Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 17

= January 17 =

01:17:07, 17 January 2019 review of submission by Rweinman
Rweinman (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul Scott, Artist

I am attempting to publish an article for the artist Paul Scott. His works are held in the collections of multiple British and American museums including the Victoria and Albert Museum. He is an authority within his field, but my attempts have been denied.

I am seeking further advice on how to improve the article.

I have been paid by him for website services and do have associations with one of the galleries which represent him.

Thank you for any assistance you may offer.

Best, Rebeccca

03:05:02, 17 January 2019 review of submission by HannaWelch
In regards to my article about Giveaway Club, which was rejected. I would really appreciate some advice, so I don’t start working on articles that may get rejected in the future. What number of sources is considered sufficient to show that the subject is notable enough? I’ve looked at Giveaway Club’s competitors, such as BitsDuJour, and didn’t see that many external sources cited. In fact, with this example, most external links lead to BitsDuJour’s blog or their own press releases. Before starting this article, I looked at other similar web services that have articles about them on Wikipedia (such as here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deal_of_the_day_services) and thought that Giveaway Club’s notability was similar to those, so it was worth writing about. I would appreciate some guidance on notability criteria and how this particular article could be improved to be included on Wikipedia. I’ve already read through Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability and thought that this subject meets those. It’s a web service (a software giveaway platform), so I go by the Wikipedia:Notability_(web) guidelines, which says that to be notable a website has to meet ONE of the two criteria:


 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

My article about Giveaway Club cites six independent sources, at least 3 of which are reputable software review sites that place Giveaway Club among other notable websites (which have their own articles on Wikipedia). I believe six, or even three (if you only include those 3 better known sites), can count as multiple.

If you still find that Giveaway Club doesn’t deserve to have its own article on Wikipedia, can information about it still be included in some other article? The most relevant ones I see would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giveaway_of_the_Day (the site that is very similar to Giveaway Club) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deal_of_the_day. Should I do that?

Thanks in advance for your help.

HannaWelch (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic.


 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they are welcome. 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.


 * The draft is lacking in both the reliable source and significant coverage departments. Ghacks appears to be the only independent reliable source, and it does not contain signficant coverage.


 * You may be underestimating how hard it is to meet WP:NWEB. In the past six months, excluding web series and news sites, only 5 articles on websites have been accepted via Articles for creation, and one of those is being considered for deletion. If you want to avoid starting drafts that are likely to be rejected, then avoid writing about extant companies, websites, and products.


 * I would not include information about Giveaway Club in any other article. The only plausible place would be Auslogics, but it's already tagged for notability, which is often the first step on the road to deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

03:16:42, 17 January 2019 review of submission by Mathewarfr
I would like to add on the following details to my article DOB 30/May 1967 Spouse : Prof Anut Itthagarun Children : 2 Year active as author : Since 1978 Years active as a film -writer-director- producer -2003 Lives in Gold Coast, Australia

Please also link this article to his film "Punyam Aham "

Mathewarfr (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. The draft was accepted and published as Raj Nair, so it is no longer within our scope. If you have no connection to the subject, you may edit the article directly. Be sure to cite a reliable, published source for anything you add. If you have a conflicat of interest regarding the subject, then instead of editing the article directly, suggest all changes on Talk:Raj Nair. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

07:40:39, 17 January 2019 review of draft by Picallin
Why has my article been declined? Kingston is not part of Tradeston. Kingston is a district in its own right - it lies between the districts of Kinning Park to the west and Tradeston to the east.

Picallin (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Per WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to merit a stand alone article. This usually applies to villages, parishes, and municipalities. Populated places without legal recognition, must show significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Larger neighborhoods are usually kept if their names are found to have verifiable widespread usage. Industrial estates, housing developments, unofficial neighborhoods, and smaller suburbs are generally merged to the primary city except when they have their own governments.


 * The draft cites a single source, a map which shows the name Kingston. That is not significant coverage, and does not show the legal status of the area. It is insufficient information on which to decide whether Kingston should be a separate article or be covered within Glasgow. I recommend that you start by adding a sentence about Kingston to Glasgow (citing a reliable source). If you find several more sources that have more to say about Kingston, then add them to the draft and resubmit it. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

07:43:52, 17 January 2019 review of submission by ChristinFrohne
This is the first article I wrote on Wikipedia and when I submitted it, it got declined for sounding too much like an advertisement. I realized that some of my wording was not appropriate and edit it. Before I resubmit it now, it would be awesome if one of you could have a look at it and give me some advises. Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC) ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

09:17:14, 17 January 2019 review of submission by 27.34.69.18
27.34.69.18 (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - the article subject can't demonstrate notability by sourcing itself - these are primary and obviously non-independent. Alexa ranking is also irrelevant. You need multiple reliable secondary sources (e.g. other newspapers) that cover the Mirror itself in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

13:42:09, 17 January 2019 review of submission by Штрих
Штрих (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

15:23:32, 17 January 2019 review of submission by Engr Echendu Ndubuisi
Engr Echendu Ndubuisi (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - I see you've mostly wiped the draft now, but I'll answer to be sure. You didn't provide any sources in the original and thus there was no way for notability to be established. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

17:31:05, 17 January 2019 review of draft by Wiki KuthiVaiyans
My draft article Submission has been declined saying its not adequately supported by reliable sources. It is a simple small article about a popular online entertainment/content creators group I have cited references only from the official statements from members of this group linked interviews, official YouTube videos, public statements Wiki KuthiVaiyans (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As you'll see if you read WikiProject YouTube/Notability, articles about YouTubers (and groups of YouTubers) are routinely deleted even if they have hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Having lots of subscribers isn't considered to be a measure of notability. You'll need to add references that show that the group has been written about in depth by multiple reliable, independent publications. See WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

18:05:49, 17 January 2019 review of submission by Datboiguykid
I want to publish this page with new impprovments. Datboiguykid (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - a draft of this nature will never be able to be published, even if improved. Wikipedia is not a textbook - it isn't designed to explain how to do things. There are plenty of articles explaining what negative numbers and pi etc are. Beyond that is not in our remit. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

18:37:36, 17 January 2019 review of submission by G. Finknottle
I wondered why my draft article didn't get published, it was fully cited etc. What can I do now? G. Finknottle (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not read your recent draft (as it has been deleted as a blatant hoax). If it was similar to that you made to Eucharistic miracle then adding factually incorrect information to Wikipedia is a form of WP:VANDALISM and is not welcome here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:30:03, 17 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by BHJ15
So my article Markiezaatskade has been rejected for a lack of references. But it has been translated from another wiki, which in my opinion is a reference in itself. Why is it rejected?

19:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be your opinion, but that isn't the consensus of editors here on the English Wikipedia. See WP:NOTSOURCE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

19:31:23, 17 January 2019 review of submission by Turtleturtle00
Turtleturtle00 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to create an article for a former NFL player (Greg Williams) that doesn't already exist, however there are already a bunch of other articles with the same name. How would I go about creating a new one?


 * - Can I confirm that you don't mean this Greg Williams? If so, then just alter that article directly. If there is a different Greg Williams, who is also an american footballer, then you use an additional clarifier in the brackets. Normally this is a year of birth or nationality, e.g. John Smith (Medal of Honor, born 1854). Does that answer the question? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

21:26:54, 17 January 2019 review of submission by 104.225.241.238
Although I know following the standards outlined in the Notability section on Wikipedia doesn't guarantee submission, I'd like to request a re-review since the publications cited in this article do meet the notability criteria. Citations are from major news outlets and trade magazines - and talk in length about the company (they are not small spots).

If you still feel differently, I ask for advice on where to look for sources.

104.225.241.238 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - sources have to satisfy 4 main criteria: secondary, reliable, in-depth, independent. Business sources are often ruled out for a variant of the "in-depth" one, which is called WP:CORPDEPTH - which basically rules out coverage that companies have that isn't particularly meaningful for notability. Venture capitalism is a particularly common example.


 * What is a real killer of your sources, which are generally reputable sources, are that either they aren't in-depth (e.g. LA Times) or they aren't independent, because their company gets some money if items are purchased through a link involved or Bespoke helped write the article (USA today, Business Insider, or Esquire). Nosebagbear (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And toxic marketing language like "men's lifestyle space" and "curated boxes" (you already have "bespoke"; how did you miss "artisanal"?) don't help when trying to assert that this is not an advertisement. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)23:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)