• Mike at Cyarist Relativity (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cyarist Relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi from Mike at Cyarist Relativity ref: my submission titled 'Cyarist Relativity: A form of National Government' This submission has been reviewed and declined on 19/08/2015 by KylieTastic (submission contained no citations) and declined a second time on 27/08/2015 by Primefac (citations not adequate). I am not particularly computer competent which does not help, but is the article suitable for creation on Wikipedia? are any of the citations used adequate? Any help anyone can give me to point me in the right direction so I can hopefully make a successful submission would be greatly appreciated. Thanks from mike at Cyarist Relativity.

@Mike at Cyarist Relativity: Hi, and welcome to the Help Desk. Thanks for dropping by! I took a look for references discussing "Cyarist relativity" and it appears that the subject is a proposed government form that has not been seen significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent (third-party) sources. If you do a quick web search for "cyarist relativity", the only substantive hits that appear are from the cyarist.co.uk domain, which is a primary source, as it is is inherently related to the subject-matter at hand. (You may also use offline published sources, but they must still be reliable and independent of the subject.) In my opinion, given the lack of solid references, this subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. However, you are welcome to resubmit if substantial reliable, independent coverage turns up. This tool may be a helpful one: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hearme69 (talk · contribs)

Hi, Can you please help me understand what I need to add / subtract to make this article acceptable to wikipedia. I have put in links to books he has published, links to theatres where the plays were shown, his reviews by papers etc. What else can I add to 'prove' that he exists and has written these things?

Is it the way I have done the references and links that is wrong? Please let me know and I will fix it.

Raj Hearme69 (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this with a comment on the draft itself. If you need even greater clarity please return here, ideally to this same section, and ask precise questions, if possible. Fiddle Faddle 18:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KAJanes (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Louise Keoghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

KAJanes (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to trouble you, I created a draft for Louise Keoghan and I want to submit it but I am being a bit dense and not sure if I have done so or not. Are you able to assist?

@KAJanes: The draft is currently not submitted for review. You can submit it yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} (including the braces) to the draft. Thanks, /wia /tlk 06:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Spinsheet (talk · contribs)
  • Sakasa Kebari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Sakasa Kebari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spinsheet (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first Wikipedia article. I've submitted twice so far and each time it's been declined. The editors were very helpful with their comments explaining why the article was declined, I certainly cannot argue with their reasoning. I've made all the changes they've suggested and resubmitted the article. While it's in the queue I would be very appreciative if someone could look at the article to see if I've addressed their concerns appropriately.

Spinsheet (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted

• Dfletter (talk · contribs)
  • Austin Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The reviewer comment suggests the person is not sufficiently notable. However a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the united states, even from a minority party, is hardly unnotable so I am confused about that comment.

The other item that is mentioned is the need for primary sources. All facts in the article are pulled from primary sources from reputable news sources or from the Libertarian party website. The only sources which would be potentially unverifiable are his personal facts which are drawn from his own posts and pages. So I am not sure what is being challenged here.

Please let me know how to interpret the comments. thanks

Dfletter (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfletter: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. The relevant notability guideline is WP:NPOL, which states that "[j]ust being an... unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion". So running for President does not guarantee notability—what must also be shown is solid, high-quality referencing. To that end, the draft will need a variety of reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail.

As for your question about primary sources, I think there might have been a misunderstanding. In general we are looking not for primary sources but for secondary sources. In other words, Wikipedia articles are better served by content about a subject than by the subject themselves. While primary sources have their place on Wikipedia, it is a restricted one and secondary sources are much preferable. Indeed, are the kind of references needed to demonstrate notability, as mentioned above. Thanks, /wia /tlk 06:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]