Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 9
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 8 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 10 > |
| 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. |
June 9
[edit]11:53, 9 June 2023 review of submission by Sampada26
[edit]Can you please assist us in creating this page? It would be of great help if you could guide us.
Thank you.
Sampada26 (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Sampada26: in short, no. This draft has been rejected, as there was no indication that the subject is notable.
- Also, when you say "us", who do you mean? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single person only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Thank you for the reply.
- Could you please explain me or elaborate what is included in making the subject notable? Sampada26 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Sampada26: sources; we need to see multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, providing significant coverage of the subject. This draft only cites IMDb (which is considered non-reliable, because it is user-generated) and Wikipedia (which creates a circular reference, by citing WP as a source on WP). But just to repeat, this draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
13:15, 9 June 2023 review of submission by Apc42
[edit]Please be told what exactly I am missing?
Kind regards
Andrew Apc42 (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Apc42: did you read the decline notice? As it says there, you're missing
"significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"
. All you have is two links to Amazon, which is not only completely useless as a reference, it's also spammy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)- You have zero independent reliable sources and no indication whatsoever that the topic passes WP:GNG or WP:NWRITER. Theroadislong (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
16:26, 9 June 2023 review of submission by Gohealthgo
[edit]- Gohealthgo (talk · contribs)
The sources have been properly linked. There is no promotional language in the article submission. Why does it not fit the criteria? If an article submission has been rejected, what are the next steps? Gohealthgo (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gohealthgo Sorry but the language and tone of yhe draft is entirely promotional, it reads like a company brochure. A complete rewrite from truly independent sources would be the only way to save it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
16:43, 9 June 2023 review of submission by Newdefinitions108
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Conversational_journaling
Could this please have a second review? This is new terminology and needs to be tracked. There are sources from multiple places. Newdefinitions108 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Newdefinitions108: it will get another review, once you resubmit it. But I can tell you already that it will be declined, as two of the three sources cited are primary, and the third is non-reliable. Please read and understand the WP:GNG notability guideline. Also, most of the content isn't supported by any of the sources, in any obvious way at least, so please also see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- The only source that could be considered primary is the ycombinator source. This term was defined in the 2021 article. Essentially I need to wait for a "mainstream" approved source to write about it before it's valid for wikipedia? Newdefinitions108 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- What would you call theresanaiforthat.com? Genuine question, I really don't know. But I'm pretty sure it's not secondary, which is what we need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- They defined a whole category for the subject as an independent website. Why are category definitions on a notable website not considered secondary? This would give 2 secondary sources with one primary mention (the HN post). I can live with this not being enough, but this merits the media being definers of our reality rather than genuine discovery of new terms. Newdefinitions108 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SECONDARY, because I have a feeling we're talking at cross purposes here.
- See also WP:NEO, because the subject of this draft probably comes under that.
- Finally, it may be worth clarifying how Wikipedia works: we summarise what independent and reliable secondary published sources have said about a subject. So going back to your earlier question, yes, you need
"to wait for a "mainstream" approved source"
– multiples thereof, in fact – before an article can be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)- Helpful but disheartening as many of the approved secondary sources are conflicted/full of bias. Thank you for your input, I'll wait for more published material on the topic and submit to wiktionary in the mean time. Newdefinitions108 (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- They defined a whole category for the subject as an independent website. Why are category definitions on a notable website not considered secondary? This would give 2 secondary sources with one primary mention (the HN post). I can live with this not being enough, but this merits the media being definers of our reality rather than genuine discovery of new terms. Newdefinitions108 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- What would you call theresanaiforthat.com? Genuine question, I really don't know. But I'm pretty sure it's not secondary, which is what we need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- The only source that could be considered primary is the ycombinator source. This term was defined in the 2021 article. Essentially I need to wait for a "mainstream" approved source to write about it before it's valid for wikipedia? Newdefinitions108 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, and the first section seems to have been lifted verbatim from the YComb website, so that'll need to be purged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
18:07, 9 June 2023 review of submission by Sig735
[edit]I think article may have been rejected because some of the reference links had broken since the original date send for review. I've now updated those links. Was this the problem? The external links still seem fine. Sig735 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- All three of your references come from canada.ca. These are not strictly independent of the subject. All of these are recruitment pages. I can write recruitment pitches for any random job; that doesn't make it notable. They may be reliable, but they're not independent. Guninvalid (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Guninvalid (talk · contribs)
I started writing this article after I saw these scooters around Purdue campus. I may need some help finding reliable sources for this article. Does Purdue Exponent not count? Would I need more than just Purdue Exponent?
I understand that Veo.com is most definitely not independent, and Journal & Courier's reliability seems questionable at best. But I would think Purdue Exponent would count as both independent and reliable, at least. Does it not? Do I just need further sources unaffiliated with Purdue to cover the scope of the company outside of Purdue?
Guninvalid (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Guninvalid see WP:RSSM about student media outlets. Generally they do not help with establishing notability and note multiple sources meeting the referenced criteria in the decline message are needed and yes, at least some in-depth coverage outside the local area is needed (see WP:AUD). S0091 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)