Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 2

= August 2 =

05:02:54, 2 August 2016 review of submission by Santamoly
Over the last 10 years, this page has been deleted twice, the last time for "notability", I'm unable to figure out how to establish "notability", even though the topic "Exsite" shows over 900,000 hits in a Google search. But it's never been discussed in a "newspaper" (one of the requirements for "notability"). After submitting for review in "Articles for creation", it was declined for lack of "notability". I could create the article again and it would stick for a few more years, but it would get deleted again and I'd have to start over. It's "notable" in the software IT world because it's written in PERL, and PERL specialists are looking for tools like this, but that may not mean anything to a reader who's a specialist in literature or horticulture. So I understand how it gets deleted for lack of "notability" even though it's notable to 900,000 users. At one time, GPL software didn't need to establish newspaper "notability", but I can't find the specific exception now. Any ideas? Santamoly (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources do not specifically need to be newspapers - Any sources that comply with the reliable sources standard would be useful. Existence ≠ Notability - if there really are 900,000 users who regard this software as "important" where are the IT magazine articles about it, where are the college textbook chapters? Without such evidence your claim of how "important" the software is, is mere handwaving. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

08:30:32, 2 August 2016 review of submission by Marketingislove
I have submitted the page for review 3 weeks ago. Could you please, inform if review will happen any time soon. Thank you

Marketingislove (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

19:39:36, 2 August 2016 review of submission by Chfsh01
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hakim_Optical

Hello, I am uncertain as to why the article was rejected. All of the sources (except one) are from published newspaper articles and a published book from third parties. Can you please help with specifics as to what needs to be fixed? Thank-you so much!

Chfsh01 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, it looks like has already fixed the problematic links.  Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)