Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 August 25

= August 25 =

02:29:59, 25 August 2018 review of submission by Vinylzombie mcr
Hi! I was wondering about what makes a page important enough for an actual page - when my draft was rejected, it said something with "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is worthy of a page, but my draft had that. Any advice? Thanks!

Vinylzombie mcr (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . The key guideline that addresses your question is Notability (music). You'll also have to follow some of the links therein to understand what Wikipedia means by certain terms.


 * The draft cites two sources, a local newspaper and a music festival. They are likely reliable, and contain significant coverage of the topic, but to demonstrate notability they must also be independent. The notability guideline explicitly excludes "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". The music festival piece is a primary source interview, Flood talking about Flood, so it doesn't help demonstrate notability. It is less obvious how independent the local paper is. It includes several quotes from Flood, but is not presented in interview format. Local papers generally don't have the armies of researchers and fact-checkers that major media like Billboard and Rolling Stone have. It can be assumed that most or all of the information about Flood in the article came from Flood, not from independent research by the journalist. So the draft has between zero and one of the recommended "at least three" independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage.


 * Another good indication that it is too soon for an encyclopedia article about Flood is that the sources describe the 20-year-old who joined a band two years ago as a "rising star" and "on the road to stardom". Wait until sources stop describing him as up and coming. Wikipedia seeks articles on topics that have garnered significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

04:34:30, 25 August 2018 review of submission by Westland12
Westland12 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to delete / remove this article... Please guide me how to do it ??? Westland12 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Place on the top of the article. Regards ~  Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

04:34:45, 25 August 2018 review of submission by Subhsankalp
Subhsankalp (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

07:37:49, 25 August 2018 review of submission by Web SourceContent
Hi there! I onli submitted this draft for review. For first time. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Accepted by ~  Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 08:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

15:36:41, 25 August 2018 review of submission by Borosouro
Hi. I'd like to request a re-review and/or specific comments on this article so that I may improve it for inclusion. I feel it is well-referenced with numerous external references and not at all an 'advertisement'. I'm comparing the tone and content to articles such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_H-I-S-T-O-R-Y which is an article on a somewhat comparable film by a comparabale filmmaker. Your helo is appreciated! Thanks.

Borosouro (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've commented at length on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

16:52:05, 25 August 2018 review of submission by BhaskarPolisetti
BhaskarPolisetti (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm not sure what specifically you're requesting on your draft - do you want the review assessed? Do you want additional comments?


 * For the meantime I just re-reviewed the assessment by David.Moreno. The review was clearly correct - with no references provided, it clearly can't satisfy the requirements for suitable sources. To see what counts as a suitable source have a click on the links in the top box (particularly the "reliable" and "independent" links) - remember they will need to cover the subject in detail.


 * Could you also let us know if you are associated with this person (are them, work with/for them, were hired by them etc)?