• Jeffycue (talk · contribs)
  • Best! Morning Musume 20th Anniversary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I created a page for a new album by a Japanese girl group, Morning Musume, but it was rejected due to citing references made by their actual Recording Company. This is the actual comment "This needs sources that aren't coming from the production company." i just wonder why it was rejected when news from the actual company is where you can get the most reliable source? please advise.

I've already added a couple of other "NEWS" from different sources as of this posting. hoping the my page would no longer be rejected.

Jeffycue (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeffycue, Kindly specify name of the the draft article you were refering to so we may help. Secondly sources that is associated/affiliated with the subject (Morning Musume) are considered not independent and not reliable. Sources needed should be independent from the subject and reliable from reputable journalistic channel such as from major newspaper which could be verifiable. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

alright! i never knew that. thanks for the clarification. please delete draft if possible. other "news" will be available after the actual release.

Hi Jeffycue, to delete the draft page you have created, pls place {{Db-G7}} on top of the page and put "request to delete by creator" on the edit summary before publish/save the edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Barnesbw91 (talk · contribs)
  • Chandler Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Chandler Travis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my first article created for compensation and I want to ensure I have done every in accordance with the paid contributors policy so that the page is successful and my account is not blocked. I am working on replacing some of the citations with more reliable sources but I have several books, news papers and interviews cited. Do I need to have every fact cited? There are several well known yet minor facts that I cannot find sources for outside of ones affiliated with the subject and are not appropriate to cite but lend to the article in a useful way, may I include these short facts with no citations? Barnesbw91 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Bryan Barnes https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:Barnesbw91[reply]

Barnesbw91 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing uncontroversial facts to connected sources is fine, but those sources add nothing to notability. Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Talia gertman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aspect Imaging (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added external resources to the article, from PubMed and other research papers, but it was still declined. Also, I have disclosed that I work with the company as a freelancer, managing their digital marketing. Nevertheless, this is a remarkable company with a global impact on medical fields, especially in the field of premature babies brain damages. They do not pay me to list this on Wikipedia, I do it on my own time and resources.

Talia gertman (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page is way undersourced to meet WP:NCORP Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• PKDASD (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

PKDASD 16:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I published an article by an author named Joe R. Lansdale. It is a collection of short stories titled "Driving to Geronimo's Grave and other stories". And it was deleted as it needed more sources and justification that it was worthy enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The bigger issue I have is there are other authors who are more popular and commercially successful that have articles for everything they so much laid a finger on. Take Stephen King. If you look at his bibliography, you'll see every book and screenplay has its own article and some are absolutely horrible. But since Joe Lansdale and many other brilliant writers aren't a household name, they are held to different standard. Is this what Wikipedia is all about? A hack like James Patterson, who doesn't even write his own books anymore, gets an article because he's well known and filthy rich? PKDASD 16:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Oh when I said Stephen King, I meant the wiki articles. Not the SK's work. I grew up reading his books!

Hi PKDASD. You've been editing Wikipedia for long enough that you should know that worthiness for inclusion has nothing to do with the brilliance of the subject. Notability, including notability for books, is a test of whether a topic has gained significant attention from the world at large over a period of time. For the purposes of inclusion, it doesn't matter why independent sources write about a book - because it's great, because it stinks, because the author is popular, etc. - only that many independent sources do write about it, and in depth.

This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so it is not surprising that some articles are absolutely horrible. So fix them (or, if the subjects don't satisfy the notability criteria, nominate them for deletion). This is what Wikipedia is about. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aura1200 (talk · contribs)
  • Lunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Lunes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i need help to remove promotional content. I just wanted to publish a fact. Thank you. Aura1200 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]