Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 September 15
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 14 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 16 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
September 15
editHow do I submit my submission for reeview? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LATownes (talk • contribs) 13:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Add
{{subst:submit}}to the very top of the page, including the curly brackets. Huon (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I made a page about a prince who isn't really known like prince William is. I also talked about is family, they aren't really seen though. I want to know why the article of Prince Michael of the Ashanti Region had gotten declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LS1999 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your draft didn't cite any reliable sources, and right now we cannot tell whether that's an article on a genuine prince or a hoax. Especially for biographies of living persons we require such sources. See also WP:BIO: Even if Michael were a prince that alone doesn't mean he's notable enough to be the subject of an article. Huon (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Sir,
Referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Harold_%22Hal%22_Willard_Bradley_Sr
Your comment: "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability"
"famous" or "popular" _____________________
Most people of history are, today, neither famous or popular. Encyclopedias are filled with this. "People Magazine" is filled with famous and popular people. Encyclopedias remind us of people forgotten.
Reliable and independent sources: _________________________________
Biographical links (independent) as well as those from the Football Hall (notable) prove the notability.
"Notability" = to take note, notice, make an impact.
I'd like to understand YOUR meaning of "notable", "reliable" and "independent".
Perhaps you are not well aware of American football - the way it is shaped today.
The 2nd black linesman in history, at a time, when blacks were being excluded from American Football, was one of the few that lead American Football today, to what it is.
Thank you for your time:
Oliver Bradley Oqbradley (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Facts do not make notability. Statistics (such as 2nd black linesman) do not make notability. Notability is defined as having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reliable is defined as sources with editorial oversight, that have a reputation for fact checking. Independent is defined as having no ties to the subject, i.e. not interviews, not press releases, not articles that are paid for/commissioned, and not articles by anyone (sponsors) affiliated with the subject. Before you ask, significant coverage is defined as coverage that is more than just a mention of their name - at least a good chunk (more than a paragraph or two) about the person - in depth coverage of the subject. ~Charmlet -talk- 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I resubmitted the article, Harold Bradley Sr., re-written to emphasize his notability. Please note that the fact that he was the second black lineman in NFL history, a black football pioneer, etc., is all just icing on the cake, as it were. Per WP:NGRIDIRON, any American football player who appeared in at least one NFL game is presumed to be notable. Harold Bradley Sr. played for the Chicago Cardinals in 1928; he is, therefore, presumed to be notable as an NFL alumnus unless a case is made to the contrary. Again, the article was re-written to highlight this fact. With respect, Rozehawk (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Works for me, I can't argue with the notability guidelines - I must have never seen that before. ~Charmlet -talk- 22:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)