Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 October 5
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 4 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 6 > |
| 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. |
October 5
[edit]00:47:23, 5 October 2022 review of submission by Brainiac 9999
[edit]
Brainiac 9999 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I am describing a religious faith that has a name but cannot be remembered. I remember the key beliefs, but the faith is not Neopagan since there are 99 Deities that emerged from the Creator. It is not the New Age Movement since it was said to be founded October 31, 1000 but even the name is of a Gaelic, Welsh or other Celtic name meaning "eternity." We in the faith believe that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh only to become 99 Deities. Please help!
- Find a different website to proselytise on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
11:09:02, 5 October 2022 review of draft by Sahar.Ahmed
[edit]- Sahar.Ahmed (talk · contribs)
May I ask if I have to add citation to all published books and articles in this article? or its better to delete those which cant have citations?
Many thanks.
Sahar Abuelhaija 11:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Sahar.Ahmed: firstly, you shouldn't attempt to list every publication someone has produced; Wikipedia is not intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of a person's entire output — pick only a few of the most notable ones as examples. Secondly, whether or not you need to support all books and articles with a citation, you do need to support just about everything else: please be aware that recently-deceased people are subject to the same WP:BLP rules as living people, meaning that anything potentially contentious, as well as all private personal and family details and the like, must all be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable sources. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
12:57:41, 5 October 2022 review of submission by KR2022
[edit]Hello, I have added an article about Li-Cycle, using over 20 external resources. However, my article was declined saying that the resources are not good enough. Can you please help me make my article better? Many thanks, Katerina KR2022 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @KR2022: first, just to clarify, you don't have 20+ sources; you have 20+ citations, many of which are to the same source. But either way, that's not really the point, because rather than the number of references, it's the quality that matters: five solid sources is better than fifty flaky ones. We need to see significant coverage (of the subject, not some indirectly related topics) in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Routine business reporting, publicity material, sponsored content, and interviews don't count, as don't passing mentions. With that in mind, please identify the 3-4 strongest sources to demonstrate notability with, and summarise what they have said about the subject. That way you'll end up with an article that 'ticks all the boxes' of notability, verifiability and neutral POV at once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
18:32:01, 5 October 2022 review of draft by David yaya
[edit]- David yaya (talk · contribs)
my article was have error that’s why am here to correct if thanks.
David yaya (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
22:41:29, 5 October 2022 review of submission by TrueSalamander
[edit]
Hello Wikipedia moderators, I am seeking further review for a page on a very notable company. Based on the coverage by internationally renowned media outlets like Forbes, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, Entrepreneur, etc., and dozens of other reputable sources, I think this article merits publishing. Labeling respected, trusted, and widely read publications that focus on digital assets as "crypto junk" belies a definite bias and censorship toward any organization or movement related to blockchain technology. I am humbly asking for an equitable chance to publish this article -- if it needs additional references from some of the most well-known publications in the world, I would ask that you give me time to gather those. However, the article already seems to satisfy all requirements for posting on Wikipedia.
TrueSalamander (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- TrueSalamander Note that any editor may respond, not just moderators. The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and its activities. It is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.
- Also note that due to past disruption, editing about blockchain has special rules. I will notify you of them if you haven't been. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. The sources need to show notability, as the source sees it, not merely documenting what the company does. As odd as it may sound, you have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources (in terms of content, not the outlet) are preferred to many low-quality ones. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)