Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 7

= January 7 =

05:11:09, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Eliasm920
Eliasm920 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your review. When you say the article is " not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" do you mean there is not enough reference coverage out there for Michael Elias? thank you


 * That is correct. The sources cited that are independent and reliable (People, Variety, Playbill) do not contain a significant depth of information about Elias, so he doesn't meet the criteria for an encyclopedia article. You may wish to explore alternative outlets for what you've written, such as FamilySearch, which has different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

thank you ... will research and apply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasm920 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

07:30:03, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Kirtigup
Kirtigup (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. IMDb is not a reliable source. The whole article lacks significant coverage of reliable sources. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 06:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

09:14:00, 7 January 2019 review of submission by GarethHancock
Hey guys! Thanks for taking the time to review my drafted page and for the feedback. The page was rejected for lack of notability (I think). I'm wondering how and if I can go about improving the quality of the page to bring it to a level worthy of publication. Thanks for your help!

GarethHancock (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides notability, the reviewer also left a comment: I strongly encourage you to read it since your article is not written in a neutral point of view and seemed to be promoting a subject. More instructions left on your talk page. You may also read WP:YFA / WP:WBA for how to write better articles. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

15:07:07, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Chrismacrae
Chrismacrae (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand this whoke [process i am at chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk - if you wish to explain what is wrong with my piece on Digital-Cooperation please do- otherwise i will see how to make sure people at appropriate levels of un and wikipedia talk to each other as i dont want to waste anyone's time mine included


 * The problems with your article are fully explained here. It sounds as though you have not grasped the basics of Wikipedia as yet, possibly because you've had such a long gap in editing. If you don't understand the process, you need to read the guidelines. Deb (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

22:45:46, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Sailod
I created my first page after making updates to a few others. I updated the Pearson Yachts page to add all the models and I wanted to create a new page for a model that does not have a page. It was rejected - I made three references to the information, one is written documentation from the defunct builder (company is long gone but the documentation has been scanned) and the other is written documentation which has been scanned in from the deceased designer. You can't get much more valid source of information than the builder and designer of the boat. The third reference is from an independent specifications site that is used on many other sailboat wikipedia pages. I do not have a lot of time to become a wikipedia expert but I would like to be able to make contributions as I like the philosophy and I have a good background in computer data. But if the site does not want my contributions I have plenty of other websites waiting. Sailod (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft cites valid sources of information; that isn't the trouble. The draft doesn't show evidence of significant coverage of the model in independent, secondary sources (the builder and designer are not independent of their product). Without such coverage, the product does not clear the bar of notability, so Wikipedia should not have a separate article on the model. Some information about the model could be included in Pearson Yachts. At the very least, the three sources you mention could be cited there. If sufficient independent sources are found later, then the topic can be spun out to into its own article. Meanwhile, there are many substandard articles that you could improve. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks, I think I have a better understanding regarding independent sources. I have added three more independent references. Sailod (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC) I added some references to "forum" data and I understand they are not reliable sources so I removed them. I am about to give up on being a Wikipedia donor but... one last point I am confused on. The feedback on my new page says that we do not need a separate article on this model and that the page for Pearson Yachts is good enough. That seems to miss the whole point of this new page - that each model of Pearson Sailboat has its own unique rig specifications -- which is the encyclopedic type of information that I am trying to document. That is why there is not much text to this page - most of the content is specifications in a format used by Wikipedia for boat specs. Each model has its own rig specifications - hence its own wiki page. So that begs the question - why do we need "more coverage" to document rig specs for each model? (See examples of all the models of C&C Yachts). They are defined by the manufacturer and we have verifiable references on it from both (1) the manufacturer and (2) an independent source: Pearson Yachts documentation and sailboatdata.com. Perhaps I should be communicating with someone from WikiProject Sailing??? Sailod (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your improvements to the draft have outrun your questions. The draft now cites several sources other than the designer and builder, has almost twice the content, and has been resubmitted for review. While you wait, I do suggest that you reach out to WikiProject Sailing. The average Articles for Creation reviewer deals with a sailboat article perhaps once every few years, whereas Sailing editors deal with them all the time, so they can give better subject-specific advice. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

22:50:23, 7 January 2019 review of draft by Heidi Helen
I don’t know how to reply to the reviewer in the article, so I am requesting help here. The reviewer doesn't find the individual to be of notable interest, but a leading role in a significant documentary known by the tech community and the public is quite notable. The references I have included back up that Ish ShaBazz was in the movie App: The Human Story.

The guide states "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable", which I have done with numerous third-party sources.

Additionally, "Significant coverage… does not need to be the main topic of the source material”, but you’ll find the references I provided actually correspond to the points made in my draft.

Also, the guidelines say “There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected” - I have provided plenty of sources, although the reviewer states, ”Not enough references to indicate this person is notable.”

I have also included links to various news sites that have mentioned the work of Ish ShaBazz and that he was in the movie, as his career is significant to a bio about him. I just added a link to Tech Insider too, where Ish's opinion was called upon, and his opinion was also called upon by The Verge in their Circuit Breaker video, which shows that he's a source often called on by the media for his expertise as an app developer and a tech commentator as well. Ish is very well known in the tech community and is of notable interest on Wikipedia.

A similar page to this one is that of Marco Arment, who is also a software engineer and a peer in the industry.

Heidi Helen (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . No, being one of the subjects of a documentary does not meet the basic or additional criteria for notability of an app developer. Nor does having his opinion called upon. The reviewer correctly assessed the draft as failing to demonstrate notability (and containing information unsupported by reliable sources). The cited sources are a mix of trivial mentions and primary source interviews, none of which help to show notability. That you haven't realized this, is just one of the reasons that conflict of interest editing is a really terrible idea. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Reply to Worldbruce
 * Hey, be nice. Yes, when I created the page, I discovered I had to give disclosure I am close to the subject, which I did. However, I linked to independent sources for every point that was made. I am not sure why passing references are not allowed to be used as a source to reference someone is an iOS developer, for instance. If the article says he is an iOS developer, why can’t that be used as a reference that he is an iOS developer? What would it take for the subject to be considered notable? Is it more secondary sources that are not primary interviews? --Heidi Helen 13:12, 9 January 2019 (GMT+10:30) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.82.101 (talk)
 * To be notable, they would need to meet the criteria of WP:BIO, which they do not. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)