| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.
|
Hi - Googled JJ McCullough and was surprised to see he did not have a Wikipedia page. Given he has one of the larger YouTube followings for a Canadian and has been a well-known reporter / TV pundit / commentator for a long time this is pretty surprising. I ended up stumbling on the AfD page here and (apparently) lots of history with his page getting created -> deleted -> salted -> etc. Also seems to be some drama here I'd like to sidestep.
There are at least two relatively recent print interviews with him that clearly classify as reliable sourcing - https://macleans.ca/politics/why-youtubers-like-me-oppose-bill-c-11/ and https://www.vanmag.com/style/home-decor/whats-in-the-background-of-vancouver-youtuber-j-j-mcculloughs-videos/ along with his bio on the Washington Post. I can't really speak to how the draft of the page is written now (I would slim it down considerably) but I am willing to rewrite the page with a focus on what can be sourced from reliable sources (i.e. his WaPo writing and activism against Bill C-11, with a short mention of his YouTube career). I would like to know it won't be deleted when I submit it however, hence the help desk question. Thank you! Bayou Tapestry (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bayou Tapestry: Interviews actually don't help for eligibility, regardless of where the interview is published and who does it (connexion to subject). They can be used once eligibility has been established with other sources for direct quotes or claims no reasonable person could challenge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but that's not true. Agreed interviews can't necessarily be assessed for accuracy (unless they can be verified in some other source), but they are used as reliable sources all over the place on Wikipedia. There's a whole write-up about it Wikipedia:Interviews! The page has been salted due to issues around notability, not accuracy of the citations though. I believe the print interviews + the WaPo bio clearly meet notability requirements here. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the way you're thinking. The only time I've seen them used as a source for determining eligibility is if the source had a significant amount of non-interview content in it. On that note:
- —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Everyone can you please check this page for me. This is my second time submitting a Wikipedia entry TuisVV (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- TuisVV You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this for you. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for review so you can get feedback. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I will note that it it not likely to be accepted, as you have just summarized the activities and offerings of the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail and analyzes what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not its mere activities and offerings. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please tell us why
UNSTOPABLEKRISHNA (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because not a single fact is sourced, and the writing is so blatantly promotional that if there were a good reason to think the subject was notable under Wikipedia's definition, the entire article would have to be rewritten. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i would like to know why you rejected my page VasMis12 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @VasMis12 because this is a global encyclopedia on notable topics, demonstrated through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It is not a place to write about make believe things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn’t add any reliable sources. That’s the most common mistake I see in drafts. To add a reliable source, you need to add <ref> on both sides of the source, and put the source besides the pharse/paragraph/sentence. Henihhi28 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is how you add a footnote, but it does not automatically mean that the source is reliable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i need help for making my article Kaki4w (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to add reliable sources, to add a source properly beside the sentence/pharse/paragraph, you need to add <ref> on both sides of the source. Henihhi28 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been declined because "IMDB is not a reliable source", so what is? I've linked two official sites that also mention the project that the subject of this page is known for. What can I do? Unknowndutchuser (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unknowndutchuser: We're looking for reviews of his performances; official sites for the projects he's been on won't work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thank you. Unknowndutchuser (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The artickle i try to submit is written by me, independent refferences are provided, and contains absolutely true and neutral information. I vrealy don't understand the reason to decline it.Talesman15 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Talesman15 No one has said it is not true; the company does not seem to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re supposed to add the references beside the sentence or phrase regarding it. If you don’t know how, just put <ref> beside them I think on both sides. Henihhi28 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Henihhi28 Please don't offer incorrect advice here, it clearly isn't helpful Talesman15 please read WP:REB for the correct help. Theroadislong (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add an info box? I checked out the Wiki help article regarding this, and I clicked the list of infoboxes and then I stumbled upon a book infobox (I forget what it was called), the example image confused me into thinking you where supposed to upload the file to add the infobox until I realized it was a image uploader. I just looked up on how to add a infobox to wiki, it said to add in the Wikicode, but I couldn’t find it. I found this so frustrating and confusing. Henihhi28 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Added it in for you, you need to add
{{Infobox book}}, and you can fill in all the information with parameters or just by clicking on it with the visual editor. Template:Infobox book will tell all the different things you can do with it and fix any problems. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 22:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Henihhi28 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The parameters are showing outside the infobox, is that normal? Henihhi28 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I fixed it. Henihhi28 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image won’t show, is that normal? Henihhi28 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You had nowiki tags in place to suppress the coding, I've removed this. Note that images are an enhancement to an article, not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Henihhi28 your focus should be on meeting the notability criteria. Things link images and infoboxes are useless as far as that is concerned and can be handled once the article is accepted. S0091 (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok Henihhi28 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]