Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 21
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 20 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 22 > |
| 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 21
[edit]I am a registered user and created an article for review on 7 Jan 2017. It has still not been reviewed. I have had this account for 10 years, and though I haven't been active with articles, I've been an active member of, and contributor to, Wikipedia from early days. I think this article is quite important, and it is long overdue for Wikipedia to have this article. I think I've done a good job researching it and providing references to relevant external media. Can I expedite it? More to the point, if nobody wants to review it, can I just push it myself into the article space out of draft mode? I would think that I could do that based on my standing as a member.--Specific Generalist (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is the draft in question Draft:C4LD? My comment about it is that it does not establish organizational notability because it does not focus on what other people have written about the organization; it focuses on what the organization has written and presented to the public. Can you find news stories that present a neutral view of how the organization has been notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, C4LD is the one. I don't like my earlier version of this response, so I'm deleting it. Please see my comments in Teahouse. I will also try to talk to the reviewer, as suggested there. Specific Generalist (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is the draft in question Draft:C4LD? My comment about it is that it does not establish organizational notability because it does not focus on what other people have written about the organization; it focuses on what the organization has written and presented to the public. Can you find news stories that present a neutral view of how the organization has been notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
12:48:19, 21 January 2017 review of submission by KELiON
[edit]
Hello! I'm trying to add an article about open-source software, that I've created, but it was rejected with note
Note: "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" (see WP:42) KylieTastic (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
What kind of reliable source does it need? Article has several links (web site, twitter, facebook and github).
- Hello, Kelion. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The type of sources that you need are precisely the ones that the reviewer mentioned -- sources that are reliable (see WP:RS) and that are independent of the subject. So right off, the web site, as well as the Twitter and Facebook pages, are not going to help you demonstrate that the software is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. Neither will the GitHub reference, because it appears to be your own posting of material related to your own software. For an indication of the types of sources that you will need, take a look at one of our best-quality articles on software, Microsoft Security Essentials, and note the wide variety of sources that are used, most of which are independent of Microsoft. Without sources of this type, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
19:57:29, 21 January 2017 review of submission by Sarahlucy
[edit]
I would like a second opinion on why my article was declined? kind regards
- Hello, Sarah. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I took a look at your submission and found that I agree with the reviewer. We really do not consider a person "notable" simply because they have a relationship with a notable person. In your draft, the references largely serve only to document the fact that the subject has been employed as a backing vocalist for some major rock stars. But this is not enough to justify an article on the singer. Unless she has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of her, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
22:04:27, 21 January 2017 review of submission by 60.242.178.114
[edit]
Hello Reviewer, First of all, thankyou for taking the time to review my Draft article edit on the Concordia German Choir, Sydney. Whilst I understand that Wikipedia covers much more important topics (I'm a great fan and use it daily) it is important to me, as President of the Choir, to get my article accepted by Wikipedia. I have a further reference I could add to hopefully help with the notoriety issue. It is an Interview with the Radio Station SBS about the Choir but the Podcast is unfortunately in German. I include the link below and hope this helps. Thanks for again for your help. Bernd http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/german/en/content/treffpunkt-german-concordia-choir-sydney-0
- Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Frankly, I think it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication. Although you have succeeded in demonstrating that the choir exists, that in itself is not going to be enough. You will need to demonstrate that the choir has received in-depth coverage from sources that are both reliable and that are independent of the choir. If you can do that, then you'll have a basis for proceeding with developing the draft. Unfortunately, the new interview is not going to help you, not because it is in German but because the interviewee is the conductor of the choir (and, thus, is not independent of the choir). Of course, you could argue that the very fact that SBS was willing to do a podcast of the conductor is an indication of notability. But this argument is not likely to be strong enough to satisfy most people here on Wikipedia (and, for what it's worth, it wouldn't be enough to satisfy me). I wish you the best of luck in finding other sources and I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)