Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 December 17
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 16 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | Current help desk > |
| 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 17
[edit]02:22:26, 17 December 2022 review of draft by Rahulnag07
[edit]- Rahulnag07 (talk · contribs)
The request has been declined twice. Can someone please help on pointing out the gaps? I am unable to find any. I am not sure what exactly looks promotional. Hope to find some guidance here
- @Rahulnag07: most of the content has no encyclopaedic value, eg. the 'Revenue' and 'Funding' sections are of no interest to us. And the whole draft has a very promotional feel to it, it's all about this many listeners and that many hours and partnerships here and licensing there. I get the feeling it's trying to sell me something.
- The sources cited are also insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, consisting entirely of routine business reporting, churnalism, and in many cases covering individual programmes rather than the business as a whole.
- And please don't ask the same question everywhere; either here or (not and) at the Teahouse. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- PS: I've posted a COI query on your talk page; please read and action as relevant. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
08:23:42, 17 December 2022 review of draft by Krystal LeChuck
[edit]
Last time the article was declined for the following reason:
Comment: It appears that most if not all of the referenced sources are not reliable, press releases, primary, or only contain trivial mentions of the subject. This is a clear case of notability bombing and the prose is both promotional and not neutral. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is absolutely neutral, it is not promotional in any sense. If you believe it is, please point out the promotional language because I am failing to see it.
The references come from sources such as the University of Pennsylvania, United Nations, Interpol UNICRI, Forbes, American Banker Conferences, the World Bank, and there are many references to the subjects own website to show actual video or audio assets of mentioned interviews, and participations to events as a speaker.
Are those not reliable sources?
Krystal LeChuck (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Krystal LeChuck It's not necessarily the sources themselves, but their content. You have done a nice job of describing Mr. Faggella's background and what he has done- the trouble is, that's not what we are looking for. Any article about Mr. Faggella must primarily summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling us what the subject has done, and goes into detail about their significance or influence as the source sees it.
- The part about the podcast is more about the podcast itself than Mr. Faggella. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Krystal LeChuck: so what exactly is your question — whether the sources cited are considered reliable? Yes, some of them are; others (Soundcloud, YouTube, Forbes) are not. But the draft wasn't declined for lack of reliable source, but rather for lack of apparently notability. The sources are mostly primary, including many that he has written or said himself. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about him, and moreover we need to see significant coverage, not just passing mentions. (Meanwhile, we don't need to see 11 sources confirming that he has given some speeches, that's just WP:REFBOMBING.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)