Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 January 30

= January 30 =

06:25:27, 30 January 2015 review of submission by Quatticapic
The draft of DARK (film) is intended as a new film page. The format of the typical film page seems to be laid out in a very specific way. How may I improve this article and create it as a proper film article with Plot, Cast, Crew, Production Notes, etc. Please advise. Thank you. Quatticapic (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Quatticapic

Quatticapic (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 15:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Worry more about content right now, formatting can be dealt with later. That article would currently be rejected if reviewed as is because it doesn't show that the film is notable. Please carefully read over WP:NFILM and add citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

09:08:04, 30 January 2015 review of submission by 212.91.237.209
Dear Sir/Madam,

I wrote an article about a company myDriver. Unfortunatelly, the Reviewer has declined my article on the basis that is looks more like an advertisement and my sources are taken mostly from the subject being discussed.

It is my first article, part of my University task. I based on the article about a company DriveNow, where sources are also taken from the company's website.

May you help me with some advices what exactly should be changed in order to post my sumbission?

Best regards, Marcin Kusyk

212.91.237.209 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Marcin, the article DriveNow had way too much material sourced to the company's own website, so not a good model to follow. Since you've pointed it out, I've trimmed the article back greatly. An article about a company should be nothing like an "About Us!!!" page, so DriveNow was not appropriate as it was. As a general rule: if there is a given Fact X, and nobody outside the company has bothered to comment on Fact X, that means that Wikipedia doesn't care about Fact X and there's no point putting it in the article. We care about facts that an independent authority would find worth remarking on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

10:15:28, 30 January 2015 review of submission by Sebh007
Hi there. I need some help and advice please.

I have stumbled across something which I think should be in Wikipedia but I am having a problem convincing reviewers that it is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. It is something called The National Open Art Competition (NOAC) which is the largest in the UK - even bigger that the one at The Royal Academy apparently. It has been running for about 20 years and isn't in Wikipedia at the moment.

So, before I started to write any drafts, I looked round Wikipedia to see what was similar mechanically, and I found the BAFTAs which are similar, albeit much more notable, I admit. So, the BAFTA entries consist of a main page about BAFTA and then a page covering each year that the BAFTAs have been awarded and a page for each of the BAFTA awards, so there's a page for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 etc. and separate pages for each of the best actor and best film and best director etc. So, I have started to draft something similar for the NOAC and so far two of my pages have been reviewed and both rejected for lack of notability.

After the first rejection, I emailed the people who run the NOAC and asked them if they have any independent reviews or articles about the NOAC and they sent me a bunch of stuff which seems relevant in terms of establishing notability - reviews in various newspapers and magazines and on the BBC etc, but I'm a bit green as far as this stuff is concerned and I'm not sure how to use it. It is not really adding factual material such as you might for a learned academic article, so I can't really use it as a conventional reference and I obviously don't want to create irrelevant body text just to be able to refer to it. Art, by its very nature is very subjective, and so the independent references are almost exclusively expressions of opinion and not fact.

Please can anyone suggest how I can best demonstrate the notability of the subject while keeping to both the spirit of the editing Guidelines? I could, of course, ditch the subsidiary pages, that is the Annual pages and/or the individual Award pages and pull them back into the main page, but I thought that would make it unwieldy. On the other hand, demonstrating notability for the subsidiary pages is more difficult than for the currently shorter main page just because there's less material. So, I can make the main page unwieldy and more notable and lose the subsidiary pages or keep the subsidiary pages but risk them being rejected for being insufficiently notable.

All input most welcome!

Sebh007 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:48:22, 30 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 74.213.198.200
Hello! I am currently attempting to create an article for a musician/performer/educator from the Bay Area. I have learned so much from Wiki's tutorials. Awesome. I recently received a message saying that my article has been denied due to copyrighted information. It was not my intention to include any copyrighted information. Is there any way I can receive some guidance as to which material has been copyrighted so that I can remove/replace it?

Thank you.

74.213.198.200 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any content published on the internet, unless otherwise specified, is assumed to be under copyright. Any text in the article that you didn't write yourself in your own words should be removed/replaced (even if that text originally came from the musician's official website or tumblr page). --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

20:58:23, 30 January 2015 review of submission by Bjoertvedt
This article has been up for review for some time, and I have tried to brush up this article with relevant information, third-party sources, and a photo. I believe this article should be both notable and wikified by now. Have waited more than 3 weeks for review, but the first reviewer does not seem to respond. Can anyone have a look at the draft and review?

Bjoertvedt (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 19:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you've had to wait so long. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a backlog of articles waiting for review, and the process may take over a month. In the case of your article, since most of your sources are not in English, it may take a little longer as most of the reviewers here don't know enough Norwegian to verify your sources. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * I really appreciate your quick reply, Ahecht! And just Ask id you need any help in understanding sources. Google translate also runs well. Observe that the sources represent the main media up here. There is also a :nb interwiki to the draft where you can verify that nb has an articles as well. Best regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

22:27:08, 30 January 2015 review of submission by Ahmed Ragab Amin
I wrote an article on LinkedIn then put it on wikipedia, why it is deleted ? although I am the owner of this article. Ahmed Ragab Amin (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is exactly that - when you published it on LinkedIn first a copyright came into existence, thus it cannot be permitted on Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)