Help desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

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 4

10:09:03, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Namir El-Akabi CEO

Namir El-Akabi CEO (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Mr. Namir El Akabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

may i know why the article was rejected? and what are the solutions to publish the article?

Namir El-Akabi CEO (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namir El-Akabi CEO You were told why at the top of the draft. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or to post your resume. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:32, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Seekbalance

Seekbalance (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Olympia Devine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am new here and am hoping for some advice to make this article consistent with the "purpose of Wikipedia." I wrote the article as Olympia Devine is a notable author, and I think she should be represented on Wikipedia. I have read the Guide to writing your first article, Policies and guidelines and others. Please let me know how I can amend this article to read more encyclopedic and less promotional. Thank you. Seekbalance (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seekbalance: Maybe try these steps for your next attempt:

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

Note: I am not an admin and cannot say how "worse" it was therefore. You may want to have a look at WP:PEACOCK. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:18, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Broxigar2020

Broxigar2020 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Paul Doherty (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I was wondering if you could review the decision to deny approval for the page 'Paul Doherty (politician)'?

The criteria for WP:BASIC states:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

There is now at least eight sources on the page that fall into the requirements on the first line. Furthermore the depth of coverage requirement appears met since the sources provide both quotes from the subject and in some cases an image of him to accompany it.

This appears to also satisfy the criteria for WP:NPOL:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Could you review or elaborate upon this for me please?

Kind Regards,

Broxigar2020

Broxigar2020 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broxigar2020 As noted, failed political candidates do not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. That this person is quoted in the newspaper about various issues is not "significant coverage" of the person. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly.

Irish News is a sound bite, not significant coverage of him. Same for the Belfast Live group mission piece, the Lenadoon shooting piece from same, the Belfast Telegraph piece, and the Irish Post piece.
The Belfast Live garden piece is entirely stuff he says, and is not significant coverage.
I can't find any evidence that the whitepapers cited have been widely cited by scholars; in any case he doesn't appear to show up on GScholar at all.
His own political party is considered a primary source. Sources need to have no direct connexion to the subject.
The Belfast Live elections piece is a name-drop, not significant coverage. Same for the volunteers piece.

In sum: Your sources are not reliable sources and thus cannot help for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:

The fact that he's an unsuccessful political candidate does not explicitly exclude him from the classifications of WP:NPOLITICIAN

While he may not satisfy the section:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

The following section I quoted:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Appears to be relevant in this case as it's obvious that a political figure is not necessarily an elected one and the number of articles in comparison to other local political figures is certainly more 'significant'.

In addition, the classification of "significant coverage" as you have linked doesn't appear to exclude or conflict the use quotations in the sources provided.

The definition from WP:GNG states:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The second sentence in the quoted text appears clearly relevant here whereby while the article isn't explicitly about the subject, the coverage is more than a trivial mention.

Furthermore there are a series of issues covered within these sources which, while they may be only a few lines, touch upon key contextual issues within the area.

1A. The Irish News piece clearly notes the subject as the founder of the charity, explains his background with it and the challenges they face with COVID-19. 1B. As stated above, the use of quotation's doesn't exclude or conflict with the definition stated in WP:GNG and considering these are used throughout the article I don't see how the qualify as only a 'sound bite'. 1A. In addition, the source on his opposition to paramilitary attacks clearly addresses the subject's position on the topic directly and in detail as required in the WP:GNG. This represents a key contextual position within the politics of Northern Ireland due to historical background, especially within West Belfast. For the context on this please read The Troubles. 2. Same as noted above in^. 3. The medical journals I included were primarily for source of his current profession. 4. I agree the SDLP source is a primary one. 5. The Belfast Live election coverage article is arguably one of the main sources from a political standpoint as it addresses another key topic directly and in detail, the section where he states "willing to go to Westminster" is one of the most contentious issues in Northern Ireland politics as it refers to differences in constitutional viewpoints in Northern Ireland, for the context please read the 'In Ireland' section of Abstentionism.

Apologies for not initially including the contextual information originally but I believe the this should explain why certain aspects are included as such.

Does the above information fit the WP:BASIC if not the WP:NPOL requirement?

Kind Regards, Broxigar2020

--Broxigar2020 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: fix broken ping. @Broxigar2020: Pings only work if you sign your edit by typing four ~'s at the end. (In the toolabr above the edit window its the button right next to italics on the right side, like this:

Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broxigar2020: Hi there, I looked through the sources in the article and I can't find any that feel like they satisfy the significant coverage requirement. You've pointed out the Irish News piece, but unless I'm looking at the wrong article or if I'm missing pages, these are the only two details I learn about Doherty: he organised a festival and he's an SDLP representative. That's not in-depth by a long shot, and it's not independent, since it focusses largely on his own words. Interviews don't count toward notability. The sort of coverage I'd expect to see that qualifies as in-depth would include details like: birthdate; birth place; his life growing up; what university he attended; what military service he might have had; information about his political stance; criticism of his political stance; praise and criticism of his political work; etc. And no, not just one piece of data in each article, "significant coverage" means that a reporter sat down, did research, and wrote detailed content about the man himself. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb:

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

The sources provided outline factual information as well as key political and social viewpoints, two of which I listed above with their context.

The definition of independence is listed as at WP:GNG is:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

All of these articles are not produced by the subject or someone affiliated with him. Thus from the definition Wikipedia has provided it is independent. I can't see it stated any where why the use of quotations would prevent it from being independent especially when it's common practice in news reporting.

The sources used also are not interviews, they're all articles on topics for which the subject is consulted in order to discuss them and as noted above.

Furthermore I don't think the level of detail you've outlined there is something that even available from the perspective of Northern Ireland politics when the likes of primary sources or social media is excluded.

As an example please find four Wikipedia pages of the elected officials from Northern Ireland from the biggest political parties:

Sinn Féin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_McGuigan (1 Primary source used) DUP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bradley (No sources used) SDLP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Catney (1 Primary source used) UUP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Butler (1 source used that has trivial mention)

While I'm clearly not arguing these are exemplar pages, the depth and information of the sources I have provided in the page created far outweigh these and outlines the fact the level of information you've listed from a Northern Ireland perspective doesn't have the same level of detail.

Especially when the definition for WP:GNG explicitly states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

Hope this again provides further context. While I'm not arguing any pages above should be taken down, I can't understand why the one I've created is denied while these permitted especially when if you take a larger example of political figures in Northern Ireland the page I wrote still outweighs most.

Kind Regards, Broxigar2020

--Broxigar2020 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:16, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Weareme234

Weareme234 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Economy of Bokaro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Weareme234 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:08, 4 November 2020 review of submission by 31.182.61.2

31.182.61.2 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Spoon Murder 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did you reject this page? Yes, it is about an arthouse film from a small country, but why is this article unworthy of being on Wikipedia? There are a huge number of similar articles. I have provided real links to authoritative local sites and one authoritative world site (imdb)

31.182.61.2 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an authoritative site. It's user-contributed, which we do not allow as references. See WP:RS and WP:UGC. The mere existence of a film doesn't mean that it is notable. Notability is established by showing that the subject received significant (in depth) coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]