• Pelo1007 (talk · contribs)
  • Rush Soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently submitted the above article, still pending for review. It is about a non profit youth soccer organization and a user made an interesting comment "this draft appears to be written to describe what the organization says about itself and not what others have written". So it intrigued me to say the least. I tried to describe the organization in a most neutral way by simply just stating facts or online articles which have been written about the same organization. All my facts are taken from their actual by-laws or regulations. I am just stating what it is actually written in their official documents. I am not trying to take a stand. The reader should make his own idea about it with the proper facts. If I am not stating facts, I am relying on articles from recognized and specialized websites which have been written about it.

I genuinely tried to make it the most impartial and clear so the reader needs to make his own opinion. If I was to solely rely on what others have been written about it, it could be really quickly inaccurate.

So I tried to find a balance between the two main sources. (i.e Online articles & official documents). But I believe the user in question made a good point and I would much appreciate if you could give me a feedback about the page. So I can improve my writing for this article and make it published. Thanks a lot!

Pelo1007 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pelo1007 - Have independent third parties written about the organization? If not, it probably is not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) - Yes, of course. I referenced all the third parties articles at the bottom of my article from specialized and recognized newspapers ( Denver Post, USA Today, US Soccer, FourFourTwo, the United Soccer League, MLS New York Red bull website). --Pelo1007 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pelo1007:, I hope Robert doesn't mind, but I work on wikipedia articles regarding Football, so I felt like I should take a look at your article. Robert, if you feel you can add more, please let me know :).

First, a lot of your references are primary. They are ok, and they can be used to prove things, but they do not count towards WP:GNG. Looking at the references you pointed out above:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Denver Post		Statewide journal	Borderline regarding the actual system, simply that there is a team that's gotten press	? Unknown
USA Today			Article doesn't seem to mention Rush Soccer at all.	✘ No
USA Soccer	Could be considered a primary source.		The article is more regarding Tim Shulz, than the rush Soccer league. All that is mentioned is that he was the director at a club.	? Unknown
FourFourTwo			Both articles from FourFourTwo seem to be pretty good articles.	✔ Yes
USL		See right	One of the articles doesn't mention this at all, the other seems fine, but more like a press release	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

So, I think the article could be considered borderline from what research I did. I'll copy this to your article page, and maybe someone could take a look and see if it passes. Sadly, I wouldn't pass the article as it is, as I feel it simply doesn't have the coverage neccesary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk • contribs -

Thanks for your chart. It is very well explained. I replied on your talk page but let's talk here for sake of convenience if you don't mind/
For Denver Post source, you are saying it is "simply a team that gotten press". If you edit football articles, I hope you are aware of the football world. The team that gotten press like you said and like I describe in my article is a professional team playing in the USL, second tier of the American Pyramid right under the MLS. So the source is from a statewide journal talking about Rush Soccer first professional team playing in the second highest professional soccer league in North America but somehow it is still not good.

For USA Today source, you are right this should not be considered as a direct source for the article. I put it in order to justify my statement on how the league kept its second division status last year and also to give a bigger background to the reader. It is relevant as Rush Soccer professional team is playing in the second division then and with the election of the US Soccer president soon, the system of promotion/relegation could be introduced and could promote Penn FC, Rush professional team in the first flight. But I am sure you are aware of it since you are editing football articles.

For US Soccer source, the article is about Tim Schulz and not Rush Soccer I give you that but I found out relevant for the reader in order to see the notability of the founder of the organization. So, the reader knows exactly a bit of background from the founder quickly and of course wikilinks towards his own wiki page if you want more infos.

For USL source, one article is about the Keystone Derby between Penn FC and Pittsburgh Riverhounds. Pretty much as the US Soccer source, it was only to give a bit of background to the reader and should only serve this purpose not to support my argumentation. The other article should be fine as it is from the official website of the League unveiling the pro team and talking about Rush Soccer in there. I don't see how could it be a problem.

I mentioned also websites like philly.com , The MLS club website New York Red Bull, Soccer Wire, Soccer America who all written about the organization. As I mentioned on your talk page Lee, you edited articles with less sources and everything was fine. So I am just trying to get your logic. That is all. Thanks again for your help it is much appreciated sincerely.

--Pelo1007 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rudy2alan (talk · contribs)
  • WJCP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:WJCP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help finding sources, but I do believe that a radio station which has been on the air since 1955 should have an article.

Rudy2alan 13:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rudy2alan. I suggest you reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations. They may be able to assist with finding sources and demonstrating notability according to WP:BROADCAST. Some participants there, such as Bearcat, are also active here at Articles for creation, so they'll have a good understanding of how to navigate the process. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it's true that having been on the air as a licensed radio station since 1955 is an WP:NMEDIA pass in principle, it is also true that we do require reliable sources. People can and do falsely claim that radio stations (e.g. pirate radio, unlicensed Part 15 stations, total hoaxes, etc.) meet the NMEDIA criteria even though they actually don't, so it's not the claim to passing NMEDIA that actually passes NMEDIA but the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to properly verify and support that the claim is true.
So the ticket here is to find a newspaper article or two about the station if at all possible — just one or two would be fine. Jennings County is close enough to Indianapolis that coverage in Indianapolis-area media may very well exist, and it's also close enough to both Louisville KY and Cincinnati OH that there's a fair chance that it might have shown up in newspapers there too once or twice over the years.
I can't really help too much with finding sources directly, as my database access for older pregooglable media coverage is largely restricted to Canadian newspapers, but I will say that I'd be very surprised if a radio station that's been on the air since 1955 hadn't been written about by any reliable sources even once in its entire 60 year history. Remember to search under its older call signs, and if that doesn't work then try also searching on Dorrell Ochs, who's named on the station's website as its founder. Also, you can try posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to see if somebody can run searches in databases you don't have access to. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2405:205:B009:22E2:45FA:C574:44E1:FF35 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anzer Creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2405:205:B009:22E2:45FA:C574:44E1:FF35 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attempt to promote this young businessman and his company. Phrases like "He has been appreciated many times for his awesome talents" don't belong in an encyclopedia!! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mary Raymond (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jennifer Ide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was declined and I don’t know why

Mary Raymond (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mary Raymond: Wikipedia has criteria for the inclusion of articles about politicians - please read WP:POLITICIAN. Just being on the council isn't enough of a reason for an encyclopedia article about Ide. You need to add references that show that she has been written about in depth in other reliable, independent publications. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]