Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 March 13

= March 13 =

12:53:00, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Manc86
I'm asking advice, rather than requesting a review.

I have a question about notability. The Subject in question has been a member of three bands, whose notability has already appears to have been established. One of them has included Paul Cook from The Sex Pistols and still includes Rob Symmons (founder of Subway Sect). So, if accepted, the page would immediately be linked to from established Wikipedia pages, where the subject's name is mentioned.

(1) Would those inbound links make a difference?

Also, those pages have a load more references, so

(2) should I just copy and paste some of those references to this page?

I figured that if there were links to those band pages, it would be unnecessary to repeat the reference on the new page which was a summary of the activities of the individual band member.

Obviously, the subject's notability as a technologist is a separate issue. These references there came from "The Independent", "Wired" and "The Register", which are all influential and reliably independent.

(3) on the technology sections, are those links enough, if (for instance) the music sections were removed?

Manc86 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Inbound links don't make a difference in the review process, and in fact a draft should never have incoming links until it is approved. Copying and pasting references (just references, not text) from other articles is a very good way of making the information in your article verifiable. Those other articles may be changed at any time, so there's no guarantee that they would continue to verify the information in your article in the future. Do note that while articles about the band are great for verifiability, they don't necessarily help with notability because notability of a musician is not inherited from their band. The technology section also has plenty of links for verifiability, but the articles are mostly about his companies, products, etc and not the person himself, so there's the same issue of notability not being inherited (the story in The Register comes close, but isn't enough by itself). --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

18:34:24, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Mikenseco1
I'm currently trying to post a Bio and I can't get it approve. The bio only have my information there are nothing to reference and I keep getting denied because I'm referencing anything. please help. this is just a sample page.

Mikenseco1 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We cannot rely on your personal knowledge or experience. All information has to come from outside sources. Please read the golden rule if you have not done so already.
 * Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for advertising, promotion, or publicity. There are other places where you can do this.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)@Mikenseco1 - Without references that prove the subject's notability it can never be accepted. In biographies of living people all information must have references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

19:03:36, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Stevehec
Guys - would appreciate a re-review on the above. The wording is completely factual backed up with credible and independent sources, and I believe neutral and unpromotional in its tone. I cannot see how it is possible to make the verbiage more neutral than it already is yet this is an award-winning company with hundreds of thousands of customers so I believe it deserves its place.

I have included a few example of similar companies that are arguably less or similar in note than mine and are on wikipedia yet use more promotional language than I have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Touring_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrepid_Travel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Vacations

Many thanks! Steve Stevehec (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not accept that this is an independent source, and several of the other sources I looked at are not much better, being basically recycled press releases or worse. It doesn't help that the formatting and actual content of the Draft is very problematic at the moment. Listing fifteen different awards without explaining in the body of the article what organisation grants the awards, or providing references to independent sources that mention the awards, is not very useful.


 * Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. It is often better to compare with existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles. You can find a list of Good Articles about companies at Good articles/Social sciences and society. A Draft wouldn't need to be as long or detailed as these to be accepted, but they can still be good examples of how to structure and reference it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)