Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 1
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 30 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 2 > |
| 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. |
May 1
edit
I was developing this article as a stub and followed dozens of other medical stubs in doing so. Could you please help in identifying what I'm doing wrong to get this stub published? I didn't see other stubs require as much notoriety?
Esolischi (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Esolischi: - companies/organisations require at least 2 (preferably 3/4) high quality sources that are: "in-depth, secondary, reliable, independent". So while the company's website obviously is good for some basic stats, it doesn't help notability. The 2nd source is an interview with most of the content generated by the interviewee (so not independent). The third source is mostly on the fiscal split, but may or may not qualify as a source.
- There are lots of stubs on plants and locations with lower notability requirements than companies, so you may be seeing that. There are also some company stubs that haven't been identified as needing deletion after we raised the requirements a few years ago, they will slowly be removed (or, preferably, improved). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Michron777 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I was confused at the reason why my article got rejected (Your Story Hour). Before submitting it, I got advice from other editors/contributors, and looked at several similar published articles as a guide to what is acceptable (which made it more weird because some of the other radio drama articles I've looked at didn't seem to have much notability based on the reasons given me).
Because notability is broad, is there something specific that I could have added to make more noteworthy (while at the same time not make it sound so biased)?
Michron777 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman and Michron777: - my reading of it (obviously, difficult due to the general lack of sources available online, at least of those cited) suggested that it may be notable, and certainly not warranting an immediate reject (as opposed to a decline). I may be missing something, so I've pinged the reviewer who hopefully can provide a bit more detail on their concerns. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- In my estimation, this does not meet WP:NORG. It's also a form of WP:ADVOCACY and thus belongs on the group's website, not here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman and Michron777: - my reading of it (obviously, difficult due to the general lack of sources available online, at least of those cited) suggested that it may be notable, and certainly not warranting an immediate reject (as opposed to a decline). I may be missing something, so I've pinged the reviewer who hopefully can provide a bit more detail on their concerns. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
14:55:49, 1 May 2019 review of draft by Skohl
edit
Skohl (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
15:09:03, 1 May 2019 review of draft by SJND
edit
I am correcting this article for Eyam Parish Church with suitable authority from the church. The current article on Wikipedia is sparse to say the least. The name is incorrect as the church is not now St Lawrence's Eyam but Eyam Parish Church (It has been St Helen's in the past too). As the church owns the copyright to the web site and John Clifford's book I find it strange that we might be breaching our own copyright - is this correct? Surely we can quote from sources where we own the copyright.
Many items have been redacted and I do not know why.
The church is in the process of undergoing a major reordering project so it is very important that people researching it can see the whole history not a tiny bit about the last reordering in the 1860s.
Please advise how I should proceed or should we ask for the article to be removed from Wikipedia as it currently reflects badly on the church.
Many thanks, Simon Daniell
SJND (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- We already have an article for that church here St Lawrence's Church, Eyam please add to that one instead of creating a new one. We require no authority from the church to edit the article and you should declare your conflict of interest if you have a connection. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @SJND: - just a follow-up as regards your copyright query - all text in Wikipedia must be either in the public domain or under our very broad license. The church can update its website to open up its text to be used, but that will have the effect of allowing everyone to use and alter it as they wish. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
16:06:46, 1 May 2019 review of submission by GlitchBJ
edit
What can I do to make this page? What should I add or change?
GlitchBJ (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there is anything you can do, some topics just aren't notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
17:47:54, 1 May 2019 review of draft by Michael212427
edit
I'm new to wiki and 40 out of school for some time and having trouble organizing this article to be approved, can you help or refer me to someone online who can help get this info together and approved?
Michael212427 (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Michael212427 Greetings. Theroadislong helped you tiding up the article, very kind of them (In Wikipedia, we use they/their/them when we dont know the gender of the editor). I have reviewed it and now is in the mainspace. The article is here - Howard Dill. For anything to do with editing - you would visit WP:Teahouse, there will be plenty of friendly and helpful editors to answer your question. Thank you for your contribution. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
18:19:30, 1 May 2019 review of draft by 64.124.122.226
edit
If we made some additional edits will this push us back longer in the review process? Here is the link to his page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_R.W._Cracken
Thank you for your time.
64.124.122.226 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use only. Do you have a connection with the law firm? If so please declare it. Theroadislong (talk)
- AlishaTurner (talk · contribs)
Since his latest album produced by Jamie Foxx just came out and there isn't a lot of press yet, should I change his page to person or actor instead of focusing on his music? I can add his list filmography instead of discography for now. I could even link his most notable move to an existing wikipedia page where he is listed as cast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Eyez_on_Me_(film)
AlishaTurner (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- AlishaTurner (talk · contribs)
Since his latest album produced by Jamie Foxx just came out and there isn't a lot of press yet, should I change his page to person or actor instead of focusing on his music? I can add his list filmography instead of discography for now. I could even link his most notable move to an existing wikipedia page where he is listed as cast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Eyez_on_Me_(film)
AlishaTurner (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)AlishaTurner
AlishaTurner (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Kpillai856 (talk · contribs)
My article is getting rejected every time for notability but i have linked all relevant sources from media houses proving the article's authenticity. kindly help!
Kpillai856 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Kpillai856 and Stevey7788: - while the original reviewer was correct about certain claims being OR, I have to disagree with their judgement on the key issue that it did not satisfy Political notability - he was a State assembly member, which would seem equivalent to a US State congressman (the usual example of "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office"), his ministerial position would also count for this.
- Kpillai, please take into account Stevey's points as regards memorials - this needs to be a neutral article. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
23:12:06, 1 May 2019 review of draft by Communna
edit
Could I ask anybody to look on the page I created? "Boiling Steel". I'll be happy for the help from Wikipedia gurus.
Communna (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Communna: - hi there, your draft was submitted for review. I've done that for you. However, as the yellow box says, there is a large backlog (c. 9 weeks), though reviewers don't always review in order, so it could be done anytime between now and then. In the meantime, you can always make additional edits to the draft's content. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Communna: I would recommend fixing the plot and gameplay section to comply with MOS:YOU before a reviewer gets to it. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)