Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 18
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 17 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 19 > |
| 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. |
January 18
[edit]01:55:51, 18 January 2017 review of submission by TGLea
[edit]
is very good comrade, why no like?
bob is true hero save many live dont disrespect comrade please 02:01:19, 18 January 2017
14:36:53, 18 January 2017 review of submission by DGFrost
[edit]
Need assistance with referencing and making the page notable with the articles etc that are available to use online
DGFrost (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, DG. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. As things stand right now, your submission will not be accepted for publication simply because it has no references. If you have not been able to locate references from reliable sources that are independent of the band and that provide it with substantial coverage, then your submission will likely never be accepted for publication. On the other hand, if you have located such references, but are simply unsure as to how to add them to the draft, you might want to take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners and our WP:Tutorial, both of which will provide information on how to do this. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dears,
I am trying to write an article about an arabic / syrian singer called Faia Younan.
My article got deleted for (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events))
However, I'm pretty sure the artist is credible and important enough to have an independent page.
Therefore, I am kindly requesting assistance and advises on how to improve the article i published to show further credibility of the subject.
Thank you in advance,
TestCandidate 18:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Test. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The basic problem with your submission is that it has only one reliable source. That source was published on June 15, 2015 and both of the "A7 deletions" took place after that date. So, you are presenting us with no new demonstrations of notability. For your draft to be accepted, you will need to find more references that are reliable and independent of the subject and that discuss her in depth. Without that, your submission will not be accepted for publication. As for finding those sources, you might want to ask the folks at WP:WikiProject Musicians if they have any ideas. Similarly, you might try asking at WP:WikiProject Syria (in both cases, you would ask on the Talk pages of the projects). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am having a hard time understanding why my submission wasn't approved. The listed reason was a need for more sources to verify information and reviewers. Can you tell me how I can improve this on my page so it can be reviewed?
Really appreciate it as this is my first time.
Thanks!
Tank721 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- You need to add more reliable independent references with significant discussion of the subject. References to www.automotivelinux.org are not independent, and references to Wikipedia are not considered reliable (if they were there would be a problem with circularity). Maproom (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
20:36:20, 18 January 2017 review of submission by Mjwill46
[edit]
Hello, I was hoping to get a second opinion on a draft for Saule Omarova. The initial rejection looks to be based solely on a viewing of Google Scholar citation metrics which as the page on notablity for academics points out, can be a bit shaky for fields that are not technologically oriented such as law. Perhaps more importantly her notability could be established particularly under guideline 7 of notability for academics through her congressional testimony, frequent media commentary and op-eds, as well has being the subject of a book chapter written about her relating to financial regulation. All of these are linked to as sources in the draft page and help demonstrate the influence of her work outside of academia. Perhaps those other sources are still not enough to establish notability, but I'm hoping someone can at least take a second look at the draft beyond just a determination based on Google Scholar metrics. Thanks for your time!
- Hello, Mjwill. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I've taken a look at your submission and, although I see it as something of a borderline case, I do agree with the reviewer that the notability threshold has not been met. I agree that citation metrics can not be used as a reliable index of notability, but so did the reviewer (as evidenced by the fact that there was also a citation to WP:NACADEMICS). As you note in your request here, acceptability of the article will ultimately come down to whether the subject has had a "substantial impact outside academia" (i.e., Criterion 7). I presume that you think the subject does satisfy that criterion, but I'm not seeing it. Although the Ivry text does use the subject's name in the subtitle of one of its chapters, the fact remains that the chapter is not really about her and that she is mentioned on only five or six of the chapter's twenty-two pages. And although it is true that she is quoted in an expert capacity in a piece in Rolling Stone magazine, that's just one instance. Even taking into account congressional testimony and a one-off column in the New York Times, I just don't see enough presence "outside academia" to justify an article here on Wikipedia. I do note, however, that you may have done yourself (and the subject) a disservice by presenting all of your references in the form of "bare URL's". By failing to present essential bibliographic detail (such as who wrote a piece, as well as when and where it was published), you make it very difficult to properly assess the significance of the sources. I can't say that our findings would have been any different even if you had provided that essential detail, but I do say that you didn't present your best possible case. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)