Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 December 20
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 19 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 21 > |
| 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. |
December 20
[edit]00:31:58, 20 December 2021 review of draft by Estonians
[edit]
I have an article declined by an administrator. I do not understand the decline and I think it is biased. I am in the process of writing articles on the 2000 most famous DJs in the world. This is typically major artists with substantial performance and millions of streams on Spotify/Apple Music, for them to be ranked that high. I just finalized the second article, and it was declined with strange argument. Such as "Spotify is not a reliable source" - There is no more reliable source in the world to retrieve existing streams pf artists, and overview of releases. "Discogs is not a reliable and independent source". Discogs is the goto site for anyone in the music industry regarding releases, and is basically the Wikipedia of music releases, or the equivalent to IMDB for movies. "YouTube is not a reliable source". How is this even an argument, when it references an interview with the artist from MTV music awards, where the statements are made". "Article seems promotional". I have no connection or personal connection with artist, and found her name on the list from The Official Global DJ Rankings, from where I plan to take all the other 2000 DJs. There is no promotional wording used, only statements of facts. It is concerning this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jessica_(DJ)
Estonians (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- User-created and user-maintained sites like Discogs, Wikipedia itself, and IMDb are not reliable sources by our standards. Likewise, statements by subjects of articles about themselves are not considered reliable sources. All of the above are self-published and not acceptable here. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
04:24:37, 20 December 2021 review of submission by Canadiancon2020
[edit]The article initially got declined due to a lack of sources, which was fair at the time. Since then, I have added a lot more. I was wondering if the article was good to go or if anyone has any suggestions on how to improve it. As I mentioned on the talk page of the article "it is in line with current practices regarding presidents of major Canadian political parties. His predecessors Scott Lamb and John Walsh have wiki pages solely because of holding this role and the presidents of other political parties have wiki pages because of the role that they are currently holding. Suzanne Cowan Further, I think it makes sense because these are public-facing figures who represent and speak on behalf of their parties within their official capacity as a part of their defined role." Any and all help would be much appreciated! Thanks! -Canadiancon2020 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Canadiancon2020 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
10:01:12, 20 December 2021 review of submission by Fatma ismail ahli
[edit]
Fatma ismail ahli (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Fatma ismail ahli You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
11:19:01, 20 December 2021 review of submission by NileshPatel560
[edit]
NileshPatel560 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Editor,
Thanks for reviewing the article.
I've mentioned all the sources to support the mentioned information in the article. The topic has significant coverage in many of the mentioned sources. It'd be great if you can advise me and provide suggestions on how can I improve this article.
I'm looking forward to improving the article by doing the required amendments. Thanks in advance for your suggestions and advice.
NileshPatel560 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Interviews, announcements of company activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
12:12:03, 20 December 2021 review of draft by Abhiram1298
[edit]- Abhiram1298 (talk · contribs)
What are the issues to be corrected in this page.
Abhiram1298 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- You needreliable sources, independent from the subject to show notability. Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
18:16:19, 20 December 2021 review of draft by Dan Franz Bauer
[edit]I hope that I have cleared up the mixing of "references" and "external" links in the last draft. Editor Greenman noted that I should disclose any conflicts of interest. I asked Allan Hoben to write the "forward" to the second edition a book I published 1974. I cited him frequently before I changed by focus from Ethiopia to rural Mexico. I am now retired. §
Dan Franz Bauer (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to understand if the problem with this article is the content or if it is the references? Could I get a bit more feedback on why it has been declined? I have looked at the guidelines for notable people and think this person may still be eligible.
Seivwric (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Seivwric, Identify WP:THREE independent reliable sources that you believe establish notability. only 3. Slywriter (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)