Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 November 5
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 4 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 6 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
November 5
[edit]
Hello! Sorry to bother, was just wondering if you could help me improve my writing skills for the DataLand page? Would really need help with creation of multiple pages.
Benjiebj (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Benjiebj, The issue here isn't so much with your writing skills, but with the subject itself. There are tens of millions of businesses. We have to have some way to determine which ones to cover, which is our notability guideline. Only businesses that have been covered in multiple, reliable, and independent secondary sources may be included. It seems that Dataland does not meet that requirement. In terms of your writing, you should take care to write from a neutral point of view. The current article reads like a promotion. It has too many peacocking words. Non-neutral phrases include "expertise is complemented and enhanced ", "Backed by the solid reputation", "strategically located and envisioned" and many others. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
00:42:19, 5 November 2019 review of draft by Nobo71
[edit]
Just asking, I know that I need more sources. But I would like to know if that is the main reason why it isn't accepted at the moment. I understand that it is not ready. But is it on a positive way to be included? Could it be rated from 1-10 on how good it is at the moment as 1 being bad and 10 being great? Thanks, I would appreacite it.
Nobo71-Wikipedia.org 00:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Nobo71: - so it's not a quality of editing issue, so ranking 1-10 doesn't really make sense (layout and such is fine). It's the lack of suitable sourcing that's the issue. Almost all of your sources are tweets or from Sequester Access. You need several (3 is good) sources that are: in-depth, independent (no reason to be biased and generally no interviews), reliable (good editorial control) and secondary (newspapers, etc). Canyon News might be a decent source (it's not playing well with my laptop), but try finding a couple more reviews from other publications. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
06:38:16, 5 November 2019 review of submission by KBSKasyap
[edit]
KBSKasyap (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- KBSKasyap, This seems to be an average person, like you or I. There is no assertion of their notability, i.e. the reason they should have an article. Only folks who have been covered in multiple, reliable, independent sources can have articles about them. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
08:18:42, 5 November 2019 review of submission by Jazinto99
[edit]
Jazinto99 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Jazinto99, The article had no sources. To include folks on Wikipedia, we need multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss them with significant coverage. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
09:50:58, 5 November 2019 review of submission by Shuvo chandra pall
[edit]
Shuvo chandra pall (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was taken from an engineering student.An engineering student can invent anything within his limit .so i requested all of you please review again and take as a valid article .
- @Shuvo chandra pall: There are many engineering students and notability is what matters and that is based off coverage in reliable secondary sources - it is not notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
11:36:17, 5 November 2019 review of submission by Shivkumawat
[edit]- Shivkumawat (talk · contribs)
Shivkumawat (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- You have instructed to read WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Nothing more we can help. Matthew hk (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
12:13:36, 5 November 2019 review of submission by 194.243.213.83
[edit]
Please, can someone help me for the publication of this page .... Ferdinandi was a famous designer in the 60s in Italy. There are also official news and photos attached, but this profile remains a draft. I hope for a welcome help.
Thanks anyway. 194.243.213.83 (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- You need to read Wikipedia:Citing sources or Help:Referencing for beginners. The subject may be notable, but you need to state which page from the books you listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
68.103.78.155 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
i Put in one reference yesterday so it should be an article by the end of the year. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed with this article, I think the concept has received considered academic and press attention under this title, as you can see at Draft_talk:Blue_space. I can find more if necessary. Do they need to be cited in the article to pass WP:NEO or is their existence sufficient?
83.151.229.56 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- The advice AngusWoof left on the page is pretty good, I'd reccomend you take it. Perhaps ask Angus if you have other concerns. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
21:18:44, 5 November 2019 review of submission by 24.248.175.194
[edit]
Hello K.e.coffman. I would like to know the reason why this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
What would qualify the individual for a page on Wikipedia? I am asking because I do believe Mr. David Amber deserves a page on Wikipedia because of his contributions to the K-Pop music industry.
Thank you.
24.248.175.194 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
21:33:55, 5 November 2019 review of submission by Frakes928
[edit]
I have listened to many user's suggestions and went through to remove externals links and move them to an external links section of the article. I have also cites references to substantiate the news with specific articles.
Frakes928 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Frakes928, There are only two sources. To be notable, a source usually needs, at a minimum, at least 3 sources that are reliable, independent, and discuss the subject with significant coverage. The subject of the draft does not seem to meet those requirements. If you can find three good sources, feel free to add them here and ping me using {{ping|CaptainEek}}. If not, the subject is likely not notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)