Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 3

= November 3 =

06:59:48, 3 November 2022 review of submission by Haran90
How do we make approved content for a living person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tarun_Anand wikipedia

Haran90 (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Haran90: we need to see significant coverage (of the person, not eg. organisations they are associated with) in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Interviews, things they have said or written themselves, publicity materials, sponsored content, etc. do not count.
 * Also, who is "we", in "how do we make"?
 * Finally, I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page; please respond to that. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Haran90 Phrases like "In 1991, Tarun Anand started his journey as a Sales Executive..." are discouraged, since "started his journey" is not "encyclopedic" in tone. David10244 (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

09:18:11, 3 November 2022 review of draft by ToniMassenberg
Hello! I wrote this article and it was rejected with the comment "Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG". I'm a little confused because I wrote the same article for the German wikipedia, where it was accepted with the same sources (which also include books and independent articles). I have trouble identifying what I missed. Would you be able to give me more specific feedback so I can improve this article and learn from it? Thank you!

ToniMassenberg (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a completely separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. I cannot read German in order to review your sources, so someone else will have to look at that- but a Wikipedia article here must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources cited are all primary, and with two exceptions very close (ie. Uni Marburg); therefore, not enough to establish notability per GNG. That said, the literature list, and the age of the institute, suggest there might be (possibly old) offline sources available, although these would need to be found and appropriately cited in order to support a notability claim. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

09:29:37, 3 November 2022 review of submission by 2A02:CB80:4226:80CF:5167:64A0:EF57:D996
2A02:CB80:4226:80CF:5167:64A0:EF57:D996 (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)



14:52:32, 3 November 2022 review of draft by 117.214.166.11
Good human being 117.214.166.11 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

18:51:45, 3 November 2022 review of draft by Rjdeadly
You say: "the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject "

The 5 sources I quoted are exactly that: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable and     secondary. How can they be independent of the subject?? without being irrelevant?

Rjdeadly (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rjdeadly: at the time of reviewing your draft cited three sources, not five: one contemporary source, which is incorrectly cited and therefore impossible for the reviewer to know how significantly it covers the subject, let alone what it actually says; one source (Tacitus) that appears not to mention Giulia or Guilia (as you've alternately spelled it); and one source that doesn't seem to be much of a source at all, at least judging by the way it is cited. This was therefore correctly declined, for not providing multiple published sources with in-depth coverage, regardless of how strong the 1995 source may be. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept the spelling is wrong, but the text is mainly vaild and significant. I notice that there is already a page Villa Giulia (Naples) which pales into insignifance and has zero refrences, compared with what I proposed. So why positive contributions like mine should be shot down so severely when there is a lot of rubbish already there is a mystery only wikipedia knows.
 * I will add my text to that one instead. Rjdeadly (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rjdeadly Independent basically means that the published source is "not written by the subject of an article; not written by a friend or relative; not an interview with the subject;" etc.  Click the blue link where I wrote "Independent" for full information.  Independent sources can be authoritative, if they are also reliable. David10244 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

19:08:06, 3 November 2022 review of submission by JTZegers
What types of sources am I missing? JTZegers (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of your sources are the company itself and descriptions of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. We need independent reliable sources with significant coverage to summarize- "significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling us the activities of the company, and goes into detail about its significance and influence.
 * You have a line about notable structures it was involved with, which is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JTZegers I also suggest requesting access to the Wikipedia library given the company has a long history much of which is likely not available on the internet, if documentation exists. S0091 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I got access recently. I'm also looking for other sources that aren't from the company itself.JTZegers (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)