Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 March 19

= March 19 =

04:32:14, 19 March 2016 review of submission by 73.223.171.60
I've gotten three different variations of the same feedback--that the sources for this article are not adequate. However, the association being written about has been cited multiple times by the host country's main national newspaper, in several American university publications, and on a UNESCO webpage (which are in the list of references). If that's not enough, I'm not sure what other sources are acceptable when the point for the submission is that this subject is under-represented/covered in the first place. In the original draft, other information was included from the association's website, but that was called redundant or disallowed, and therefore got deleted despite it being the most authoritative source. Supplemental information was obtained from the association's founder but has not been published elsewhere. It is not made up and makes no far-fetched claims. A little support for this deserving association, please? Can you quantify how much more referencing is expected and at what level?

73.223.171.60 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, No doubt it's a fine organization doing much good work, but that is not the criteria for having a stand alone encyclopedia article. The notability guideline for organizations states: "No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." The guidelines go on to explain that such discussion must be at some depth, not just a passing mention. Wikipedia only has articles on topics that have attracted "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". When you write that "the point for the submission is that this subject is under-represented/coverd in the first place", you are more or less proving the point that the organization is non-notable and therefore should not have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is never the place to "get the word out", no matter how noble the cause.


 * For an example of good depth of coverage, see the article on music publisher Boosey & Hawkes. At least two books have been written specifically about the company. There is also an article about it from another encylopedia and multiple articles from The Times (London), The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, and others. Some stories are several pages long, none are less than several paragraphs. A draft need not be as long or have as many references as Boosey & Hawkes to be accepted, but it's something to aim for. There is no magic number of references. Two is technically "multiple". Novice editors are often advised to have "at least three". The sweet spot might be higher, perhaps six to eight. No one would be likely to challenge the existence of an article with that many solid sources. The sources have to be solid, however.


 * You write that the association has been "cited multiple times". Simply being cited doesn't mean much for the notability of a publisher. It confirms that the organization exists, but it is not in-depth coverage and does nothing to show what significant mark the organization has made on the historical record. Taking the draft's sources one by one:
 * is a scholarly review of a book edited by the director of the association. The one-page preview doesn't mention the organization. It is only used in the draft to support a general statement about Cambodian literature, which suggests the other two pages don't mention the organization either. Because the content is behind a paywall, it would be helpful if you included in the reference a quotation of the source that supports the draft's text.
 * shows one sentence about the organization in an encyclopedia. That's a start.
 * has a decent depth of information about the organization. But is the alumni magazine of the university where the director of the organization teaches a reliable arms-length source? It isn't peer reviewed. It doesn't employ an army of fact checkers like major news outlets do. Does the university have a vested interest in publicizing its professor's activities and putting them in a favorable light?
 * has a two-sentence description of the organization. I suspect it was supplied by the organization rather than being the result of independent investigation by UNESCO, but in any case the depth is not deep.
 * These sources do not make a convincing case that the organization is notable.


 * If you can find more and better sources, great. If not, maybe you could add some information to related existing articles, such as List of literary magazines. Perhaps notability could be demonstrated for a related topic, such as the namesake author Nou Hach, the journal, or Professor Yamada. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 06:01:12, 19 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Thitojhapali
Thitojhapali (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , what is your question? Your draft contains no content suitable for an encyclopedia, and your "questions" here are blank, so there's nothing for us to answer. You need to more clearly explain what you're trying to do please. Worldbruce (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:58:36, 19 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by J,jhouse
J,jhouse (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, what is your question? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

21:04:09, 19 March 2016 review of submission by Teachamantoghoti
Hello,

I have written a draft, Richard Beard(author), which I have submitted three times. It was rejected within a day the first two times (it was great to get such quick feedback. I submitted it a third time after lots of change, with all the problems, I think, fixed. However this was three weeks ago now, and it hasn't been reviewed, I was just wondering whether this was normal or if it may have been lost somehow.

Many Thanks! Teachamantoghoti (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It was accepted a short while ago, congratulations. It's a fairly normal sequence of events; the first few reviews catch "easy" problems so they follow quite quickly. Once the style and formatting is fixed subsequent reviews take longer because the draft often waits for someone with specific knowledge of and interest in the topic to find it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

21:16:40, 19 March 2016 review of submission by 105.112.42.211
105.112.42.211 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Help Desk. Do you have a question about a specific draft? /wiae   /tlk  01:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)