Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 March 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 10 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 12 > |
| 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. |
March 11
[edit]
- 99.122.94.64 (talk · contribs)
99.122.94.64 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, IP address. You haven't asked a question and I'm unsure whether you are the person who authored the draft. Would you care to ask a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
08:02:15, 11 March 2017 review of submission by Philprey
[edit]
Hello:
Why was the entry not approved and what do I need to do so it gets approved?
Philprey (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Philprey. Have you read the explanation the reviewer left on Draft:Congressional Disabled Staff Caucus and on your talk page? Their immediate concern was insufficient context. Wikipedia is written for readers from Albania to Zimbabwe. Don't assume that all readers have the same background as yourself. This issue is explained at greater length in Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Also pay particular attention to what it says about the lead section. Why is this organization notable? Cite reliable sources that show it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
08:48:04, 11 March 2017 review of submission by Rangka05
[edit]
Karthik Rangarajan 08:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. My article has been rejected for more than 2 times. He is an editor of an movie in Tamil industry. I have given reference for that. I could not understand why it is declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangka05 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Rangka05. The sourcing of Draft:Pradeep E ragav Film editor is weak. It cites Wikipedia, which is not allowed because it is user-generated, and therefore not a reliable source. It also cites two blogs, which are not reliable sources and should be removed. Behindwoods confirms that Pradeep edited Kathakali, but contains only one other sentence about his work. IndiaGlitz doesn't mention Pradeep by name, and only mentions the editing of Kathakali very briefly. To demonstrate that Pradeep is notable the draft needs to cite several reliable sources that contain a significant depth of information about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
18:53:54, 11 March 2017 review of submission by Cyanococcus
[edit]- Cyanococcus (talk · contribs)
I'm trying to create a Stub, in preparation for an Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon happening on March 18th. I wanted a simple, neutral, short entry that new users could add to. I see sites that are very similar, with even fewer citations, that have been accepted. Here is a good example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariposa_County_Arts_Council
I see that in California, just about every arts council, by county, has their own Wikipedia entry. In New York, not a single arts council has an entry. I added all New York Arts Councils, by county, to this page yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_council I thought if I could get the Delaware Valley Arts Alliance accepted, then we could move on to the other counties.
Any suggestions? Cyanococcus (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Cyanococcus. Thanks for getting involved in Art+Feminism. It's natural to think that it would be good to create more articles like an existing article. What that fails to take into account is that because anyone can create an article, many are created that don't belong in Wikipedia. Hundreds are deleted every day. Don't assume that Mariposa County Arts Council was approved through some vetting process, it wasn't. Most likely it exists only because no experienced Wikipedian read it. Many of the author's other articles have been deleted, and that is likely to be this one's fate. It's better to reason from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than from a random article. If you use an article as an example, chose one from among Wikipedia's best.
- The biggest challenge for local groups like Draft:Delaware Valley Arts Alliance usually is the audience section of the notability guidelines for organizations. The draft's only source from outside the immediate area is two sentences in The New York Times. That may be enough. I added the sentences to the citation's quote parameter and repaired the dead link. If you can find another such source, add it.
- Remove sources that don't mention DVAA. This will help the key sources stand out. Anderson's book only makes passing mention of Elaine Giguere in a list of dancers. It is original research to assume that is the same Elaine Giguere DeGaetani who signed the articles of incorporation. Tom DeGaetani's resume has the same problem. Does an article on DVAA really need to mention the population of Narrowsburg, New York? Remove the census. In my experience Wikipedians consider mission statements pointless promotionalism. What arts organization, after all, was ever formed to hinder, discourage, and lobby against the arts? Remove it. Instead show the organization's accomplishments that independent sources (e.g. The River Reporter, The Catskill Chronicle, and the Times Herald-Record) have taken note of. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much WorldBruce! This is extremely helpful. Cyanococcus (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
22:29:49, 11 March 2017 review of submission by Villasmilraven
[edit]
I am not sure I understand why the article was rejected. this person wrote several books in the 19th century and appear in several libraries, like the Library of Congress and the NationalLibrary of the Republic of Venezuela. could you please be morespecific and help me. thank you, alberto villasmil raven.
- Hi Villasmilraven. Editors decide whether Wikipedia should have an article about a topic by performing a notability test. Having written books that are in libraries is not enough to guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. All of the ways of qualifying for inclusion rely on coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources - what has been written about Macpherson rather than by Macpherson. The draft cites no such sources, and the way it's worded suggests that such sources may not exist. If you want to write about Macpherson, you may have better luck at an alternative outlet, such as FamilySearch, which has different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)