Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 25 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 27 >
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 26

[edit]

00:09:47, 26 March 2019 review of draft by 84.46.52.233

[edit]


Special:WhatLinksHere/Pendu Sound Recordings is at 9 (excl. talk) and should be 17 based on my count, am I supposed to create the missing links as red links or wait for the publication? –84.46.52.233 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had an account (so that you didn't need to go through AfC), were confident of the notability of the topic, and intended to create the target article in the immediate future, there might be value in creating more red links to signal that. Going through AfC, the timeline is uncertain enough that it would be better to wait for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^.^b I'm confident and have an account, but I didn't use it for three years. Not planning to change that anytime soon (excl. commons for one "necessary" upload session.) I'll wait, it's documented on the talk page. –84.46.52.41 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:48:26, 26 March 2019 review of submission by Hridesh pratap singh sisoudiya

[edit]


Hridesh pratap singh (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


05:25:25, 26 March 2019 review of submission by Jirachibi

[edit]


I am checking to make sure the article is okay now. I have cited other sources from different sites, added the length of the album, a little more history on it, filled the track listing, etc.

Jirachibi (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jirachibi: - the youtube sources (all as primary sources) don't add anything when it comes to notability or supporting contentious facts. This means they might be fine for tracklisting etc, but can't demonstrate he wrote it on his own.
Projekt, voltaire's own site and cdbaby also don't help notability - out of a combination of lacking reliability, independence and significant coverage. I can't speak for Halloween Love - it may or may not be a suitable source. However, on it's own it won't help demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much else. This is a super obscure musician. If you google the album, all you will find is places to buy it and voltaire's own site. I found ONE review of the album, and not even an article talking about it. Also, all of his other albums on Wikipedia only have cdbaby and his own site as references, so why are those okay but this isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirachibi (talk • contribs) 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jirachibi: - a brief look says that some aren't okay. I look over large numbers of discography/album articles and either add sources or redirect. Single good source album pages are often left there because they only need 1 more good source, and the deletion process requires demonstrating there aren't sources. AfC, on the other hand, requires the appropriate level of sourcing to pass review - if only because the New Page Patrollers (who check articles once they come into existence) would probably hold it up/designate it for deletion, and we work very hard to avoid that. The checking process is more thorough in 2019 than 2006 when some of the others were created. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:44, 26 March 2019 review of draft by 2401:4900:2EEC:D71F:2C8C:C259:44BF:1B04

[edit]


2401:4900:2EEC:D71F:2C8C:C259:44BF:1B04 (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2401:4900:2EEC:D71F:2C8C:C259:44BF:1B04: - so I reviewedit as it was when the reviewer declined it - and they were right to do so. The article was wildly advertorial.
You've resubmitted, so it will get another review in the fullness of time. I gave the new form a 2 minute check just on advertorial issues.
You have made some changes which have partially improved it (it's no longer like a brochure/product list, at least). I do feel it is still significantly advertorial - it's all about the progress made over time, benefits it's bought, how modern it is etc. This is particularly notable in the awards/certificates - that various ISO and food handling standards are met is nothing significant, so don't warrant the prominence given (and probably not mentioning at all). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a state owned large company I believe this is a notable topic but it needs to be written from a WP:NPOV. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:07:15, 26 March 2019 review of draft by ASJCL

[edit]


Dear Sir or Madam,

I received the following comment on my latest submission: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Dr. Jean-Christophe Leroux. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you."

The article Dr. Jean-Christophe Leroux, however, does not exist. I created it and it was declined. How can I edit it and publish it?

Thank you very much in advance.

Best wishes, ASJCL

ASJCL (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ASJCL that seems to be an error. I can't find an existing article about him. Anyway I've fixed the title amd given comments on the draft for you. Hope that helps. Sorry for the wierd decline. Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:01, 26 March 2019 review of submission by Crameraj

[edit]


Hello,

I've been trying to create an article for the podcasting company The Fantasy Footballer for over a year now, but the article keeps getting rejected without any context. I've repeatedly asked for a reference to another podcast company that would meet the criteria and none of the reviewers have been able to provide an example, nor point to a specific section of the article which disqualifies the article. Since the original creation, the company's notability has continued to grow and additional independent sources have been added as they become available.

What is missing and/or needed to bring this article up to the standard?

Thank you, Andrew

Crameraj (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crameraj. The rejection of the draft is meant to be final. The last three reviews have said it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. I think the sense is that if being worked on for over a year and reviewed six times hasn't fixed the problem, then no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable, and it would be a waste of resources to continue with the topic.
One red flag in the draft is that each source is essentially used exactly once (in the awards section some are used 2-3 times, but only because of how you've structured the list). That can indicate that no source contains significant coverage of the topic. If one did, you would be able to cite it multiple times in different parts of the article. I checked 20% of the sources at random and found one dead link and five mentions of a sentence or less. And one of those is in FantasyPros, the reliability of which is questionable.
Editors have created some articles about podcasting companies, but I cannot recommend any of them as examples that meet the notability criteria (existence doesn't mean they should exist, it may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).
If you nevertheless want to pursue this, go through WP:THREE as an exercise for yourself. If you can identify three strong sources, use them for as much of the draft as you can, and get rid of as many passing mentions as possible. AfC is an optional process. If you have no conflict of interest with the topic, you may ignore the advice you've asked for and move the topic to article space yourself. But it may be deleted there. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Worldbruce. Thank you for this detailed response, I wish more reviewers would provide concrete suggestions before hitting reject. I had never considered using fewer sources in multiple places as a way to make a stronger article. It is worrying to me that there may not be any good examples of a podcasting company that meets the standards. I'll definitely think about this for a while. Crameraj (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Worldbruce. It appears someone else took the strategy you recommended in February and Fantasy Footballers is now an article. What do you think is the best way to merge or delete the article I created? Crameraj (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_March_26&oldid=890526279"