Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 12
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 11 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 13 > |
| 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. |
February 12
[edit]04:43:23, 12 February 2017 review of submission by Vandhi100
[edit]I have been contributing several articles to wikipedia.but recently my articles are either deleated or redirected.recently i created a wikipedia for J.Deepa jayakumar,Niece of former chief minister of Tamil Nadu miss. J.Jayalaitha.she has been in politics since her aunts demise.so i created a wikipedia for her.because common people should know information about her.but you are deleating it continously.same like that you have redirected a article which i made for googly 2 ,movie.acually i used to create a article based on true facts.for that purpose only i gave reference about googly 2 in its page.but also you rediredted.i need a proper explanation and restroration of my articles.if wikipedia admins keep on doing like this i will exit wikipedia.
Vandhi100 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Vandhi. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I regret that you've been finding it difficult to write articles that are suitable for publication here. However, this is not the appropriate place to ask for explanations about the two articles you mentioned. After your biography on J. Deepa had been declined by one of our reviewers, you chose to publish it yourself. It was deleted (not by us) and, when your request for undeletion was denied, you did receive an explanation for the denial. You then chose to recreate it, and that recreated version is now being discussed at Articles for Deletion. That will be a good place for you to engage in discussion with the folks who are currently debating the fate of the recreated article. (You can find a link to the discussion in the large box near the top of the article.) As for the re-directed article on the film, the best source of information as to why it was redirected will be the person who did it. You can discuss the matter with that editor at User talk:Cyphoidbomb. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
09:06:34, 12 February 2017 review of submission by Arsenal966
[edit]- Arsenal966 (talk · contribs)
As for the moment, there are not much information on her on the internet at the moment, and as I seen on other singapore local mediacorp artise, their sources are not a lot also.
Arsenal966 (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Declined "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." If there is little information about her in reliable sources, there should not be a stand alone article about her. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
11:23:33, 12 February 2017 review of submission by Var4796
[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjeevan Do you think this page has good references?
Var4796 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Var4796: No, I don't think that Ramjeevan cites reliable sources. That's probably one of the reasons Ajeem95 tagged it for notability. If it can't be improved, it will doubtless be deleted. If you're looking for examples of good references, browse Wikipedia's featured articles. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. There are high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not a good reason to create more such articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Carrie Scarr (talk · contribs)
Can you give suggestions on the type of resources that this page needs to be considered a notable business?
Carrie Scarr (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Carrie Scarr: New Hampshire Business Review is a start. However, per WP:AUD, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". The Wall Street Journal would be better.
- The bulk of an article should come from independent sources, so I recommend that you get rid of the press releases. That will also help with the tone, which is promotional. None of their authors are notable, so eliminate that entire section. None of the awards are significant (and National Indie Excellence Awards redirects to Vanity award), so eliminate that section. The fact that a publisher's books are distributed by booksellers is not encyclopedia-grade information, so drop the distribution partners section. Corporate responsibility activities that are covered only by the company have no place in an encyclopedia, so delete those sentences. Growth rates for small companies are largely irrelevant puffery.
- By this point it should be clear that MindStir Media is non-notable (as are most businesses). Articles created about them were deleted on 3 October, 12 October, and 8 November 2016. If a freelancer were to agree to write an article about such a company, they would have a fool for a client, and wouldn't be doing the wisest thing themselves. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
15:57:32, 12 February 2017 review of submission by Athalia Strickland
[edit]My article creation was not accepted. Can someone please be specific as to why and advise me as to how I can make corrections so that it can be accepted? Thanks! Athalia Strickland (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Athalia Strickland (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Athalia. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. An unsourced one-sentence autobiography is unlikely to ever be accepted for publication (and I say "unsourced" because linking to the main page of the Patent Office is not a proper way to reference the existence of a patent). You might want to read WP:Your first article, which will provide an introduction to the process. Also of interest will be our conflict-of-interest guidelines. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Athalia Strickland: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Holding a patent is not notable. There is no indication that Athalia Strickland is notable, so Wikipedia should not have an article about them. No amount of editing can correct that. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
22:57:48, 12 February 2017 review of submission by Ailunn
[edit]
I am having trouble understanding why this version was rejected. I cited three third-party news sources. As for the YouTube citation, it was only used to verify their total view count. This is a hard number, not a video interview or anything. The only other two sources I used were links to their Bandcamp page which show the release dates. I cut most of what I had on account of it not being cited by a third party. I've seen artists with less news coverage than that which I have provided here be approved. Please explain why you feel these sources are not enough.
- Unfortunately, three sources is not enough. A wide range of sources is required, preferably from reliable sources and major news outlets. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)