Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 July 18

= July 18 =

Request on 13:27:41, 18 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MetalmanUK
The reasons you have given for declining the submission make no sense to me whatsoever. I believe like many thousands of others would, that Paul Dean is indeed 'Notable' whatever definition one uses. The only problem I see is that I actually put legitimate citations and references within the article, as I didn't understand how to complete the references/citations at the end. This I pointed out at least twice and I was hoping someone would assist rather than just reject.

By the way, please do not quote Social Media at me, I have not used one single reference from any Social Media e.g. Facebook, Youtube, etc.!

With regards to Social Media, I find it strange that Wikipedia still doesn't recognise how important Social Media has become in substantiating facts, which is why every leading Organisation, Media and even Governments now use it. Some Blogs are even bigger than Wikipedia and garner far more respect. I also believe reputable Blogs are no longer classed as Social Media and are widely respected as much as any other factual giving media.

I have noted in recent times how Wikipedia has come under considerable criticism from all quarters and I can now understand why. It would appear that it has slightly lost the plot and needs to join the rest of the World in using the myriad of new information sources.

I am still very disappointed for the rejection as it took many hours of research to put everything together.

Out of interest, a number of years ago, I submitted another contribution which wasn't quite right (same problem), but an extremely helpful reviewer sorted it out for me. Seems times have changed.

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. MetalmanUK (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC){{SAFESUBST:Void|MetalmanUK (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What you have in that Draft is a lengthy biography of a living person that only appears to cite one single source, and even that I'm not sure whether counts as reliable. That is not acceptable and it will not be accepted in that state. You also have unresolved formatting issues... the myriad of external links in the middle of the article body... as explained to you by the comments on the Draft itself.


 * Thank you for letting us know your views about Wikipedia having "slightly lost the plot" and being smaller than some blogs. I found this very interesting. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)