Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 February 13

= February 13 =

02:41:26, 13 February 2018 review of submission by Tmittenfelner
I have reviewed AFC comments on the page I created and have edited the page correspondingly. I'm not sure if I should post a comment myself to indicate and/or detail what I've done or if that should only be done by certain individuals. In addition, if I am supposed to leave a comment, I don't know if I should do so by editing the page and copying the format of previous comments or if there is another, proper way to do so. Tmittenfelner (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Because Anime News Network is edited by anonymous users, I do not believe that it qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. However, I am not an expert in anime. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look into this . I believe all the sources I cited from Anime News Network (except the first source as a general reference to Whitney's filmography, which can be omitted if necessary) are "news articles," which might be written by official contributors rather than anonymous users; I'm not certain. Regardless, articles of the same type as these from Anime News Network are cited in some current Wikipedia articles for other anime voice actors, such as Alexis Tipton, Tia Ballard, and Sonny Strait. In the case of Sonny Strait, my draft for Whitney Rodgers already has twice as many sources and is significantly shorter (I eliminated a lot of filmography information that cited cast lists from Anime News Network). These news articles usually reference news posts on Funimation's blog, and I could change the references to cite those, which I'm confident are only written by Funimation staff, but I was encouraged to use a variety of credible sources over a single credible source. I was also encouraged to use mainstream media sources, but where anime is concerned, I believe the sources I cited are among the most mainstream. Tmittenfelner (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read all three of those biographies,, and in my opinion, none of those people are notable and the referencing in all of them is very poor. I did not see a single case where a reliable, independent source devoted significant attention to any of these people. Maybe they should all be deleted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

05:23:57, 13 February 2018 review of submission by Julia mji
Hello, I did a lot of changes, can u pls let me know what else should be corrected. Thank you Julia mji (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

12:01:20, 13 February 2018 review of submission by 213.149.51.161
Submission is improperly sourced is what he said. Every piece of information is sourced from official sources (ITF), from the root source. Every piece. How is it improperly sourced???? If ITF is not reliable than you can immediately shut down wikipedia as all of its sources are crap/fake/non reliable. Apart from souring, many parts of the submission won't qualify. Which parts?? This is a new tournament. This article is not abundant with information but contains all info that matters except scores. You have all the information that can be expected from a tournament page at this stage of the tournament. If this is not adequate than you can direct your attention to, for example, pages of tennis exhibition tournaments which can read like an advert to quote my revisioner. I will correct myself, they are adverts, for jewelry company and such. 213.149.51.161 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Every piece of information is sourced from official sources (ITF). Which is why the draft is improperly sourced. The bulk of any Wikipedia article should come from sources that are independent of the topic. This comes as a surprise to many new editors, but Wikipedia doesn't care so much about what an entity has to say about themselves (that's what their website is for). Rather, Wikipedia summarizes what arms-length sources have written about a topic. It is not a question of reliability (which is also important), but of neutral point of view.


 * You also write This is a new tournament. Because of that, there may be insufficient third-party reliable sources that cover it in detail. If that's the case, then the topic is not notable (does not qualify for inclusion). Wikipedia is not the place to "get the word out" about anything. It only covers topics of which the world at large has already taken significant notice.


 * By all means call attention to articles that have problems. One way to do that is by the judicious use of appropriate cleanup tags. Improving articles (or if improvement is impossible, deleting them) is a large part of what many Wikipedians do. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

15:02:38, 13 February 2018 review of submission by Saurav.webkul
Can you help me with the content type? Saurav.webkul (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - As the reviewer who recently declined it, for me it's just an advertisement, with a long list of products, and some, not very significant, placings in some, not very notable, industry awards. But it may be that other reviewers have a different take on it. KJP1 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

18:04:37, 13 February 2018 review of submission by Julia mji
Can you please let me know what's wrong with this article? I did include only work process, materials, gave names, notable works, big publications, even book. Julia mji (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As an example the sentence, "Sisters experiment with various materials like China, paper clay, Fumo, and plastic giving their dolls realistic gestures and almost human characteristics, transforming them into real pieces of art" isn't written in an encyclopedic manner. You may want to look at some of the articles Category:Dollmakers as a guide, though they may not be perfect.Naraht (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

20:34:01, 13 February 2018 review of submission by Gfroding
I submitted an article on FideliTrade Incorporated and it was rejected because there was another article pending. However, neither article has been published. Can you give me an update and reason why it wasn't published? Gfroding (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Draft:FideliTrade Incorporated was declined for failing to show that the topic is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia), and for reading more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. After more than six months without improvement, the draft was deleted in 2016. If you wish to resurrect the draft, instructions for doing so are on your talk page, but it sounds like the topic was a non-starter that is unlikely ever to become appropriate for Wikipedia. If you are a current or former employee of the company, you have a conflict of interest, and it would be unwise of you to write about the topic here. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)