Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 September 18

= September 18 =

02:36:41, 18 September 2020 review of submission by Someoneelsesomethingelse
I am not sure how to get reliable sources for my draft. When I clicked on the webpage for DC Archive Editions, I saw there weren't any references on that page, but there was a header code that I thought substituted for a citation. Why is my draft not approved and where can I find reliable sources to get the draft improved, if it needs reliable sources? One reviewer said it isn't necessary to be tech-savvy, but I am still unsure how to post content and make reliable pages other than trial and error. Any and all help to make this draft a webpage that can be accessed by new DC Comic fans wanting to find cheap and compacted comics to read would be appreciated. Someoneelsesomethingelse (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Placing at the top is not a replacement. I generally can't tell you how to find reliable sources, as there are many different ways, howewer, I am able to tell you that there are certain sources that have been often discussed. You may want to have a quick lok at that list to ensure you are not using a source regarded as unreliable or deprecated by the community. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft Draft:DC Comics Complete Reprints has zero sources and is just a list, not clear why it needs to be an article? Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

15:30:18, 18 September 2020 review of draft by Dsg61
Looking for assistance on page I re-submitted with sources. What can I do to get this re-reviewed and ensure that it's approved when it is? Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dada_Group

Dsg61 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no assurances made that this draft will be approved. Just by glancing at it, I observe that significant portions read like advertising copy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and while you are at it, please have a look at named references which allow you to use the same ref multiple times. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

17:24:24, 18 September 2020 review of draft by Vsp.manu
I am not able to get some specific comment to understand the reason of decline this page.

I have used reference which are already used in reference of other wiki pages. Requesting to either fix or help me to fix if any issue exist.

Vsp.manu (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

19:51:12, 18 September 2020 review of draft by QDE-can
I do not understand the reason why this submission was declined (and reverted to draft after additions were made to correct initial problems).

The original rejection had the comment “Many of the references are to the organization's own website, and thus not WP:INDEPENDENT. The Evening Telegraph article isn't actually about ENFSI. A couple of others are press release coverage.” At that point the rejection may have been valid.

However, it is clear that this is no longer the case. The article presently has 20 references which break down as follows:
 * 5 do come from the ENFSI website
 * 10 are from independent scientific journals
 * 1 is from the Europol website
 * 4 are from news sources

I know that isn't perfect but it's better than many existing WP articles about similar entities. I looked through WP:NORG but it isn’t clear to me what else is required to address the shortcomings for notability. From what I can see the references that have been provided demonstrate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.

For what its worth, I'm not sure that those points apply to this particular page because the subject organization (ENFSI) is a non-profit, as the article notes. As such, the section on non-commercial orgs should apply and that shows different criteria for Notability. As I read it, such organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
 * 1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * 2) The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

I think the references clearly show that both of those conditions have been met. But apparently not.

Anyway, I just don't know what else is needed so suggestions would be welcome.

&mdash; RB Ostrum. 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

20:42:29, 18 September 2020 review of draft by Mar8aret
This article has been declined due to notability. I have reviewed the guidelines and believe that this decision was made in error. I'm wondering how to appeal.

By way of background, here are my responses the notability guidelines for creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

See references. Kim's career was covered in national media (LGBTQ Nation)(see reference 1 in draft). Kim has been profiled The Encyclopedia of LGBT History in America published by Thomson/Gale (publisher)(see reference 2) as well as Contemporary Lesbian Writers of the US published by Greenwood Publishing Group. (see reference 3). These are both mainstream publishers.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

Kim is a pioneer in that she is widely acknowledged to be the first openly-lesbian Asian American writer to be published in the United States. While it is true that she is obscure, this is very likely a function of being lesbian, Korean American whose creative output is primarily poetry and fiction.

'''3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.'''

Her work has been anthologized in collections of Korean American fiction (Beacon Press), Lesbian short fiction (Plume which is an imprint of the Penguin Group and Persephone Press). These anthologies are widely held in academic libraries throughout the US.

4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Kim does not meet this particular criteria mostly because of her status in marginalized communities (as a lesbian, a Korean American on the West Coast 1970s and 1980s). Also, poets are very rarely the topic of significant attention. Furthermore, as an aging women (she is currently in her 70s), her cultural significance has been minimized further. Yet, she has been cited as a literary influence to other writers including Alexander Chee and Merle Woo (see references 9 and 10)

Mar8aret (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

23:00:32, 18 September 2020 review of submission by NRIsForSSR
Hello Reviewer, thanks for taking out time to review my page. This page is for global initiative where NRIs (Non Residing Indians) across the world are uniting for the cause of justice for Sushant Singh Rajput, a boolywood actor who did on June 14th 2020 and also their attempt to send message to Movie makers in India about various actions and initiatives by NRIs For SSR group.

Website for same - > https://www.nrisforssr.com/ NRIsForSSR (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. It is not an appropriate forum to "get the word out" about anything, however noble you feel the cause is. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)