• Whitney N (talk · contribs)
  • Dreamstime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Guys, thanks very much for inviting here and having me as a Teahouse guest. I need help to re-write the contents according to Wikipedia guidelines. Any tip?

Whitney N (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitney N: For starters, perhaps read WP:CITEKILL.

The purpose of a WP article is to say something about its subject. What you have proposed so far is little more than an entry in a business directory. If any of those many sources are saying something substantial about the company, you should be able to use that as the basis for more words than you currently have. At a minimum, an article must make some declaration about why the subject is notable. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arun Ravi (talk · contribs)
  • User:Arun Ravi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arun Ravi (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to answer your unwritten question...

Most Wikipedia editors do not have articles on Wikipedia about them because they do not qualify as notable by WP's standards. Your draft does not even begin to make a claim for why you are notable and has no references at all. Citations to independent reliable sources are required for all new articles. You may want to read the information about why autobiography is discouraged on Wikipedia. You are, however, permitted to include some information about yourself and your activities on Wikipedia on your user page User:Arun Ravi, but this should generally not be formatted as an imitation article and is permitted only if you are otherwise contributing as a Wikipedia editor. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dana Saravia (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Good morning!! I submitted an article for review about filmmaker Dan Bell back in August. I received a note back that I needed more information regarding why he is notable for Wikipedia. Dan also has an extensive and ever-growing list of short films on IMDb, including one series, "Another Dirty Room", which is not only gaining in popularity, but has also recently been picked up by Amazon for their Prime streaming service. Dan has also recently appeared on NPR being interviewed about both of his very popular YouTube based series, "Dead Malls" and "Another Dirty Room". Please contact me as soon as you can with regards to what I can further include to make sure Dan gets an entry so any future press can refer to Wiki for reliable information. Very much appreciated!! All of your help is--I regularly rely on Wiki for research and your information on a wide array of people and subjects is a huge help. So I really hope Dan Bell's entry can be a part of it all soon :D

Sincerely, Dana Saravia Dana Saravia (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dana Saravia: regarding Draft:Dan Bell. The citations on the draft are promising but don't clearly demonstrate notability to the reviewer (Aguyintobooks). If you can add one or two more reliable sources that contain significant coverage of the subject (not just his projects), I think you should be able to resubmit and have the draft accepted. The NPR coverage you mention sounds like a great thing to add. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Traci Morgan (talk · contribs)
  • Aaron L. Brody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Aaron L. Brody (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

References and citations are added and edited. They follow the instructions and are much the same as I have seen in many other biographies. Can someone look at the specific citations/references and advise which are acceptable and which are not acceptable.

@Traci Morgan: I apologize for the complaints from past reviewers about formatting and other less important issues. Reviewers have acknowledged that the subject is notable. I have removed a copyright violation issue and have moved the draft to mainspace: Aaron L. Brody. Congratulations and, again, apologies for any injuries you may have sustained. We really don't want this process to feel like a gauntlet. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Omega68537 (talk · contribs)
  • Xu Geyang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Xu Geyang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are relatively little information in websites about Xu Geyang,and there are completely no useful information on books because Xu Geyang is a very new singer.I want to find more useful information to show the notability of Xu Geyang(She is probably notable enough for Wikipedia),but I can't find any.Can someone look at the specific citations/references and advise which are acceptable and which are not acceptable. And can I use what Xu Geyang said in interviews(by well-known medias)as information in article? How to write the lead better?

Omega68537 13:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Omega68537: first, please have a look and make sure that WP:TOOSOON does not apply to this subject. Second, although it is acceptable to use foreign-language (Chinese) sources here on the English Wikipedia, it may be difficult for the (generally) English-speaking reviewers here to assess the quality and content of these sources. I regret that I am not qualified to do so. The upshot is that it may take a while for a reviewer to WP:VOLUNTEER to assess your draft and if they don't fully appreciate the Chinese sources you've provided, it may be more likely to get rejected. For these reasons, it is always helpful to include one or two English sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng:I'm a Chinese,so it's difficult for me to find English source.I didn't find any English source that is very suitable for Wikipedia yet.And more suggestions,please!

~Omega68537 13:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Omega68537: I've done a quick news search of English sources (see Draft_talk:Xu_Geyang) and only found passing mentions in association with Sing! and sex tapes. If reliable Chinese sources are not providing more detailed coverage, it will be WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia to accept a draft on this subject. ~Kvng (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ExpoIndiaMart (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ExpoIndiaMart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ExpoIndiaMart (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft has been deleted and user has been blocked. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cesarromero (talk · contribs)

I'm not quite sure why this was declined. I have viewed other entries that are listed and only have one reference to that person on IMDb and maybe one other article. Any help would be appreciated because I referenced several online sources for this person. I have read quite a lot of the help section to try to figure it out but I am at a loss for how to change this. Thank you. Cesarromero (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cesarromero: Hello, Cesar. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the person who looked at it. I see that you have already contacted that person and I trust you will receive a response soon. If they don't get back to you in a day or two, feel free to ask again here. If we can be of assistance in any other way, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cesarromero: I've left a note about sources on this draft at Draft talk:Mark Durbin. If this does not answer your question, let us know. ~Kvng (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm still slightly confused. I see other entries that are active that have only one or two references and the main one being to an entry on IMDb? I wonder then that these rejections would apply to many actors and entertainment people that I am able to look up on here that have very few credits or "household" recognition? There are also Hollywood acting teachers, etc. listed that have very little written about them or they are just mentioned in the articles cited for reference. They certainly aren't known anywhere else except in small circles in Los Angeles. Why did they get approved? Did those just slip by or..?

@Cesarromero: Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I understand and agree based on the parameters I have read for acceptance to Wiki. I just don't understand how many of these got 'approved' to begin with since many of them are anemic and the person has hardly any credentials or qualifications for notability (as they are defined on the Wiki information pages)? The one I drafted was thorough and contained a number of references and yet I see many on here that only have one reference to IMDb. Why am I even able to look up the name and find a listing for that person? How did theirs get approved to begin with and mine got rejected? It leads me to believe there are some more lenient reviewers? Because some of these sit here for years and if no one flags it for removal it stays. There is one in particular where it was up for deletion and, after short (and in my opinion weak) discussion, remained and I know for fact the information is inaccurate and the person's name isn't even spelled correctly? By that estimation it would fare better for mine to get 'approved' and then if no one objects, while it is being improved upon and added to, the worse case scenario might be that it gets nominated for a deletion discussion three yeas later and four people say it should stay for vague reasons. If there are gong to be strict parameters for acceptance then those should apply to everyone when their draft is being reviewed. The reviewers, then, should all 'be on the same page'. If not, and it seems not, it lessens the credibility of the Wiki entries. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be courteous Worldbruce

'Does not meet WP:NACTOR. His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career does not meet WP:AUTHOR.'

I agree, and yet this is true about many active listings at Wiki that have not been deleted because the person has little or no notability. Reviewers should be more thorough in their vetting.

Your comment is also paraphrased into your own opinion ('His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career...'  ). I have not been able to find any rejection criteria in the Help pages phrased quite this way. Not necessarily admirable qualities for an unbiased review. It comes across as some petty judgement on your behalf. 

It would be more courteous and intelligent to stick by the printed rules and perhaps include a link in order to educate those people who may be new to contributing to and navigating the site. It is sufficient enough to reiterate the guidelines without reducing yourself to petty insults.

• Armend The Great (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Armend The Great the fighter for Pellazgé-Illyrian-Alb-Albanian Lands and its People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Armend The Great (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Draft has been deleted and user has been blocked. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]