Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 November 5

= November 5 =

13:15:44, 5 November 2017 review of submission by Omega68537
Now I can sure that WP:TOOSOON does not apply to my article.Thanks for 's suggestion.I can sure that Xu Geyang is notable enough for Wikipedia,because some BLPs about people who are less notable than Xu Geyang are accepted.But I can't find enough reliable references to show her notability better.So I still need some suggestions to increase the probability of being accepted.

Omega68537 13:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * had a nice response above that I'm going to reuse here: "Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best." ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't mean that I will learn from other articles which are not very good,I just mean that I believe my subject is notable enough.I want to find a way to show the notability of my subject,then my article will be better and the probability of being accepted will be increased.Thank you.

Omega68537 12:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

15:21:59, 5 November 2017 review of submission by Timhosking
I'm not entirely sure what extra information is required on this post. As the owners of The Rochdale Herald are clearly using pseudonyms to protect their identity it's pretty much impossible to unearth more details about their background and involvement in other sites. I feel their increasing popularity warrants a wiki entry, which hopefully will be fleshed out further as more information comes to light. I have checked entries for similar sites such as Southend News Network and honestly can't see what else I can add at this time.


 * There is a question here about whether the sources show significant coverage. This can be a bit subjective. The original reviewer,, thought not. I beleive the draft includes an adequately diverse set of sources on multiple stories run by the subject. Therefore, I have resubmitted the draft under your name and, as a reviewer here, have accepted it into the encyclopedia. It is still possible that others find fault with these actions now or at a later date and request that the article be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)