My attempt at creating a bio here http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:Vic329/sandbox has been rejected several times on grounds I don't really understand.

The academic notability criteria state that:

"7.1 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."

I have referenced my bio with a number of links directly to citations, interviews, quotes and articles about my research in national and international TV, print media and radio. I've also linked to Scholar and to my university research age to list the academic papers that are the reason for these quotes and interviews. Hard to see why reviewers claim that the sources are not independent, or that the achievements are not notable. I have no influence over the editorial content of UK national newspapers and TV channels, but they have cited or interviewed me frequently.

I've had a conversation with live help, but these guys just told me that I'm "reading the criteria wrongly". Yet there are academic bios already up there without anything like the referencing support or media reach that I've provided.

I'm confused. Any help appreciated. I'm very much a novice at Wikipedia.

(Vic329 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• I've had a quick look through the references, and my impression is that Hackley seems to be best known as a "rent-a-quote" (for want of a better phrase) for the national media. There's nothing much about him as a person. Still, if he's often quoted in reliable sources, of which a wide selection are given, then I think he passes the notability threshold and should have an article. One word of caution, if you are Chris Hackley (as you seem to suggest you are by referring to "my bio"), you should be aware that autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If, heaven forbid, something unpleasant happens to you and the tabloid press all get hold of it, it can appear in your Wikipedia article, and provided it appears in sufficient sources, you won't be able to remove it. So be careful what you wish for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Re: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Newsbytes_News_Network

I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Newsbytes&title=Special%3ASearch contains many sources that cite Newsbytes stories over the years. The Washington Post took the publication offline in 2002, so it no longer lives in a keyword searchable form. What do you need from me further in order to prove that there are enough secondary sources? Should I look throughout the web for organizations that cite Newsbytes stories? Let us know what you need please. Thank you

outsideinout173.129.65.86 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To establish Newsbytes' notability we don't just need others reproducing Newsbytes stories, but Newsbytes itself must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and those sources must form the basis of the article's content. Major parts of the draft don't cite any sources at all (and are thus unverifiable), and of the sources I could easily check online, one was a press release (which isn't a reliable independent source) and the other provided very little detail and didn't even confirm everything it's cited for. Huon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello im not sure why but it seems like i have submitted my article twice even though its only supposed to once. wanted to let you know so it doesnt cause any confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuwilliamson (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your username suggests you are either Stu Williamson or fanatical about him sufficiently to chose his name as your account name here. Either way, you shouldn't write autobiographies here, because you may find bad things happen. Please stop trying to write about yourself, you will only get frustrated with other editors. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a few more sources to my article. 

I have read the guidance and feel the article meets the notability criteria - I do have third party sources which support notability.

I am finding this a bit frustrating - I have found many examples of organisations, in the same sector, who have a weaker claim to notability and weaker referencing yet have entries in Wikipedia - for example http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Hunt_Oil. The same standards don't seem to apply to all.

Thanks Ruedebille (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the third party sources suffice to establish the company's notability. Some are just directory entries, which don't contribute much to notability. One source is an Edgo press release, which isn't a third party source and should be removed outright. The remainder mention the company in passing while discussing something else, and they provide very few details about it. For example, which source confirms that Edgo is "the largest water well drilling contractor in the region"? I didn't see that in any of the secondary sources. Huon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veliam21 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This article belongs on the Spanish Wikipedia --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently revised references on the Josh baze Article that was declined due to sources. I need help submitting it to the queue!

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Josh_Baze — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartelMGMT (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted the draft for you. The "submission declined" message had instructions for resubmission ("When you are ready to resubmit, click here"), or you could have resubmitted it manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top.

On an unrelated note, quite a few of the references, including Baze's personal website, his HuffPo author profile or YouTube videos he uploaded himself, are not the reliable, independent sources we're looking for. I'd remove those outright. Huon (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]