Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 July 9

Help desk
< July 8	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 10 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 9

How many sources are needed to make it notable?

More directly, is this article passable? The only real reliable source is the Sciencewatch one, all the others are affiliated with the subject.

Thanks, Herr Beethoven (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You typically need more than one to demonstrate notability, but the then again, notability is defined as the existence of multiple in depth reliable independent sources, rather than the provision of them. In this case, I'm seeing literally thousands of news articles from reliable publishers mentioning this institute as an apparently go-to source for information on European earthquakes. I guess that's similar to the USGS and Caltech in the United States. Technically, these are all passing mentions, but when a topic has received several thousand passing mentions in reliable sources, I can only believe that in depth sources are probably out there. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Herr Beethoven (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer (twice): "Not sure the person is individually notable"

So my first article was declined a second time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Daniel_Savio

Referenced in national media, dubbed end developed a genre, performed on a gold record by a very significant artist, won a Grammis award. The second time it was declined also suggested the reviewer wasn't "sure" of sufficient notability. Where do I go from here?

Accountboy (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a tricky case. You're slightly over-stating things:

• Referenced in national media = mentioned, but not the sole subject of, a post on a Guardian blog (not the print newspaper)
• Developed a genre = but that doesn't necessarily mean the genre is significant
• performed on a gold record by a very significant artist = article says he "assisted as a studio DJ"
• won a Grammis award = as part of a group

Our basic guideline on notability is simple and designed to be applied by anyone to any subject: significant coverage in reliable source. I don't know anything about music, never mind Swedish electronic music. On my own I can't assess the claim that "skweee" is a significant genre or that assisting as a studio DJ on a Britney Spears song is a significant achievement. So help me out and add some links to the article that show Savio being significantly discussed in published media, and I'll accept it on that basis. It's as simple as that. joe•roe^t•c 10:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me on this so quickly!

• Referenced in national media = In addition to the blog article mentioned, there are other references. Most importantly is the sole subject of an article in Svenska Dagbladet, a reference which was listed.
• Developed a genre = Point taken.
• Performed on a gold record by a very signifiant artist = I will get "assisted" out, as he is credited not as assistant, but as a performer. Thank you for pointing this out.
• Won a Grammis award = as part of a group, granted. Yet adds to the context of pointing notability out. Perhaps even more so as the group in question has since disbanded, with the artist in question being the only one producing and releasing music on any scale.

Should the fact that he was the sole subject of an interview in Svenska Dagbladet, and that he was a solo performer on Overprotected (rather than assistant) tip the scale, please let me know.

Accountboy (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The important thing is sources. If there are other references not in the article, you should add them. joe•roe^t•c 11:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Added sources for Pitchforkmedia and Clash Music.

Accountboy (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ticklish Child Actors in TV and Movies

I submitted two articles for review and inclusion:

One: Was a bit of a test, on kid actors who I'd seen being tickled on screen. I could've added .jpgs from the movies as proof as sources, but I couldn't figure out how to add the images. So, instead I simply described the scenes from the various movies.

Two: The serious article, "New NPC Dragonlance Characters for Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5" which include all the vital statistics for inclusion in game play. All of these characters, with the exception of Drizzt Du Urden, were all created by myself. I ran the mage Jasryn Storm through 11 levels of play, from novice to Wizard of High Sorcery.

Queston: How do I possibly add .jpgs and embed them in the text? This system is not Word, and confusing as hell! A simple tab to click on to add a jpg would make life a lot easier! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasryn Storm (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, both of those drafts seem like original research to me, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. We require significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, both to allow our readers to verify the content and to establish the topic's notability. There might be something published about ticklish child actors, but a list of primary sources (the movies themselves) is not enough to establish "ticklish child actors" as a notable topic. Regarding the DnD characters: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and it's also not a webhost. I don't expect secondary sources on your characters exist; you surely did not provide any.

Regarding the image question: If the images are free content (which is unlikely for movie scenes), you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Copyrighted images which fall under the fair use doctrine can be uploaded to Wikipedia via Special:Upload if your account is autoconfirmed (that is, it has been around for a few day and has made at least 10 edits). Until then, you can request uploading at Wikipedia:Files for upload. But non-free images must be used in articles; using them in drafts is not enough. Once they are uploaded, you can include them in the draft via wiki markup; the tutorial offers a more detailed explanation.

But let me repeat: I cannot imagine your characters will ever make a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. The ticklish child actors need secondary sources (such as a textbook on comedic movies, for example) that cover the topic to establish it's notable. I doubt such sources exist, but here I can imagine being wrong. Addressing the lack of secondary sources is much more important than adding pictures. Huon (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of User:Weekends With Whitney/sandbox

I am trying to create a page for a client who is starting her own TV show. I am having a little trouble, please get back to me soon. Thank you!

Chelsea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weekends With Whitney (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To establish the show's notability, you need to show that significant coverage in reliable sources exists, sources that are independent of the subject, maybe reviews in newspapers. The draft is also very short on facts (for example, it gives no dates, neither for the start on YouTube nor for the airing on the NBC). Whether or not the show is entertaining is a matter of opinion, and if a critic says so, we should attribute that statement to its source ("Critic X said the show is 'entertaining'", or whatever critic X said). Unless a secondary source commented on Reynolds' education, that's probably off-topic for an article on the show. Huon (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)