Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 November 16

= November 16 =

03:14:00, 16 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat
Please give your opinions. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The page Draft: Peer Ki Gali was reviewed and approved by an administrator an after an hour, another administrator "User:Onel5969" moved this page to Draft. I have supplied all the verified sources to the page. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've accepted the page again. There was an issue with the user who approved the page and it seems some people are taking pains to undo their work. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

03:34:25, 16 November 2018 review of submission by 140.116.6.62
Thanks for reviewing the submission, but I wonder why it is challenged against the comment "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

The four references are all published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Selenium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_(software), is one of the most popular open source testing solution in the world, even they dedicate to the W3C WebDriver standard. The subject (SideeX) was adopted to serve as the basis and play a key driver for their Selenium IDE new generation solution, which is well notable in the field of software testing in the world. Reference 1 and 3 are the Selenium official web site and github, where they credit the subject (SideeX). Reference 4 is a keynote of the international official Selenium annual conference, where the subject is also credited.

Could you please help me how to improve the draft to make it acceptable? Thanks!

140.116.6.62 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings to you. I advise you to re-read the terms for independent sources and Reliable sources.
 * The Official Selenium+Blog - This source (Selenium) is associated with the subject and it is a blog page, thus means not independent source.
 * a9t9 - This sites created by two person in 2016 - see here, thus it does not considered well-established reliable source.
 * Selenium - This source talk about Selenium and not in dept and length solely about the subject.
 * Youtube - YouTube is considered not reliable source.

Sources from home page, official site, sources associated with the subject, user generated sites, interview, pres releases, interview are considered not independent and/or reliable. We are after secondary reliable sources such as from major newspaper, or reputable review journals and etc where by the subject is talked about with significant coverage, in dept and in length and not solely passing mentioned. In addition, notability is not inherited from association. For further info if the above is not clear to you, pls read The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

08:44:32, 16 November 2018 review of draft by Digital Kungfu
Digital Kungfu (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Im requesting assistance because I want to know which websites are considered reliable and credible, for instance would this article from Entrepreneur Magazine be considered credible? https://www.entrepreneurmag.co.za/advice/success-stories/lessons-learnt/the-100th-edition-of-the-matt-brown-show-entrepreneur-magazine-interview/

Thank you.
 * The article in Entrepreneur Magazine is reliable, but not arms-length. It's written by the guest host of The Matt Brown Show's 100th episode, on which Matt Brown was interviewed. There's a lack of independence there. The article may be used as a source for content, but does not help establish the notability of The Matt Brown Show. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

08:46:48, 16 November 2018 review of draft by ReggieSJC
Hi, the draft for Videoslots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Videoslots has been rejected a number of times. It looks like its due to the references.

Should I only include news-worthy references from third-party sites? Does it matter if the 'Retrieved' date is the same for all references? Are there any other comments you can share that might help get the Videoslots page approved?

Many thanks

ReggieSJC (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Only 3rd party reliable sources
 * Retrieved date is irrelevant
 * Please don't use Wikipedia to promote your company. If the business is truly notable someone without a WP:COI will create the article Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

09:32:00, 16 November 2018 review of draft by Tanya ZQ
Hi! My name is Tanya from Zeroqode company. Our wiki post every time is declined. The problem is in reliable sources. The last comment is: "Still lacks reliable sources. Self-published sources such as blogs don't help"

Could you please have a look on our page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeroqode and give us an advise regarding our references.


 * 1) As I understand reading you help "TechCrunch", "Computerworld", "What's New On The Net" are reliable sources, right? Or, I am wrong, and why?
 * 2) Could you please say whether we have any chance to be posted on Wiki?
 * 3) How many reliable sources we need to have to be posted?
 * 4) Is Youtube channel(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naa-_JVgQKM) are considered as reliable? This guy is an independent blogger who has a lot of followers, we found traffic from his youtube channel in analytics.
 * 5) What is regarding Philosophie source (Philosophie - Strategic software design and development studio) - I was thinking that their blog considered as reliable, because they are testing design and development ideas.

Thanks in advance! Waiting for your reply soon.

Tanya ZQ (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi I don't have much time, but a few things:


 * 1) I don't think "What's new on the net" is considered reliable. I'm open to be proven wrong.
 * 2) The computerworld article doesn't mention the company at all.
 * 3) See WP:TWITTER for information on social media, but YouTube is only really reliable for already reliable sources. Independent bloggers aren't reliable.
 * 4) You would need at minimum 3 in depth reliable independ sources. You haven't provided one of these.
 * 5) WP:BLOGs are rarely considered reliable.

I'd also argue the draft is really promotional too...  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)