Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 September 9

= September 9 =

14:47:52, 9 September 2016 review of submission by Ragnorc
Hello, I am writing an article about Joseph Comerford. I also have many newspaper sources that are offline. I didn't include them as the reviewers cannot access them. I have copies of them. Should I scan them? Kind regards,

Ragnorc (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. Reviewers may be able to access more than you think. There's no need to scan them, but it can be helpful to add a |quote= parameter to the inline citation (see Offline sources). The technique can be useful with online sources as well. Try it with the sources currently used to support the statement "Joe Comerford was murdered". Is that an accurate paraphrase of any of them?


 * Use the offline newspaper sources to replace sources, such as www.congoforum.be, that do not fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. Quality of sources if far more important than quantity. The draft already cites three major newspapers. Citing three more containing significant coverage of the topic would be good, but citing fifteen brief mentions of the topic would be bad if the information is already supported by reliable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi , thank you for your advice. Should I now continue doing research on Joseph Comerford or will it be declined because of a lack of notability?
 * That's a difficult question to answer. You say that you have many offline newspaper sources, but we can't evaluate them without you saying what they are (author, if identified; date; article title; newspaper; page, if known) and what you're using them to support.


 * New editors are often advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain a significant depth of coverage. The Guardian is one such source. Another suitable piece is: One of the sources that isn't reliable itself implies that there may have been a substantive piece in The Sunday Times. There are other independent, reliable, secondary sources that may not individually contain in-depth coverage, but which provide background and perhaps in aggregate contain substantial coverage not found elsewhere. The Independent and The New York Times fall into this category. Another might be:  All of which is promissing, and suggests that further research would be worthwhile.


 * The notability guidelines to bear in mind for this topic have to do with events and people notable for only one event. They are complex, so I suggest you read them carefully: WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, and WP:EVENT. Not everything that merits a newspaper article also warrants an encyclopedia article. The case for a biography could be strengthened if you have coverage from before his death. The case for an article "Death of Joseph Comerford" could be strengthened if there's coverage that shows lasting impact, such as a causal relationship between his death and the creation of the IJC. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, I also have access to internal UN documents and documents from the chancellery dealing with the case. How can these be included? Some documents also deal with some issues about Mark Malloch Brown. Kind regards, Ragnorc (talk)
 * "Internal" sounds like "unpublished", which may not be included in Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

18:38:08, 9 September 2016 review of submission by AmyJudgeWeaver
I need help I saw a comedian last night with my boy friend and weve seen him a bunch of times now so I went to look up some info on him last night and noticed he didn't have a wiki page. I tried and obviously failed to start one wit the hopes someone who know what they are doing can and will finish it. Please help I dont know what Imdoing, im not a writer, and I really just want to fiond out more. I emailed his assistant and she said she could help with any verification stuff.

Thank you for your help!

AmyJudgeWeaver (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. There is no significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia at this time. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)