Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 8
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 7 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 9 > |
| 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. |
June 8[edit]
- Bsrthereal (talk · contribs)
Hello, I have provided the official website and the IMDb profile of the film, IMDB pages of the stars. Still didn't get published. what else do I need to provide? Please help.
Bsrthereal (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Bsrthereal Official websites are a primary source and do not establish notability. IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source as it is user-editable. We are interested in significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are independent of this film(or its makers), showing how it meets the definition of a notable film. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
09:03:08, 8 June 2021 review of submission by Nur781[edit]
Nur781 (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nur781 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
21:39:59, 8 June 2021 review of submission by Longislandbrief[edit]
My article submission for RealtyMogul has been rejected, and I am looking to get some clarification on this. I am incredibly supportive of the Wikipedia community but right now I am confused and somewhat disappointed. User K.e.coffman states that my article is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think the opposite. There is plenty of notability, and I provided strong sources. There are over 200k investors working with RealtyMogul, and the company is impacting the lives of thousands of families. Furthermore, the company belongs to a group of real estate crowd founding platforms that are making real estate investing available to all. I believe RealtyMogul deserves a Wikipedia page.
Longislandbrief (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Longislandbrief You have a common misunderstanding in that Wikipedia is not a place to mrerely tell about something and what it does. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Almost all of the sources you provided are announcements of routine business transactions, such as money raised through crowdfunding(#1), the opening of an office(#3 and #4), the raising of capital(#6), and similar. As an example, Ford Motor Company merits an article not because it opens or closes factories, or annouces new products, but because independent reliable sources have extensively written about Ford, its history, and effects on society and manufacturing(i.e. assembly lines). Any article about RealtyMogul needs to only summarize what independent sources choose on their own to write about it, describing its effect on its industry or society or anything beyond "the company opened an office and raises money". 331dot (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
331dot Thank you for your comments. I am trying to become a much more engaged and active user of Wikipedia. I am constantly learning and trying to improve the way I participate and learn in the platform. As for RealtyMogul, I kindly ask you to refer to EquityMultiple page. They are in the exact same line of business as RealtyMogul, and their sources are no more independent nor reliable as the ones I have provided for RealtyMogul. As for sources with significant coverage, CNBC is a source that reaches millions of people, and they chose to freely write about the company. Business Insider has also recently written about RealtyMogul https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/realtymogul-investing-review?r=MX&IR=T, and so has US News https://money.usnews.com/investing/real-estate-investments/slideshows/best-real-estate-crowdfunding-platforms?slide=5. You mention Ford Motor Company as an example but that is a company with an extensive history and coverage around the world. Once again, I ask you to please refer to EquityMultiple and kindly indicate how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Thank you in advance. Longislandbrief (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Longislandbrief. I agree with your analysis of EquityMultiple's sources. They plainly fail to demonstrate that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). My own searches convince me that it is not notable, so I've nominated it for deletion. Anyone can create an article, so a lot of crap makes its way into Wikipedia. The community deletes hundreds of inappropriate articles a day, but some slip through - for a while. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why it generally isn't productive to compare drafts to existing articles. It's better to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
- As for Draft:RealtyMogul, CNBC and US News are reliable and independent, but those are not the only requirements for sources about companies. The single paragraph in the latter isn't significant coverage, and the type of piece, "7 best ...", is an example of trivial coverage that doesn't help demonstrate notability. Entrepreneur, TechCrunch, Investopedia, and Business Insider are all classified as "marginally reliable". The remaining sources, Crowdfund Insider, socaltech.com, investorjunkie.com, superbcrew.com, and Finovate are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps if you got rid of all the crummy sources you could persuade a reviewer that in this instance the marginal sources are in fact reliable, independent, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the business, but I wouldn't hold your breath. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Longislandbrief As Worldbruce correctly notes, anyone can put anything into Wikipedia, and not everyone goes through the review process. In addition, article standards have changed over the years, so that what once may have been acceptable is not any longer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and with over 6 million articles to curate, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. This does not mean it has been accepted by the community, only that no one has noticed it for possible action. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits, and why you should not pick any general article as a model. Please see other stuff exists. If you want a model to go by, perhaps a article classified as "good" would be a better one.
- If you would like to pitch in and help out, you are welcome to help identify inappropriate articles for possible action; we can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)