Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 25
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 24 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 26 > |
| 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 25
[edit]04:38, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Whithhh
[edit]How do I successfully submit a page? How many references should I add? Whithhh (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Whithhh: you need as many references (citations) as are required to comprehensively support the contents. Which source the personal details shown in the infobox? What about the educational background of the (entirely unreferenced) 2nd paragraph? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
10:23, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Sudheer Mattaparthi
[edit]I have incorporated some changes on the article . Could you please let me know in detail what exactly you are looking here.
Sudheer Mattaparthi (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sudheer Mattaparthi: we want to know where all that information is coming from, and how it can be verified. You currently have one single source, cited once at the very end where the citation supports nothing. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
12:01, 25 June 2024 review of submission by GS1921
[edit]Please, be so kind and review a little bit changed page. If it has mistakes, please, could you specify it for me. Thank you very, very much for help. GS1921 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GS1921: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk; if you believe you've addressed the decline reasons sufficiently, you can resubmit the draft, and a reviewer will assess it some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- PS: This draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which essentially depends on the sources. It looks like you have since removed three sources, without adding any news ones. Does it not stand to reason, therefore, that there is still not enough evidence of notability, and possibly less so than before? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
15:05, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Flamemadragon
[edit]My submission was declined and I don't understand why. The two issues were credibility and notability. On credibility, I referenced Tapology, one of the mainstream MMA record websites. On notability, there is a page for CES MMA, which is debately a less notable MMA promotion than Cage Titans (based on my experience as an MMA journalist in New England). Flamemadragon (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Flamemadragon: this draft is far from acceptable, and could have been declined for a number of reasons.
- You list (without even citing) a single source, Tapology, which seems to be at least partly user-generated, with no indication of editorial oversight, fact-checking practices, etc.; I would consequently question how reliable it is, regardless of whether it is "mainstream" or not. Besides, that source doesn't seem to provide any real information, and doesn't therefore support the contents of this draft. Please feel free to correct me on that, if I got it wrong; I only had a quick look at the source.
- In any case, a single source is nowhere near enough to establish notability, which is another reason this draft could have been declined for. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tapology's information is gathered from accounts of MMA promotions, fighters, and coaches, when is then moderated through a team. I went through all of Cage Titan's events on Tapology to figure out who the current champion of each division is as well as the day they became champion and their # of defenses. Each of the listed fighters' tapology pages also shows their fights for Cage Titans as well as the higher promotions they fought for. Should I cite each of their individual tapology pages? I can also attempt to find articles about some of the fighters moving up to the bigger leagues if that works better.
- Most of the champion information isn't readily available anywhere (as Cage Titans's own champion page is greatly outdated), which is why I wanted to establish an article showing said information after scouring the Tapology pages. I also established championship history from looking through Tapology that I'm waiting to get confirmed with Cage Titans. Optimally I would like to add that to this article in a similar way that CES MMA has a championship history on their article.
- However given all this, do you think it might just be better for me to post an article on a journalism website rather than Wikipedia? My only qualm with posting on a journalism website is that articles are usually time locked, and it would be harder to find it say a year from now as opposed to Wikipedia that more time-permanent articles. Flamemadragon (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Flamemadragon: putting aside everything else, the main question is can you find sufficient sources meeting the WP:GNG standard, to establish that this subject is notable? Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, and without demonstrating it it isn't possible to publish an article on this subject, no matter what. Therefore this whole matter hinges on sources. Tapology (even if for the sake of the argument we accept it as reliable) isn't alone enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
16:02, 25 June 2024 review of submission by NGraywolf
[edit]How can I delete my draft? I jumped too fast and need to start over! NGraywolf (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @NGraywolf: as you're the only editor of it, you can just blank the page or place the {{Db-g7}} speedy deletion template on it, and an administrator will come around and delete it (only admins can do that). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
16:52, 25 June 2024 review of submission by E11e99
[edit]I would be very grateful if I could please get some assistance and clarity around identifying the "peacock" terms used in this article and why the references are not considered appropriate? many thanks and kind regards, elle e11e99 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
19:57, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Volodymyr Dudnik
[edit]I have already supplemented the article several times and provided all possible categories and links, maybe I am missing something important or making some mistake. I really don't see how the article could be improved. I am asking for help. Volodymyr Dudnik (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Volodymyr Dudnik: Your draft has swathes of text that is completely unsourced. Four sources for an article of this size is not enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
20:20, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Devlimon
[edit]Article submission was rejected based on not having enough reliable sources. Would a link to the organization's active status be considered a reliable source? Or their website? Devlimon (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. To show that the organisation is sufficiently notable for an article you need to reference what other people say about it. See WP:NORG: you need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organisation. Mgp28 (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
20:28, 25 June 2024 review of submission by MaryGaulke
[edit]- MaryGaulke (talk · contribs)
Hi! This draft was rejected for failing WP:GNG. I submitted this as a COI editor for Oyler's company BeiGene, so just hoping for a little clarity – Oyler has been the focus of what I believe is substantive coverage in Life Science Leader, South China Morning Post, and Pharma Exec. Are these publications too niche to meet WP:NBIO? I appreciate any guidance to inform my future work. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)