Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 16 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 18 >
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.


September 17

[edit]

00:04:08, 17 September 2019 review of submission by FunnyTomato227

[edit]


FunnyTomato227 (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunnyTomato227: - thus far the subject hasn't received any suitable coverage - even the buzzfeed article is by a community contributor and not vetted by the editorial staff, so isn't reliable. Once either the book or site is finished, additional coverage may be made. This should not be resubmitted until that additional, suitable, coverage is made. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:49:00, 17 September 2019 review of submission by Kikiramomobami

[edit]


Kikiramomobami (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate - there is an open pending question just above this one Nosebagbear (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:49:12, 17 September 2019 review of submission by Kikiramomobami

[edit]


Kikiramomobami (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate - there is an open pending question just above this one Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:28:19, 17 September 2019 review of submission by Gameofdrones967

[edit]


I believe the article ascribes to Wikipedia's 5 pillars and is worth adding to Wikipedia for a few reasons. It is sufficiently important, being a growing creator in Eugene, Oregon it helps to flush out the cities growing community. Additionally, it is written from a neutral point of view and stands to record facts and events. If any aspect is biased, feel free to edit. I believe this page will grow significantly in the coming years and would help tremendously to have a starting point for people to continually edit.

Gameofdrones967 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No...as the rejection notice says "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:49, 17 September 2019 review of submission by Gameofdrones967

[edit]

I believe this article is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia since it is the groundwork for a growing creator in Oregon. The current article is a jumping-off point for other members of the community to add to once more notable achievements are made. Gameofdrones967 (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 04:52:18, 17 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Maren Rosenberg

[edit]



Maren Rosenberg (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:09:36, 17 September 2019 review of submission by 2001:4408:4401:1F:4A1A:6980:3198:412F

[edit]

Kindly review the Draft:Ji_Golpor_Ses_Nai again as the film is an important part of history of Assamese Cinema, deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Thanks 2001:4408:4401:1F:4A1A:6980:3198:412F (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). The draft has been examined by five experienced Wikipedians, all of whom reached the same basic conclusion. Volunteers do not intend to review it again unless something fundamental changes, such as the film being released. If it's an important part of the history of Assamese Cinema, then when books are written about that history, the film will be discussed therein. Wikipedia may not be used for advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:16, 17 September 2019 review of submission by 69.193.135.214

[edit]

Hi! I need help understanding what specific changes I should make to the page in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The reason for its decline stated that it "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources," and as you'll see, I included 16 entirely independent, highly reputable sources -- none of which included content produced by or for the company. Additionally, when modeling this submission, I took careful pains to ensure it matched the near-exact format of other published Wikipedia pages (such as Rent_the_Runway and Hims,_Inc.). So I'm really unsure as to what I should be editing. The more specific guidance, the better! I welcome any & all feedback. Thank you! 69.193.135.214 (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:06, 17 September 2019 review of draft by 98.118.4.223

[edit]


This morning, my draft was declined with the comment "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information." My draft was declined even after the changes I made between 04:11 and 04:20 today. I don't know how this draft still reads like a news report. To the best of my knowledge, I do not use relative time-sensitive words such as "yesterday," "last week," and "recently" as I would if this were written in news style. As I mentioned on the draft's talk page, I believe the content of my draft focuses more on the disappearance of the person than it does on the person herself. The event seems to meet the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:EVENT. As demonstrated by the references present in the draft, the event has been covered by various news sources at different times in the last ten years, so it does not appear to be a "routine kind of news event."

98.118.4.223 (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:40, 17 September 2019 review of submission by Srcollier94

[edit]

I am working on creating an article for the Archivists and Archives of Color Roundtable. Most of my sources come from the SAA, which is problematic, but I have been trying to fill it with other notable secondary sources. I absolutely believe this is an important group that deserves its own wikipedia page, as it has encouraged the growth of diversity among archivists and archives across the United States. If there are any suggestions on some good secondary sources, that would be helpful, or even just a quick read-through of what I have so far would be incredibly helpful. Thanks! Srcollier94 (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srcollier94. Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. You are correct that being sourced mainly from SAA is problematic. The bulk of any article should come from independent sources. Don't confuse being worthy of support with having been taken note of by the world at large. Many, many organizations do excellent and worthwhile work, but are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article. I recommend setting the topic aside and improving Wikipedia in other ways. See the Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:25:36, 17 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ballroad

[edit]


I'm new and would like to know the proper way to construct the article I'm trying to publish. Where did I go wrong and what is exactly do I need to create a proper article. Did I insert something against Wikipedia?


Ballroad (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked and responded to at the Teahouse. see here

Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_September_17&oldid=985270887"