Help desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

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 16

04:33:39, 16 January 2018 review of submission by GP1914

GP1914 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

User:GP1914/sandbox/David_Dowsey I do not know how to cite this page. Can you help? GP1914 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first you need to get some decent references. Of the six you have; 1 is to a car auction website, 2 gets me a virus warning, 3 gives me an unsafe site warning, 4 and 5 are ok, and 6 takes me to the J H Cutler page. As far as I can see only 4 and 5 actually support claims made in the article text, which is what references are supposed to do. For example, where you say "He was a founding Advisory Board member for Motorclassica", I'd expect to see a reference which supported that claim. What you've done is put in an embedded link (which we don't use) that doesn't support the claim.

Once you have got the references you need, have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners, as the reviewing editor advised. This gives you comprehensive advice on how to cite. I've done the Bonhams' two in the draft, as examples. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:05, 16 January 2018 review of submission by 49.204.181.6

49.204.181.6 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Kirrak party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I hope I have mentioned all the required references. Pleae verify the page and cite me any alterations required. 49.204.181.6 (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:04, 16 January 2018 review of submission by GlenChet

GlenChet (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what else I can do to adequately source the article. The reviewer says the references don't adequately show the subject's notability, and that more "significant" coverage is required. SCH is a bonafide company run by media personality Stacy Herbert from the Kesier Report. Her Linkedin backs this up, bloomberg.com and beta.companieshouse.gov.uk sites verify the company's incorporation, and bnktothefuture.com is where the raised venture capital funding in 2015. True, there is no new news about SCH from reliable, secondary sources, but I disagree this should be required to approve the article. Please advise.

GlenChet (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, GlenChet, that "news" that you mentioned is required to approve the article. Notability is shown in the form of independent, reliable sources. If you have any further questions, please reply below. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Coindesk article, but no "new" news. I also just added a reference from Bitcoin Magazine. The newest news is the recent company filings from December 2017 which are documented on companieshouse.gov.uk. Why those official, downloadable records from a government agency are less reliable than a news source is puzzling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenChet (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GlenChet. You are confusing reliability with notability. Company filings at Companies House are reliable and may be used as references for statements like "the board of directors appointed so-and-so CEO on such-and-such a date". Sources used to show that a company is notable (worthy of note) must be reliable, but that is not sufficient. They must also be independent, among other things. Nothing written by the company can show notability. It may be unrealistic of you to expect a few-year-old company to have had the significant or demonstrable effects that would justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for promotion, advertising, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]