Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 August 21
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 20 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 22 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
August 21[edit]
14:11:48, 21 August 2016 review of submission by 2601:187:8102:95D0:C8C4:8361:B479:F71B[edit]
Hi Topher,
You declined my submission, based on that it was about a single "news event," however, the actual span of time between the disappearance, the subsequent murders, and the digging up of the bones was 26 years. Also, currently, further attempts to uncover Marie's remains have been made recently by NamUs, but are being deliberately blocked by the Sheriff's department. There were articles regarding her disappearance in 1977, then articles regarding Ramon Rogers' murders in 1996. There were articles from California, as well as from Idaho, and there are articles from Kansas.
I would appreciate any help in understanding why the submission was denied, and how I might improve it.
Thank you very much! 2601:187:8102:95D0:C8C4:8361:B479:F71B (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the AfC help desk. I didn't review your draft, but hopefully I can be of some help anyway. For our purposes an "event" is not defined by the span of time but refers to the fact that Wikipedia is not a news outlet, so we don't automatically cover newsworthy events – only ones that have a lasting notability. However, I believe User;Topher385 referred you to the wrong guideline: WP:EVENT explains our notability guidelines for events. In short, you will need to show that the murders had either lasting significance (i.e. they have continued to be discussed long after the events themselves unfolded) or a widespread impact (i.e. its effects reverberated beyond the local area and it was reported in national or international media). If they were just part of the routine news cycle, they are probably not notable. You will need to prove this by adding citations to multiple reliable sources (major newspapers etc.) that discussed the events in depth. Joe Roe (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I wrote the article Kamada (pharmaceutical company) and it doesn't approved by you. i wonder what kind of information is still needed foe an international company lie Kamada in order to create an article. is there any problem with the sources or with the details? I'll appreciate your help. Yom-tov12 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Yom-tov12. As stated in the review, the problem with your draft was not in the information you provided but the question of whether this company is notable enough for inclusion at all. Most subjects do not deserve their own encylopaedia article. Wikipedia's threshold for whether we should have an article is called notability. You can read our full notability guidelines for companies, but the short version is that we need to see significant coverage of the company in reliable sources that are independent of the company itself, to show that it is notable. Your article only references three sources and only two of those are both reliable and independent, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. You will need to try and find more sources before submitting it for review again. Joe Roe (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)