Help desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12

03:18:50, 12 February 2023 review of submission by RobertB71

RobertB71 (talk · contribs)

The page describes a band with thousands of views on Youtube, with extensive coverage on Google, see search results here: https://www.google.com/search?q=thr%C3%B6nn

The band is genuine, has released an EP - with verifiable sources provided on the Wikipedia page.

I don't understand why it has been marked NOT notable.

Please re-review. Thanks.

RobertB71 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a new paragraph has been added about the innovative approach to christian music that the band perceives as somewhat stereotyped.

Their biggest influence is Polyphia - which also started as a christian band.

Have you even tried to listen to their music? It's a progressive EDM combined with metal.

This is no ordinary "church band" and it most certainly deserves to be on Wikipedia. RobertB71 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RobertB71 The only sources you offer just serve to document the availability of their music, which is completely irrelevant to if they merit an article or not. Anyone can post music to the internet these days. A Wikipedia article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please read Your First Article. If the band meets at least one aspect of the notability criteria, a re review may be possible if you start from scratch(you may simply blank the draft and start over), summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the band. If you have no such sources, or the band does not meet the criteria, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:23, 12 February 2023 review of submission by 2A02:CB80:4226:2047:EDC1:D69E:51C6:5DB

2A02:CB80:4226:2047:EDC1:D69E:51C6:5DB (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Osman Gani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2A02:CB80:4226:2047:EDC1:D69E:51C6:5DB (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but two weblinks will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:39, 12 February 2023 review of draft by Karpour

Karpour (talk · contribs)
- Draft:European Technology Roundtable Exhibition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was rejected on the basis of sources being primary. The issue is that sources are hard to find.

There is almost no published press about this event, as press was not invited. The only exception is Computer Chronicles, which was the only TV show to do extensive coverage of ETRE. I could include a mention of this in the article, but adding these episodes as sources do little more than confirm the location and attendees of certain ETRE editions.

I can provide sources for dates and locations of ETRE editions, but these are mostly directly taken from the respective website of the event. And it feels like adding a citation for every single date an annual event took place would clutter up the page. This is also not done on other annual event pages.

The best source I have is a cache of scanned correspondence which the Computer History museum digitized upon my request.

I'm looking forward to constructive input on getting this page ready. Please keep in mind that - apart from computer chronicles episodes and more ETRE websites from the internet archive - there are few additional sources available. In my opinion this event is still notable enough in that it is long running and influential to warrant a Wikipedia page.

Thank you.

Karpour (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are few sources then it is a very strong indication that the topic is not notable, Wikipedia requires there to be significant coverage in reliable independent sources to justify there being an article. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one media outlet was allowed to report from this event, the coverage is fairly extensive though. Any claim in the article is supported by sources. Whether this event itself is notable enough should not be decided on a whim based on the fact that few sources are available as of now. The issue is that most secondary sources would be in magazines that are not (yet) digitized. Karpour (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been accused of being a paid editor, let me clear up my motivation for creating this article. I run a project for the Internet Archive to properly archive all episodes of the TV show Computer Chronicles. For this I had to do research on several conferences, including ETRE. See https://computerchronicles.karpour.net/

I am not affiliated in any way with this conference or any person involved in organizing this conference.

You can watch episodes covering ETRE here: https://archive.org/details/computerchronicles Karpour (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online or digitised. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:53:23, 12 February 2023 review of submission by CHAINA CHIRKOFF

CHAINA CHIRKOFF (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

CHAINA CHIRKOFF (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello please tell mw why you have reject it?

Hi @CHAINA CHIRKOFF: read through the decline notice. In-depth coverage from reliable sources is required and the draft has no sources nor any indication it could meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]