Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 February 22

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.

February 22

00:12:44, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Derrin Tanser

{{Lafc|username=Derrin Tanser|ts=00:12:44, 22 February 2016|link=

Hi

I created an article an article on the 14th January 2014. The article was rejected. However it appears in google search engine results at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Captain_Brock:_Space_Badger

This is the original draft of the article and is no longer accurate. Is there any way you can please delete this completely to avoid it appearing in search results.

Thank you

Derrin Tanser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrin Tanser (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Derrin Tanser: Sorry, there isn't anything we can do about that. http://speedydeletion.wikia.com is not part of Wikipedia. We have no control over it. Worldbruce (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

09:20:44, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Choson32

• Choson32 (talk · contribs)

The Encyclopedia of Korea is a part of The Australian National University Digital Collection and does not get the universal coverage, which it deserves. To counter this situation, I am trying to create a Wikipedia article for the Encyclopaedia. I have no further references to provide you with and have already given you all the relevant information.

References

Choson32 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Choson32: If The Encyclopaedia of Korea hasn't received enough non-trivial independent coverage to pass the notability critiera for books, then it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article of its own. What you can do is join WikiProject Korea and start a discussion on their talk page about the encyclopedia. If the consensus there is that it's reliable and useful, editors may start using it to improve our articles on Korea or, since it's a tertiary source, adding it as further reading where appropriate. Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

11:20:13, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Rachelnorthover

• Rachelnorthover (talk · contribs)

Please help. I am trying to create a new page for the company that I work for, African Adventures, and it keeps getting declined. I am not sure how long the page needs to be, so it would be good to know this. I am paraphrasing information from our website to explain what our company does, and apparently this is not acceptable, so I am unsure what kind of content I should be using. Rachelnorthover (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Rachelnorthover (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rachelnorthover: Thanks for wanting to share information about the company, but before you go any further, I recommend you read our Organizations FAQ, particularly this section. To say that Wikipedia isn't interested in what a firm has to say about itself is an oversimplification, but basically that's what the company's website is for. Wikipedia is mainly for summarizing what reliable sources independent of the company say about it. Wikipedia won't have an article about the business until outsiders - historians, researchers, journalists, etc. - have written about it at length. Worldbruce (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

13:29:08, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Teachamantoghoti

• Teachamantoghoti (talk · contribs)

Hi, my article was declined for containig insufficient references. I have entered several references already and was wondering where more were probably required. Cheers! Teachamantoghoti (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Teachamantoghoti: To add to the comment LaMona left on Draft:Richard Beard (author), study the notability critia for authors. The most common way to demonstrate notability is with multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. An excellent start would be https://www.nytimes.com/books/99/03/14/reviews/990314.14tutent.html. More of a similar caliber are needed. Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

17:51:56, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Portlandarchy

• Portlandarchy (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Hello! Can someone offer guidance on how to meet the notability requirements with my page Draft:SERA Architects? I've made several updates, adding more citations, and I think it's on par with other approved pages, such as ZGF Architects.

Thank you! -Portlandarchy

Portlandarchy (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Portlandarchy. I think this firm probably would pass the notability criteria, but you need to change the emphasis and the kind of sourcing you're using. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has been literally flooded with articles about current businesses, many of them by paid editing rings or employees of the companies, that reviewers are being super cautious and in general the standards for new articles about businesses are being tightened up with many taken to deletion discussions. See here, and those are just the ones from the last five days. My advice is to concentrate on the history of the company and its work in sustainable architecture. Forget about local non-notable awards like "19th Best Green Workplace in Oregon ". Use only high quality independent sources—not company profiles. This, this are potential examples of high quality sources. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely helpful, User:Voceditenore Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlandarchy (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)