Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 January 6

= January 6 =

Request on 01:18:33, 6 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by AUSfilmstudies15
Article was rejected due to not being notable, and a lack of independent sources. Do the sources have to support the notability of the organization?

AUSfilmstudies15 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

03:26:36, 6 January 2016 review of submission by Arc-bay
Hi Wikipedia! This is my first (well, second, since it was unsuccessful) time posting an article. I am wondering how and where I can go about citing sources that would satisfy the criteria.

A challenge I have is that this is a relatively small/new company, with little press coverage. So a lot of the material could only be sourced from the company itself. What methods/citation can I use to make the content verifiable?

If this is not possible, I understand that this may not be the best avenue for a company profile. If you have any suggestions or ideas, I am all ears!

Thank you again for reviewing my submission :)


 * Hello, by definition, Wikipedia only covers topics that have already been written about since we are an encyclopedia, not an academic journal or a newspaper. An encyclopeia does not "break" new stories or reveal exciting new facts or conduct investigations. An encyclopedia simply compiles existing knowledge. So, if nobody is writing about Arctic Bay other than the company itself, we don't yet have anything to report on, so we can't have a Wikipedia article for them until such point as a body of news or academic writers finds the company worth exploring and examining. See WP:42 for the 10-second summary of how our Notability benchmark works. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:45:05, 6 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Bhupinder siingh thind
Bhupinder siingh thind (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . No, you may not use Wikipedia to advertise your services. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:40:09, 6 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Np2393
I would please like an in-depth explanation of how I can make my sources/articles overall appear better. If my sources aren't 'credible' can you point out what exactly about them does not make them credible? Thank you Np2393 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi -  left a note at the top of your draft, and formatted the first reference to give you an example of what a citation should like like. You can take a look at WP:RS to see all of what goes in to making something a reliable source, basically, it means it has to be from a reputable publication, and independent of the subject of your article. Press releases, promotional puff pieces, interviews aren't considered reliable. Also, to show notability, you'll need about 3 in-depth articles about the company, again from independent reliable sources. Brief mentions or listings don't help. In addition, your article reads like a simple ad for the company, so the promotional content would have to be addressed. Hope this helps.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

23:49:31, 6 January 2016 review of submission by Windeditor00999
Part of the reason why the most recent submission got declined, according to the reviewer this time, is that references in non-English languages were used. As I was looking for assistance from the previous reviewer, I stated that since most of the company's services are based in China, there may not be as much media coverage in English. And he or she approved of me using non-English references. I'm very confused about the sources I am supposed to use in the article, so I appreciate that if someone can give me a detailed explanation. Also, as I was referencing to other companies that do similar business as we do. I noticed that Goldwind's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwind only listed one third-party source, and its page has been approved. If possible, could you tell me what our page is missing in comparison to Goldwind's? Thank you.

Windeditor00999 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)