Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 March 19

= March 19 =

04:18:10, 19 March 2017 review of submission by Janweh64
I believe this article qualifies under WP:GNG. The three main sources used are The Bulletin (Bend):, Fast Company (magazine):   and The Oregonian. I have removed the only possible offending source which was Portland Business Journal.

I appreciate your time spent and attention. Declaration of COI. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Janweh. Our apologies for the delay in response.  Since you made this posting, your submission was declined by a second reviewer, on the same grounds as noted by the first. For what it's worth, I too would have declined your submission, but my concern would have been more with the local nature of most of the sources.  Except for Fast Company, all of the sources are media outlets that primarily serve Oregon.  And although this does not apply to Fast Company, the coverage in that national publication is not very substantial, nor does it address the topic (cannabis sales) that receives most of your draft's attention.  I think that demonstrating notability will be a lot easier for you if can show that the subject's cannabis business has received attention in national media outlets.  Alternatively, you might try to show that the subject merits a stand-alone article solely on the business of his non-cannabis endeavours, but I think that this will a much tougher sell.  Either way, I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank You for your time. There is also a High Times article about the subject. I have even purchased a copy of the back issue to confirm that it is legitimate. I only hesistated including as it requires a subscription. Would that help to convince you any more. You can read it here without a subscription. Also, Fast Company has two articles about Hadar, the second more significant about his lawsuit. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Janweh. The High Times interview certainly doesn't hurt your chances at establishing encyclopedic notability for the subject, but there's a reasonable question as to whether it does much to support those chances.  There are some here on Wikipedia who say that interviews don't do anything to demonstrate notability, because they are essentially nothing more than the subject talking about himself.  I take a less extreme view -- the very fact that a magazine is willing to devote some of its limited page space to the subject conveys something about notability.  But how much?  To my mind, not a whole lot, especially considering that here it is a very brief interview appearing in what could properly be considered a "niche" publication.  As for the Fast Company article, there is a question as to whether the article would even exist had one of the litigants not been a Hollywood personality, so I'm seeing something along the lines of a claim of "inherited notability".  In all, I concede that your draft presents a case for notability that is more "borderline" than most of the ones we see here, but I still believe that it falls on the non-notable side of the line.  I recognize that this is not the answer you were hoping to get.  But other reviewers might feel differently than I do, so perhaps the best course of action is to wait and see what happens when the next reviewer takes a look at your draft.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

11:45:44, 19 March 2017 review of submission by Goernitz
Hello! Goernitz, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DavidWestT (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is a translation of the long existing article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Görnitz why should this not appear also in the English wikipedia?

Goernitz (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello . Thank you for your translation. Long existence is not proof that an article complies with Wikipedia's rules. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. In any case, each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. The good news is that if an article satisfies one set of rules, it can often be improved to satisfy another set of rules with a small amount of work.


 * The problem with Draft:Thomas Görnitz is the sources. Much of the material in the "Life" section cites no sources. Most of the draft's sources are written by Görnitz, so they are not independent of Görnitz. Of the three independent sources, only the first mentions Görnitz.


 * The English Wikipedia requires that most of the material in an article come from sources independent of the subject - sources about Görnitz rather than by Görnitz. Typical sources would be reviews of his books, written by other academics and published in scholarly journals. WP:PROF explains other sources frequently used to demonstrate the notability of academics. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything said by . This search may help you. But avoid chapters written by Görnitz, books co-authored by Görnitz, or edited by Görnitz. Some possible sources I found,,   &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)