Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 July 3

= July 3 =

02:25:58, 3 July 2017 review of submission by Billyarberry
I would like the know the basis of the rejection of my article. I'm not questioning the decision in any way but I would like to know the defects of the submitted article so that I can better comply with expectations in the future. Best regards, Bill Yarberry

Billyarberry (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . User:Billyarberry/sandbox/3.0 World was declined because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Topics of Wikipedia articles must have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Wikipedia is not a dictionary either, and not the place to "get the word out" about anything, including a neologism. To understand what Wikipedia is, it may help to spend some time browsing the encyclopedia's best content. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

02:55:39, 3 July 2017 review of submission by RonBond007
RonBond007 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was my article on the potential Fourth Star Wars Trilogy declined? I had some good resources from other sites!
 * Hi . User:RonBond007/sandbox/Star Wars Fourth Trilogy was declined for failing to cite reliable sources. Perhaps you meant the five external links to be references, but they're all dead, and, with the possible exception of Screen Rant, the websites do not exhibit the characteristics of reliable publishers. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

07:40:00, 3 July 2017 review of submission by Bellosaurus
I'm trying to work out why my draft for Cornerstone Christian School (Palmerston North, New Zealand) was denied: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.". I recently started working at this growing school (my bias declared). It is one of eight schools that offer secondary education in this city, the other seven all have wikipedia pages. Two of the other schools (LAC and QEC) each have about half the school roll as this school, and have stationery rolls. Cornerstone is growing - so I struggle to see the 'notability' problem in terms of the school's size. You could argue that we are one of the youngest schools in the city, and so therefore have had fewer graduates than those other two...

My best guess is I didn't have enough references about this school. I have since added five more references. They are mostly news articles, specifically about this school and its growth. Are multiple news articles from New Zealand's biggest news agency (fairfax) sufficient to justify notability? Should I continue to add additional news articles, or start looking for other sources, like Ministry of Education, or printed sources. Is there a required number of references? Should I remove the link to the school's website from the references section (it is else where on the page, but seemed useful under references)?

Thanks for your help.

Bellosaurus (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, essentially Wikipedia's policy on the inclusion of schools has recently changed. It used to be the fact that any school, as long as it could be proven to exist was worthy of a Wikipedia article. Now all schools have to show they are notable- i.e. covered by newspapers, media reports etc., and existing schools are slowly being gone through to check that they comply with the new policy. I see that you have added new sources- hopefully a reviewer will be along soon to check the new sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hi . What jcc said. The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. Being large, old, or growing does not demonstrate that a school is notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what proves that a school is notable. So you're on the right track by citing news coverage in the Manawatu Standard.


 * With regard to articles about other schools, bear in mind that Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. Rules and their enforcement change, so be wary of comparing articles. Furthermore, at any point in time there are high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines doesn't mean they belong, it could just mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you learn from examples, be sure to use examples drawn from among Wikipedia's best work.


 * I'll leave more specific comments on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:52:08, 3 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by WilHutton
Hi Wikipedia

I have edited a page on the AMAR Foundation to the point that it doesn't contain any adjectives and only states factual evidence. Nonetheless it keeps getting rejected whilst other pages for charities are more self-promoting and subjective. Please advise how I can get this page recognised and accepted.

WilHutton (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The bulk of any article should be based on arms-length, reliable sources. GulfNews, Middle East Eye, and BBC Radio 4 are such sources, but they contain only five sentences total about AMAR Foundation. The draft needs in-depth independent sources so that it doesn't depend so much on the publications of the organization and its partners. Follow the advice Chris Troutman gave in his comment on the draft.


 * Use the search links in the topmost big pink box on the draft to find more and better sources. For example, this snippet suggests that there may be a meaty article in a 2006 issue of New Statesman. To get the whole article and determine whether it is independent, visit a library (especially one at a good research university) or request the source at WP:RX. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

20:55:40, 3 July 2017 review of submission by RachelBBerry
Please point out which sections of the text have been deemed "promotional" in nature, so that I can remove them. We have included a number of citations from scientific journals and other external resources - I am not clear on what sections of the content are "promotional." RachelBBerry (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The page has been deleted, so you'll have to ask an administrator. Try asking at User talk:RickinBaltimore, who deleted the draft (I've also pinged him so he can reply here). jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was also tagged by DrStrauss for promotional content, which I agree with. The page, while describing the company, did so in a promotional vein. The sourcing was good I will say, however the page should have been written someone more neutrally. I'd like DrStrauss to add on as well, as he originally declined the draft. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed RiB's ping template, re-ping . jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed a large number of drafts recently and while I can't remember the exact phrases which were promotional but I think its tone was the main error but I can't see it now... Dr Strauss   talk  17:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

21:39:00, 3 July 2017 review of draft by Duncan R2
Hi - I am at the early stages of drafting this article and have a couple of questions

1. I would like to insert a contents table at the start. The previous articles just set them up automatically but this one doesn't seem to have one.

Bellosaurus (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ''Hi Duncan. Thanks for joining Wikipedia editors. I'm also a beginner, but noticed that the contents page only came automatically once I had 3 or 4 subheadings to go in it. Keep going with your article with another section or two, and it should appear.''

2. There is already a "red link" article for this subject so do I need to do anything special when drafting or submitting it?

Thanks

Duncan R2

Duncan R2 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The contents box is now there- it appears once the article has been expanded. There's nothing special about the fact that the article has already been linked to; once the article has been accepted, the 'red link' will turn into a blue link automatically. Keep going with the article- looks great so far. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)