Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 February 20

= February 20 =

Request on 08:44:15, 20 February 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lisztmacher
My page on R. Bruce Dold was rejected for lack of notability. I accept this. I just got another message about it. It is entirely unclear how to DELETE (not modify) a proposal. Lisztmacher (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Lisztmacher (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Lisztmacher -I have accepted the draft, as a Pulitzer winner Dold is obviously notable. Thanks for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

09:55:01, 20 February 2016 review of submission by Mgarrickbyrne
Hello Wikipedia! I am having trouble determining what constitutes an in depth third-party source. And after looking at other people's questions, Googling, and comparing my draft to published articles, it only gets more confusing. I added verified news sources and web sites representing broadcast television before my last re-submit, and I continue to beef the page up with references unrelated to the subject's workplace website and IMDb page, but I did leave those initial references in the article because I felt they supported the statements I made.

I'm at the point where I'm wondering if there is a format I should be following. Is there a format for an entertainment industry professional - non actor?

Mgarrickbyrne (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No single page will give you all the guidance you're looking for. Template:Biography is a good structure for any biography. Other formats are also acceptable. No one has written a good biography of a film critic to use as an example. However, Margaret Fuller and Isabella Beeton, biographies of a book critic and a journalist, are among Wikipedia's very best. The biographies of journalist Abby Martin and editor Anna Wintour, although far from perfect, are also good. Studying them may be helpful. A few essential references are:
 * Writing better articles
 * Manual of Style/Biographies
 * Manual of Style/Lead section
 * Manual of Style


 * An independent or third-party source is one that has no vested interest in a topic. The subject of a biography is not an independent source about themselves because it is to their advantage to make themselves look good. Similarly, an organization they work for has an interest in promoting their work. The ideal independent source in this case would be a scholarly one, perhaps a film historian or someone who studies entertainment journalism. Failing that, next best would be a professional journalist writing for the most reputable and mainstream outlet you can find (think Los Angeles Times, Variety, or NPR).


 * The quintessential example of an in-depth source is a 200-page biography. A chapter in a book, or even a couple pages, is probably enough to count as in-depth. The low end of what's acceptable is intentionally vague, but anything with less than a few paragraphs talking directly about the person is unlikely to be considered "significant coverage" by reviewers.


 * The draft has far too many citations for the amount of content (see Citation overkill). Based on examining a dozen of its sources, they aren't the kind to be citing. I see things written by Drake, blogs, user-generated sources like IMDB, and passing mentions. Set aside all that rubbish and see if there's anything left.


 * It can be difficult to prove the notability of journalists. It can seem as if they must be notable when their work is all around you, but however ubiquitous their work, it does not directly translate to notability. Notability requires other reliable sources writing about the journalist and/or citing their work. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

17:52:55, 20 February 2016 review of submission by Tractracccc
Tractracccc (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) For my draft, Draft:Hong Kong Public Relations Professionals' Association, the reviewer referred it to another reviewer. Then the second reviewer said he would not review the article because some of my sources are in Chinese. What should be my next step? Wait for another reviewer? Thank you! Tractracccc (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Help Desk! The draft is still submitted for review, and another reviewer will be along in the coming days or weeks to assess it. We're not all equally comfortable with different languages, and while Google Translate is useful in a pinch, it's often easier for a reviewer fluent in the reference's language to do the review. So I'd say just wait for another reviewer to take a look—it's in the queue! Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  03:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)