which there do not seem to be. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
19:44:44, 2 February 2020 review of submission by 104.189.106.32
[edit]
Hello! I am coming up quickly in the industry and this Wikipedia page would really help me. Please let me know what I need to bring this dream to a reality. I have loved using Wikipedia since I first found it in 3rd grade. I owe much of the knowledge I have to Wikipedia. 104.189.106.32 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Please re consider 104.189.106.32 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- What you describe is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. We are not here to promote topics, but rather collect already-published information about topics. In other words, we don't make pages to aid up and coming persons, but only document persons when they have already become notable, which means at least multiple independent reliable sources cover them in-depth. None of the sources in the draft fit this. Unfortunately, there's nothing to be done at this time. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)