Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 December 10
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 9 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 11 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
December 10[edit]
00:44:39, 10 December 2022 review of draft by HumbleSolipsist1[edit]
Hi! My draft, Draft:Attack of the 50 Foot CamGirl, was declined on account of the sources not demonstrating sufficient coverage. This is not entirely unreasonable, but I'm still confused about what *does* constitute sufficient coverage. I guess my confusion really exists on 2 fronts:
1. I'm unclear if the underlying issue with my draft is more that my sources are lacking in quantity, or more that they are lacking in quality (ie they are not reliable, do not explore the film in sufficient depth, or are not sufficiently impartial). If it is the former issue, I can address that. More sources exist, but I don't think they're any more reliable or deeper than what I've already added.
2. The notability requirements I've read about on Wikipedia:Notability seem much steeper than many current articles adhere to. When using Special:Random, it seems like around 1/3 of the articles I arrive at only have one or two sources, and they are often sources which do not go into great depth on the topic, or are not reputable publications. Is it more the case that the requirements are exaggerated on Wikipedia:Notability, or more the case that there are a lot of articles that lack notability and aught to either be improved or removed?
HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @HumbleSolipsist1,
- TBH, I don't know what the reviewers had in mind, you may need to ask them directly. From my point of view, I'd say the quantity is there, as the first four sources all provide significant enough coverage, and four should be enough to establish notability. I'd maybe question the quality of the sources themselves (rather than of their coverage of this film), as they seem like they might have somewhat lower journalistic standards than what we normally expect. Would be nice to see at least one or two solid, mainstream sources amongst them.
- This is an easy one: there are indeed large numbers of articles out there which fail one or more of our publishing standards, and need to be either improved or deleted. There are many reasons for this: either they were published before the current standards were implemented; or they were published by editors who have the right to publish directly without going through an approval process; or they were of a higher standard when first published but have since deteriorated for whatever reason. In any case, we certainly don't want to create more such problem cases, and therefore nowadays apply the notability etc. rules rigorously wherever possible. So no, the notability guidelines are not 'exaggerated', they really are what we work to.
- HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
12:14:50, 10 December 2022 review of submission by Eddie Ruzzi[edit]
- Eddie Ruzzi (talk · contribs)
I have included references but I'm still being rejected and I don't know why. I've done everything that was requested.
Sincerely, Eddie Eddie Ruzzi (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Eddie Ruzzi You haven't. You have been declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean resubmission is not possible. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Any Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The Sara Rivers article is valid and yet the person reviewing is denying Wikipedia credible. Yet the individual can easily be searched under the previous performance name Sara Stokes and is also referenced with the name change as Sara Rivers. TheRealFashun (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- @TheRealFashun: I don't know what "the article is valid" means, but this draft was declined for a reason, namely lack of evident notability. Therefore, if you wish to see this published, your task is to address that reason. And also, to declare any conflict of interest you may have in the subject. Now, did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)