Help desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

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.

June 19

09:22:22, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Anketil

Anketil (talk · contribs)

I am trying to explain how the name of JUBY was derived since there has been much incorrect information (often rubbish) written about it. Many if not most are from my family papers, Wills, armorial bearings, Mentions in State Papers, Rolls, Inquisitions post mortem, etc. Hos best can I list these without having my (short) paper rejected again please? Dr Bernard JUBY Anketil (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anketil. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published, secondary sources. Any analyses or interpretation of primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be original analysis by you of the primary-source material. If a book or article has been published using your family papers, wills, etc. as source material, then you may cite the book or article, but the degree to which primary sources may be used directly is extremely limited. If you wish to publish original research, you'll want to try an alternative outlet. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:00, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Veronika Eriksson

Veronika Eriksson (talk · contribs)
- User:Veronika Eriksson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, my post was rejected... Why is that?

Veronika Eriksson (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veronika Eriksson. The sentence fragment of which the draft consists appears to be in Swedish; English Wikipedia can only accept articles written in the English language. The draft makes no claim that the subject is significant (that it belongs in an encyclopedia). Furthermore, it appears auto-biographical. For these reasons, the submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:09:41, 19 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikiupdater1997

Wikiupdater1997 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Chandigarh Sports Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikiupdater1997 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiupdater1997: Any article about an organization must cite multiple, in-depth, reliable, secondary sources other than the organization itself. For example, if someone has written books or magazine articles about CSC, use them as the basis for the draft. If no independent, reliable, secondary sources exist, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:03, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Misceditor1000

Misceditor1000 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Beaver Valley Cinemas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Was declined as being non-notable yet the sources I provided should mean it's notable enough for an article. If it's been mentioned in news sources, I feel it should be considered notable for an article. May be because I ref'd Loews Theatres' Wikipedia article titled as Loews Cineplex Entertainment, but I definitely didn't cite it using ref tags (pretty sure WP articles can't be ref'd with ref tags). If it really WAS declined just for referencing Loews Cineplex Entertainment's WP article using hyperlinking even though several other articles on here do the same thing, I'll be mad. I'll also be mad if this project all of a sudden starts claiming the sources it provided as selections for reference sources aren't reliable. If they aren't reliable, then why can they be chosen as reference sources? Misceditor1000 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Misceditor1000. When you seek clarification about a specific reviewer's actions, it's most effective to ask them on their talk page, rather than asking in a general forum. Reviewers are fallible human beings, like the rest of us. If they've made a mistake, it's important that they know about it, and they usually welcome an opportunity to rectify it. If you are unable to get a satisfactory explanation that way, or need a second opinion, then turn to this help desk.

My own guess would be that the wikilink to Loews Theatres had nothing to do with the draft being declined. Based on the text in the big pink box on the draft, the reviewer applied WP:GNG and found the draft lacking. The cited sources are a blog, two citations to cinematreasures.org, and four citations to works by one author at the Dayton Daily News. WP:BLOGS are almost never deemed reliable sources. Cinematreasures.org does not exhibit the characteristics of a reliable source, but if you think it is one, you could seek an affirmative opinion at WP:RSN. For notability, "A series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source". So the reviewer may have concluded that in net, the draft has a single independent reliable source, whereas multiple sources are expected.

If so, what can you do about it? Perhaps you can add independent reliable sources. One that supports the unsourced text in Draft:Beaver Valley Cinemas#Opening, or other unsourced statements, would be a good start. WikiProject Film may be able to suggest useful sources. At least one source outside Dayton would be beneficial, because if a reviewer evaluates the subject as a business, WP:CORP's stricture that "attention solely from local media ... is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" is likely to come into play. If you wish to argue that the building is notable, then the following may be informative:

I hope this shows you some ways forward. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'll consider these things and maybe ask the reviewer. Misceditor1000 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]