Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 November 20

= November 20 =

03:05:44, 20 November 2015 review of submission by Tamayo Knows
Tamayo Knows (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please ask for the help you need. The draft you have created has no obvious content. Fiddle   Faddle  10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

08:47:47, 20 November 2015 review of submission by 88.229.249.22
I have created a draft named Draft:Alpus. As I write more while trying to keep it encyclopedic, I keep getting "Not enough sources" declines. While it has derived-from products on the internet that I can find sources, the app is newly published. I wish and plan to keep technical and factual information reside on Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions how can I simplify the article to be accepted?


 * Your issue is not simplification, but verification of notability. I have left you what I hope are helpful comments on the draft itself. Fiddle   Faddle  15:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

09:21:26, 20 November 2015 review of submission by Mikecasey52
We are a relatively new organisation. We have received publicity in the rAF News (MoD publication). We have appeared on BBC TV as part of the annual Cenotaph remembrance parade. We do not have any other proof other than our webpage. How am I supposed to prove that we exist! Please help, I am a simple person, with no experience of Wikipedia and find the whole process beyond my comprehension. (I am not stupid, but I find your interpretation of the english language totally unfathomable))  Please just answer me in uncomplicated english!


 * Please, first, confirm that you have visited the draft and read my comment there. Then come back to this section and ask about the elements you do not yet understand. It is far better to ask specific questions than to just ask a very wide question. Fiddle   Faddle  10:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me in simple english exactly what you want me to tell you. Simply telling me that I have to tell you what makes my organisation NOTABLE means nothing to me. Please state an example of what I need to tell you because this is not clear. Just telling me I have more work to do does not help at all.

Mikecasey52 (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tasks:
 * Read WP:42
 * Provide references that meet what is described there
 * Please ask specific questions when you do not understand. Fiddle   Faddle  11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have listed the name of a government news paper (THe RAF News is part of the Ministry of Defence, (UK) as a reference to our notability. What more do you wanyt. It is the only reference we can give. Mikecasey52 (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then, with regret, I need to inform you that it is very unlikely that your organisation passes our stringent criteria for entry. Many organisations exist. Few make the cut. In time your organisation will, if notable, meet our criteria. just not today. Fiddle   Faddle  11:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

18:14:11, 20 November 2015 review of submission by LG Brichetto
I would appreciate some feedback on an article I've been improving with content and more sources. It was initially declined because the reviewing editor wanted more sources. I've been told by a second reviewing editor that I was getting closer but needed even more sources. I'm at the point where I think I have enough sources? I want to resubmit it for review today if possible, and would appreciate any suggestions or direction. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TV.LG Brichetto (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Help Desk! I've taken a look through your sources. While you have lots of references, the issue is that their quality is somewhat lacking at the moment. Recall that in order to show the notability of a company, you will need to provide a variety of reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Now let's go through the sources:
 * Wikipedia articles can't be used as references for notability's sake;
 * patents are considered primary sources and thus don't help establish notability. Other sources with the primary-source problem include Christianfilmdatabse.com (interviews should be regarded as primary sources, which must be limited to a restricted role), and the PR and businesswire sources;
 * many of the sources websites, like SATaddress, Christiansincable, nrb.org, truli.com, mediapost.com, businessinsider, the Manufacturing Close Up newspaper, olympusat, dnafilmworks, wtjr, The Christian View, CharismaNews, CutCableToday, and OneNewsNow, offer no coverage or less than substantial coverage of the company. Sources need more than a one-sentence blurb or quick passing mention in order to offer the depth needed to show notability. A directory listing is insufficient coverage; and
 * some of the sources, like freethunk.net and multichannel.co, are not reliable sources of information.
 * This leaves us with three sources that have substantial coverage of Parables TV and that aren't primary in nature: Beliefnet, Gatewaynews, and Dispatchlive. I'm not sure whether Beliefnet is a reliable source, as they don't seem to have an editorial board or policy. Gatewaynews and Dispatchlive are a start, but right now they're the only two remaining sources that meet all the above criteria. I'd suggest cutting out the primary sources and the websites that don't mention Parables TV at all. Then work on finding more substantial, reliable coverage of the company. Thanks, /wia   /tlk  13:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Wikiisawesome. I appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly review the article draft for Parables TV. I've gone back to look at each of the sources used thus far (based on your comments). As you stated, they are mostly primary. My intended purpose was to use these sources to confirm a statement made in the article, but they don't offer substantial or general coverage of the network as a whole. I will add more reliable secondary sources.LG Brichetto (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)