Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 December 29

= December 29 =

07:14:55, 29 December 2015 review of submission by DillonGonzales
Hello, I understand why there may be concerns about the notability of my subject, but I believe the mixture of top 10 hits he has written and releases of his own music on notable labels is enough to justify a place on Wikipedia. I have references to notable publications such as American Songwriter and Paste Magazine. His occasional songwriting partner Ashely Gorley has an active page with only one reference on the whole page so the standards do not seem to be the same. Thank you. DillonGonzales (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

09:10:51, 29 December 2015 review of submission by Jerzy
Hi, i think the G-News coverage of the company that is the topic for Draft:Nation Builder (formerly Draft:NationBuilder should get expedited review; i actually considered the legal status of the draft's content and concluded that the old content is PD and i'd have done no harm, except for causing a previous contributor's deserved attribution to get lost in the mud (which, duh, happens all the time w/o comment) if i cut-and-pasted the old content back to NmSp "Article:" along with submitting my IMO pedia-worthiness-conferring new content. Can you convey my request, for going to the head of the queue, to a Draft-reviewer? Tnx in any case!  --Jerzy•t 09:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Jerzy•t 09:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What mainspace article are you talking about? There is no Nation Builder, Nationbuilder or NationBuilder article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I 'spose a case could be made against me as negligent in not having already responded to that question, but even so
 * My own interest in the topic is so limited that i regard myself as generously public-spirited in calling attention to a new, mainstream (G-News coverage) source on the previously deleted-to-draft-status topic.
 * I've so little faith in the mechanism this page implements, upon being regaled about Nationbuilder in the Main namespace when i've just made reference to Draft:NationBuilder, that if i introspected far enuf, i might be embarrassed by exploring whether my responding in this section is more a matter of community spirit, or of spite. The topic doesn't matter to me, except that i hate the thot that anyone might have (more than usual amount of justified) contempt for the project, upon stumbling across this exchange (or upon seeking info on the topic}.
 * I have enuf knowledge and permissions to repair this instance of what i consider a miscarriage of process, but enuf restraint not to. Most of the encouragements i get to follow more than the spontaneous interests i have in editing sound pro forma. If i'm too passive, it's possible that colleagues with more vision haven't tried hard enuf to infect me with more.
 * --Jerzy•t 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:44:39, 29 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Harukosama
Greetings!

I see my attempt at an article submission failed because its references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability.

I was very careful to include: 1. Signifcant references 2. Reliable sources 3. Sources independent of the subject 4. Verifiable sources

So I am not sure what I might be missing. While I understand this is English WIkipedia and the majority of the sources are in Korean (save the Wall Street Journal piece), the coverage from Korea still comes from reliable sources and shows the firm to be top ranked in the nation. When I submitted this article, I compared my referencing to that with Accel Partners, another VC, and felt very confident that I had surpassed the apparent minimum standards that had been used to determine notability for that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accel_Partners.

Are Korean firms not seen as notable because we cannot provide more than one all-english source?

Any specific advice on what I might have done wrong would be most appreciated.

Very appreciative of your help, Harukosama Harukosama (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Someone published it for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

23:11:34, 29 December 2015 review of submission by 7hyphen7
What type of information specifically would reviewers be looking for in regards to "more available coverage"? Are there examples of similar articles that we might take reference from?

Thank you in advance for your advice and direction.
 * Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. In general, the sort of coverage required to show the notablity of a corporation is significant discussion in reliable sources that are independent independent of the subject. This is the problem with many of the references currently cited in the draft. A lot of them do not mention Dynamic more than once or twice in passing, and some do not reference it at all. While it's fine to cite sources like that to substantiate specific claims, those kinds of sources don't offer the substantive, in-depth coverage required to demonstrate notability.
 * Other sources offer more coverage, but some of them are not reliable sources, or are too closely connected to the subject. For instance, the Solutions for Wood reference talks about Dynamic, but it's not a source with editorial oversight and thus isn't the kind of reliable source needed. My advice is to start looking through reputable magazines, journals, books and newspapers for more coverage. A few of the references from news sources are keepable and might make a good start. Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  16:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)