Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 10 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 12 >
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.


February 11[edit]

02:39:37, 11 February 2020 review of draft by Monsieur Nam[edit]


I have volunteered to write a Wikipedia article for my fraternity, although the only issue is that a lot of the material I wish to use as reference material is not cite-able, as it is not publicly available. In my initial submission, I just cited our fraternity's Facebook and Instagram page, but my submission was declined for lacking proper citations. What can I do to correct this?

Thanks! -Sam

Monsieur Nam (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam I don't think there is anything you can do. If your fraternity is not written about with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are publicly available, it would not merit an article at this time. Social media accounts are not independent sources, and sources in private hands not available to the public are not acceptable, as it must be possible to verify them. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to also declare your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I understand how using our own fraternity's social media might be considered as 'unreliable', however almost every major fraternity uses their own websites as references. Furthermore, many of the already approved fraternity pages for newer/smaller frats I have looked at have used their social media as a reference and had no problems... There is definitely some improvement that needs to be done on my article (it is still a draft after all), but considering that very few other pages relating to the same sort of topic have more reliable sources I would assume that some leeway would be given to others of the same nature as well.

On another note, I did intend to declare a conflict of interest, but I'm not quite sure how to do that as this is my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Nam (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. I'd be very interested to see other articles on fraternities that rely on citations to their own social media accounts. Wikipedia summarizes what independent sources state, not what an organization says about itself. As I note above, if there are no independent sources, it would not merit an article. This goes for other articles on fraternities as well. Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field.
There are formal ways to declare a conflict of interest, but a simple statement on your user page is usually sufficient("I am Monsieur Nam and I am a member of a fraternity that I am writing an article for"). Please sign your discussion page posts; I will provide you with instructions on how to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page as you have recommended. I will also be sure to use the signature and timestamp for all my future comments. Thanks you for pointing that out. I can provide a list of a number of Wikipedia articles for fraternities and/or sororities which use their own sites as reference. It seems not at all uncommon, as most societies maintain some level of secrecy. I did my best to simply summarise the fraternity and did not give any opinion. Might I ask which parts of my article most need sources so I might try and resubmit it with more appropriate sources? Thanks again. --Monsieur Nam (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam You need more independent sources. I would take a moment and consider what the article content would be if you left out all primary sources and the content that they support(the fraternity website, its social media accounts, etc.) Primary sources can be used in certain limited circumstances(see WP:PRIMARY) but cannot establish that an organization meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Only independent sources can do that. Does your fraternity do charitable work that is covered in the news? Has it led protests against/for any cause that are covered in the news? Does it have an influence on the university that independent sources have documented? It's not just about avoiding 'giving opinion'; Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others say about your fraternity.
Information based on private fraternity information that isn't revealed publicly ("MOZ is known to have a number of executive positions within each of its two chapters, however exact positions and their respective responsibilities/duties are not publicly known. ") should be removed entirely. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:40, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Techmallus[edit]


Techmallus (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techmaullus You don't ask a question, but one uncited line will not be accepted as a article. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial for more information on Wikipedia and creating an article(actually the hardest task on Wikipedia). 331dot (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:06, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Nature987765[edit]


Nature987765 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m not sure why my draft was rejected as a “combination of advertising and gossip”. Underwood has been in the limelight since the late 2000s because of her close friend Lara Bingle (she was her manager in an Australian television series). I have included the brands she created, the blog she runs about fashion and travel. One of her co-partners, Sabine Römer, has her own article which has a lot less information. The only “gossip” I can see in my draft is about the rumour she was dating a British singer (the rumour is sourced). The majority of the article is about her being an entrepreneur. She is notable because there are lots and lots of independent articles about her and she has been known to the public (especially in Australia) for at least a decade.--Nature987765 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 Interviews with her are not acceptable for establishing notability, as interviews are a primary source. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources state. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Respectively, I have only used a couple of interviews as sources. I have provided independent sources about her brands.--Nature987765 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 The sources I examined, even if not entirely interviews, consist of quotes from her and/or are brief mentions of her. Wikipedia requires significant, independent coverage in reliable sources- more than just a brief mention of her relationships or brands(if it's her brands that get coverage, that might merit the brands an article, but not her personally). 331dot (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hi. Thanks for replying to me. Can you re-examine the draft now? I have added more independent sources about her, not her own words or brief mentions about her, but full articles about her.--Nature987765 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 You've cited that she has founded some brands and the existence of her blog. That's not significant coverage. The sources need to describe a lot more than just the fact she founded some brands and writes a blog. For example, Bill Gates's article doesn't just say "he helped found Microsoft and is rich". It describes his actual influence on the company and the events of his life leading up to that influence. Why is it significant that Underwood founded these brands? Why is it significant that she writes a blog?
I welcome you getting other opinions and viewpoints on this- and if they differ, fine with me- but I can only tell you things as I see them and I really don't think based on what I know now that Underwood merits an article at this time. That can certainly change in the future, but I don't see it now. You can certainly disregard what I am saying and resubmit the draft anyway, but I think the chances of success are low. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I don’t want to disregard what you have replied to me because I value your opinion. May I ask, why does Underwood not merit an article, but one of her co-founders Sabine Römer does have her own article? If anything, Underwood is more known than Römer. There are many articles on Wikipedia with a lot less information and fewer sources referenced in the articles. I have read the Wikipedia articles about creating articles (drafts), using verifiable sources, notability, etc. I don’t pay too much attention to the fact that she has her own blog to describe her travel experiences and fashion. She’s an entrepreneur in London who has achieved quite a lot in her life since graduating from university. She founded and is a co-owner of some well known brands in the UK. Should I add about her influences in the brands?--Nature987765 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In quickly glancing at it, I think that perhaps Römer might not merit an article either, for the same reasons. However, it wouldn't matter if Römer did or not, as each article is judged on its own merits, see other stuff exists. If independent sources have written about Underwood's influence on her brands, (again, not interviews/quotes from her or just citing that she founded them) that should be in the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
having seen it, I just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Römer DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:14, 11 February 2020 review of submission by LukeLovesEditing[edit]


I need help with the editing part, if you could walk me through on some parts, that would be really helpful.

Tsunami307 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:29, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Eveliendezwart

19:21:29, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Eveliendezwart[edit]


Eveliendezwart (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]



19:53:51, 11 February 2020 review of submission by 74.108.27.177[edit]


Hi there, I'm confused as to why my article was rejected. I used only reliable sources that feature the subject, not just mention him in passing and also linked out to other family member's wiki pages that mention him. Would love some advice!!

74.108.27.177 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:14, 11 February 2020 review of draft by Olivefresh[edit]


I reckon the previous version seemed to be lack at the 3rd party-sources. I added more materials be independent to the subject. My question is if this addition/edition would be enough to be published? Please kindly/specifically advise me if further improvement needed.

Olivefresh (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:13, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Rpierce13[edit]

The page called Airshare is notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia database. This company is mentioned numerous times on the page for Jet Cards and is among the ranks of its competitors, such as Wheels Up and Plane Sense, who also have pages. I would like to request a re-review of this page. Thank you. Rpierce13 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rpierce13 Please see other stuff exists. Not every company merits an article, even in the same field. Please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offer are just routine coverage or information from the company website; Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on jet cards is a magnet for spam and most of the companies in that article don't belong there. Of the two other articles you mentioned, Wheels Up was previously deleted for lack of notability and (to my eyes at least) is on the bare edge of passing WP:NCORP, whereas PlaneSense actually seems like a notable company and our article just needs some more sources to be added. Every article is judged on its own merits. shoy (reactions) 20:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:56, 11 February 2020 review of submission by 58.171.92.113[edit]


Hi, I'm just wondering why this page was deemed not suitable. As far as I can tell, the sources show that Kay Stammers is a public figure (a television reporter, with many similar to her appearing on Wikipedia), and the sources were also impartial.

It was noted that the submission read "like an advertisement". However, the submission simply contained two facts about a television personality that I saw was missing from Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how that's like an ad. I'd like to improve this article if I can and would like help understanding why it's ineligible. Thanks!

58.171.92.113 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question. The text does little more than state that Stammers exists- which is essentially an advertisement. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects showing how the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The two sources you offered just confirm that she exists and has a job. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_February_11&oldid=985274355"