Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 November 10

= November 10 =

09:41:14, 10 November 2020 review of submission by 2409:4065:495:4B14:54FF:A29E:9100:2D5E
2409:4065:495:4B14:54FF:A29E:9100:2D5E (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, so it is difficult for us to help you, but your draft has almost no content in it, and as such has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

13:07:39, 10 November 2020 review of submission by Secfumes
I improved the article by editing general info about the company, added "History", "Mission" and "Products" sections.

I hope its a good content for the Wiki community.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Secfumes (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, such as what it considers to be its "mission". 331dot (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

13:34:42, 10 November 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020
Please could you review the Massar draft. I have made all the changes requested by administrators. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

14:49:50, 10 November 2020 review of draft by Editor.wiki20
Hi! I have added credible sources to this article. But now I'm getting it rejected for sounding like an advertisement. I am trying to tell the company's history like would be an encyclopedia. Do you have any suggestions for how to make it sound less than an ad and more like an encyclopedia? Thank you!

Editor.wiki20 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you involved with the company in any way? If you have a conflict of interest, it's going to be difficult for you to write objectively about the subject even if someone were to give you tips on how to avoid sounding like an ad. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

15:35:40, 10 November 2020 review of draft by Academiskool
I am creating a new article for Dr Elisabeth Kendall. However, I would like to rename this Elisabeth Kendall (omit the Dr). Can you help me do this as I seem unable to edit the title. Thanks. Academiskool (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the correct title. It's standard practice for titles to not be in article titles, so the reviewer will omit Dr. from it. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

15:44:39, 10 November 2020 review of draft by Medytaerian
Hi there! I'm encountering difficulties when trying to publish a Wikipedia page on the East European Film Bulletin (eefb.org). Snowycats' comment of November 3 stated that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.".

I do not quite understand this comment. Are the sources unreliable or should I provide additional ones? In the first case, of the links that have been provided, neither BNF, nor Czech Centres or the Human Rights Film Festival are affiliated with EEFB. In the second case, additional sources could easily be provided. In fact, a simple search on googlebooks or google scholar should make it clear that the East European Film Bulletin is itself a reliable source and that additional links could thus be found. Nevertheless, providing these sources in footnotes for an encyclopedic article does not make much sense. For instance, a sentence like "the East European Film Bulletin is a widely quoted film journal" may jeopardize the neutral point of view standards of Wikipedia.

I hope you understand the conundrum. It would be great if you could help understand what we have to do.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Best

Medytaerian Medytaerian (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per our general notability guideline, in order for a subject to be considered notable, you need to demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are only three references in the article, and none of them speak in any depth about the East European Film Bulletin, they merely prove that the bulletin exists. The sources you'd be looking for are ones that speak in great detail about the bulletin. When was it founded, who founded it, why was it founded, who were the editors, when did those editors work, and more. And no, a basic data sheet isn't the same thing. I'm sure you could easily find a book written about the legacy of Vogue magazine. Can the same be said about the East European Film Bulletin? Are there newspaper articles that talk about the bulletin, its business, its function, its success in depth? Are there any magazines that do this? That's what we're looking for. And of course it has to be independent, so the information can't come from the entity itself, or its website, etc. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

17:28:05, 10 November 2020 review of submission by 96.46.214.130
96.46.214.130 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask a question, but if you're referring to Draft:.17 incenerator, you provided no references or anything else that would suggest that this gun is notable. (I'll also note that you misspelled and miscapitalised the name of the gun in the article title.) Anyhow, I plan to delete it, since it appears to be a hoax. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)