Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 4

= June 4 =

02:17:52, 4 June 2021 review of draft by Vtranz
I submitted the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:P._D._Shah It was declined for: references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

I have referenced: - California Institute of Asian Studies - Claremont Courier - The Record (Stockton California) - Pacific Review (University of the Pacific) - The Pacifican (University of the Pacific)

Those are reliable sources. What do I need to include or add, to have the article published?

Vtranz (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As a musician, you must show that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. I'm not seeing that based on the sources you have offered.  Which aspect of the notability critera do you assert that this person meets? 331dot (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe he meets this criteria: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable" "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles"

My references are reliable newspaper articles and college/university sources. Are city newspapers not reliable? The Stockton Record and The Claremont Courier might not be the New York Times, but they are reliable news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtranz (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * City newspapers are reliable sources, at least for what newspapers are usually reliable for. However, reliability is not the only criterion. Wikipedia is also looking for sources that are independent, secondary, and contain significant coverage of the topic. The research libraries that would ordinarily make it possible for a reviewer to verify the offline sources have been closed to the general public for 15 months because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without additional information, I have to make assumptions about the sources based on the statements you've supported with them and the bibliographic information you've provided.
 * "No fiddler on the roof, he", spread over two pages, sounds like a substantial piece, perhaps an in-depth profile or a full review of a concert. That would be good, as long as it isn't an interview where he's talking about himself. On the other hand, "Indian Artist to Perform at Morris Chapel" sounds like an announcement of an upcoming concert, information likely supplied by Shah or the concert organizers, so not independent. Brief, one or two paragraph, primary source blurbs about upcoming events are routine in all newspapers. They are generally indiscriminate, and do not help demonstrate notability. The California Institute of Asian Studies source sounds like a course catalog or something similar, published by his employer, so not independent. The Pacifican is a student newspaper, and Pacific Review is an alumni magazine, types of sources excluded under WP:NMUSIC criterion 1.
 * The bottom line is that the draft probably has one source acceptable for demonstrating notability, the Claremont Courier piece. Novice editors are commonly advised to have at least three such sources. You're welcome to try to convince reviewers to the contrary if my analysis is off. Otherwise, consider alternative outlets for what you want to write about Shah. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Worldbruce. Your comments are very helpful!

08:12:38, 4 June 2021 review of submission by Smithcameron100
Good morning,

My only intention is to bring the article on Exact Editions up-to-date. Currently, it only goes up to 2012. Exact Editions has seen a lot of change since then - one being the company now works in new areas.

For instance, add to the fourth sentence that Exact Editions, in 2016, began to offer digital books to institutions.

See “Exact Editions launches digital books service” from InPublishing (“In partnership with four publishers, Exact Editions are using their expertise to deliver books in a new digital format, specifically aimed at the institutional market”).

And

“Exact Editions launches a replica service for books, targeting the institutional market" from Talking New Media, (“The replica magazine platform Exact Editions announced today that they launched a book service, creating the same sort of exact replicas of books as they do for magazines”).

Suggested citation:

Along with its digital archive service for magazines, in 2016 Exact Editions decided to launch a digital book service for book publishers that would be tailored towards institutions.

References:

Inpublishing.co.uk. (13/05/2016). Exact Editions launches digital books service. In Publishing.

Hebbard, D (12/052016). Exact Editions launches a replica service for books, targeting the institutional market. Talking New Media @Theroadislong:

Smithcameron100 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about Talk:Exact Editions. FYI. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the article already exists, the better place to discuss this would be the more general Help Desk, but since you are here- Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Significant coverage does not include press releases, announcements of routine business activities, staff interviews, brief mentions, or other primary sources. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about the company, not what it wants to say about itself. If you have sources unaffiliated with your company that are not just telling about what it does, that are not simply annoucements of the company's activities, please offer them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

08:39:11, 4 June 2021 review of submission by 1armbanidt
My draft entry for Yale University professor Jasjeet S. Sekhon was rejected for not meeting the notability criteria. However, Jasjeet S. Sekhon meets the criteria for notability for academics laid out on Wikipedia's Notability (academics) page. In particular, Sekhon objectively meets criteria #3 (he is a fellow of the American Statistical Association) and #5 (he holds a named endowed chair at Yale University, the Eugene Meyer chair). I have edited the page to note both of these.

1armbanidt (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Might need a second opinion on this, but by virtue of holding a named chair (Eugene Meyer) at Yale, this person might satisfy #5 of WP:NACADEMICS — UY Scuti Talk 09:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the draft should have been declined, not rejected. This man may be notable, but the sources really aren't there to show it. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

08:52:28, 4 June 2021 review of submission by HIlde Wischinka
HIlde Wischinka (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I need help. My submission has been rejected. 'The ferret Coat Colour Book' is my work. I guess the format was not suitable for publication on Wikipedia. Please give instructions how to go about it to make is suitable for publication. Yours sincerely, Christina Bernhard08:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)HIlde Wischinka (talk)
 * The draft is a large body of text that has no sources; nothing can be done to improve it. Wikipedia is not a place to publish a book or other form of original research. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for using two methods for asking for help. Strictly the 'Ferret Coat Colour Book' is not a book as such it's a guide for breeders and people interested in the genetics of coat colour, as well as the genesis of fur colour. And I do have the references, except they didn't copy. I have been thinking of a page starting with an introduction, content list and photos for exemplifying the various coat colours their genetics and their inheritance from one generation to the next. I will make use of hyper- and intertext where appropriate. As far as I have discovered there is no good information on ferrets on this topic on the internet which prompted me to write this guide. Would this be of interest to Wikipedia? Do you have more suggestions?

Yours, Christina Bernhard
 * Whether you call it a book or a guide, if it is you publishing your own conclusions or research it is original research which would be not suitable for Wikipedia. If you have information from third party sources that does not seem to be on Wikipedia, I might suggest that you propose its addition to either the ferret article or one of its subarticles like Ferret health. If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I like the idea of an addition to the existing Ferret page which is very good. I think 'coat colour' would be a suitable expansion. All my information is from reliable third-party sources and has been proofread. But how do I go about it? Where do I start? I'm not an editor. Yours, Christina Bernhard HIlde Wischinka (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are an "editor" by virtue of simply participating here. I would suggest that you visit Talk:Ferret and describe the changes you wish to make there, so the editors that follow that article will see your ideas. Again, please edit this existing section for follow up comments.  There should be an "edit" link in the section header. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

12:08:27, 4 June 2021 review of submission by Himanshushukla433
i am trying to create a wiki page for an kathak dancer i am unable  to get it approved

Himanshushukla433 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft seems to be an advertisement for the person, and not a neutral encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this dancer, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

14:37:04, 4 June 2021 review of submission by Gigara
Thi contents were updated and added references. Gigara (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just rejected it - the sources that weren't specifically tied to/were Ninaro didn't cover the topic in nearly enough detail to meet the need for significant coverage. I'm also not sure whether they were sufficiently reliable, but that issue was moot. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

17:41:21, 4 June 2021 review of submission by TGS21
TGS21 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi what can I do to make it notable enough for publishing? It is similar in content to other schools wiki pages such as Sevenoaks Preparatory School.
 * You cannot "make it notable". It either meets the notability guidelines for organizations or it doesn't.  The text that you wrote just tells of the existence of the school; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

18:02:20, 4 June 2021 review of submission by Mr.Mayur Baviskar
Mr.Mayur Baviskar (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 19:44:35, 4 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Zakkeehn
I believe this topic is notable, as it's the main subject of multiple independent sources. I don't see how it's contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not an advertisement and is written from a neutral point of view with nearly every statement backed by an independent source.

Zakkeehn (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an advertisement because it just tells about the company and its offerings. That is considered promotional on Wikipedia, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something.  Wikipedia articles must do more than tell about the subject, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  Wikipedia is not interested in what the company wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose to say about it. "Significant coverage" does not include brief mentions, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities like the release of a product, the company website, or other primary sources.  331dot (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

22:09:17, 4 June 2021 review of submission by 98.0.153.162
98.0.153.162 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is this considered just advertising, compared to other gallery Wikipedia pages? It is just an information page on an art gallery in NYC.