Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 September 4
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 3 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 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. |
September 4
[edit]08:42:08, 4 September 2021 review of submission by &watiMi&hra
[edit]- &watiMi&hra (talk · contribs)
Added reference links more about the reception of the web series and controversies related with AAP &watiMi&hra (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- &watiMi&hra The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
12:18:47, 4 September 2021 review of draft by 176.59.56.223
[edit]
Good day. May i inquire as to why the citations and references are not deemed as reliable. LA Times article or a confirmation of film festival award. That information can't be contested. Please help to improve the draft. Thank you
176.59.56.223 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are multiple issues, but to mention a fre of them: IMDB is not a reliable source. There is no explanation of what "Free Journal" is. The LA Times review is a minimal mention of Levin. The draft mentions no film festival award; the source you are presumably referring to is in fact available online, and is here. It does say that Levin's film won an award at the Philip K. Dick Science Fiction Film Festival in 2018 – which, again, isn't mentioned in the draft – but we then come to the problem that awards that are not notable do not automatically make a filmmaker notable. Comparing the draft with the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serge Levin it is hard to see that anything has happened since that deletion to make him more notable, and it is interesting that some odd things in the draft are discussed in the AfD discussion, so presumably this draft is the same text.
- Oh, and large bits of the draft are copied from https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3774970/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm . That is not allowed, since it is a copyright violation. --bonadea contributions talk 13:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
12:27:06, 4 September 2021 review of submission by 92.76.111.128
[edit]More than five own books as writer ! --92.76.111.128 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC) 92.76.111.128 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further, as this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author. It is not difficult for people to publish books these days; merely having written books is insufficient. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
14:44:41, 4 September 2021 review of draft by Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri
[edit]
Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri: Your sources are not properly formatted (see Help:Referencing for beginners and Template:Cite book) The Awards and Contributions section is quite literally an unformatted mighty wall of text that is difficult to keep track of yourself in and physically painful to read, and should likely be removed for other reasons anyway. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
15:13:44, 4 September 2021 review of submission by 184.102.103.22
[edit]
184.102.103.22 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Refer to the top table here:
- We can't use https://www.neha.org/ (website homepage). A website's homepage is never going to have the sort of information we're looking for on a consistent basis, and is thus worthless as a citation.
- https://www.neha.org/professional-development/credentials/hhs is a non-sequitur. If it doesn't so much as mention the subject it's worthless as a cite for that subject.
- We can't use https://www.acac.org/ (website homepage).
- https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/02/prweb14052775.htm is useless for notability (connexion to subject), as is literally everything else Cision/PRNewswire publishes.
- https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/5-diy-health-checks-could-save-your-life is useless for notability (Too sparse). Name-drop and quote, no actual discussion of her.
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2016/01/22/7-things-your-real-estate-agent-should-never-say/ " " " " (" "). "-" " ", " " " " ".
- https://housesmartstv.com/videos/allergies-101/ is 404-compliant.
- https://www.rd.com/article/reason-air-conditioners-smell-bad/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
- https://drhoffman.com/podcast/is-your-home-making-you-sick-part-2/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anything she has directly contributed to isn't going to help for notability.
- https://www.healthylivingcoastalcarolinas.com/2020/04/01/306213/three-best-practices-for-a-healthy-house is useless for notability (Connexion to subject); she wrote it.
- We can't use https://healthyhomeexpert.com/ (website homepage, connexion to subject).
- In summary, none of your sources are usable. Google isn't returning anything remotely usable either (string: "caroline blazovsky". I'd say this draft is DoA. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)