Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 29 << May | June | Jul >> July 1 >
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.


June 30

[edit]

06:26, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Soho501

[edit]

Hi, I would like to get some guidance of why the article was rejected. In particular it would be great if you could let me know what references don't fulfill with the criteria stated. I have used some self-referneces to elaborate in the projects from the Lab but other references, in particular the main references describing the project in my view fulfill the criteria. Many thx. Soho501 (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
You have described the project, but not said what sources claim make it a notable organization. You've just described its purpose. We don't usually include "mission" statements in an article as those are just what the organization sees as its own purpose, and that can change at any time. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I have followed examples of similar organizations hosted in the United Nations Office in Geneva (i.e)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
Those don't have the type of references you are requesting but use most of the time self referencing links. I am just trying to understand how is this different in the case of the Beyond Lab. Soho501 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soho501 We don't compare drafts against existing articles. Unfortunately Wikipedia has many tens of thousands of bad quality articles which no volunteer has gotten around to improving yet. We therefore judge each article on it's own merits against the current notability criteria. qcne (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position but I still need more guidance to make this article meet your standards. The reference I have used in the description part are : The official website from the Untied Nations at Geneva and The official Website from the Canton of Geneva. Are those then not considered relevant sources for you? Can you give me then examples of what a relevant soruce could be? Many thx! Soho501 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soho501 We need secondary sources. This means sources that are not linked to The Beyond Lab. So, we're looking for perhaps critical reviews or discussions in mainstream newspapers or magazines? qcne (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I see.. Mainstream newspapers or magazines.. let me see what can I find... thx! Soho501 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can also be offline (like hard copy books or newspapers) and also in a different language other than English :) We just require that the sources are published and reliable - so not a random blog or social media. qcne (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 30 June 2025 review of submission by CarstenBoehme

[edit]

Hi, I wonder what is missing for this contribution? Maybe someone can help. You can find the references for the academic research publish from als well as the media coverage about Pawel Skrzypek. Pawel is leading the AI space in regard to "investing". There is no other platform in Europe (and maybe the US) as advanced as the one built by Pawel. Best, Carsten CarstenBoehme (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a conflict of interest on the draft itself(you should on your user page as well), and on your user page you say you are a consultant. If Skrzypek is your client, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. This does not require specific instructions to edit.
Awards are meaningless towards establishing notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You have essentially posted his resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about Skrzypek and what makes him a notable person as they see it. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skrzypek is not my client. I'm Senior Advisor (for strategy development) to the Omphalos Fund - which I disclosed because I care about this kind of conflict of interest and transparency. The Hedge Fund Journal as a reliable source has chosen him as 1 of the 50 rising stars in the Hedge Fund business in 2024. This seems for me a strong say/ statement to find a contribution about him on Wiki - especially in combination with his academic work. Where am I wrong? Really don't get it and need some help. CarstenBoehme (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CarstenBoehme.
Your drafts reads as what he wants people to know about him.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I See the point and will review it later. On a personal note: if I just read contributions on Wiki from people not familiar with a topic or a person, I wonder how I can count on the knowledge? This is tricky, especially for more recent stories in the area of innovation, technology and research. CarstenBoehme (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editing about a topic does not require familiarity with the topic, as the main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what published independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic. If you see information that is not sourced, or is poorly sourced, that should be discussed on the article talk page. You may also remove it yourself. This is especially the case if the article is about a living person. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 30 June 2025 review of submission by 93.176.178.217

[edit]

Can someone help me get the approval? 93.176.178.217 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns given by previous reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 30 June 2025 review of submission by MMEscuredo

[edit]

Submission declined on 1 June 2025 by SafariScribe with the following reason: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth. However, Alicia Troncoso meets two of the eight academic-specific criteria: Alicia Troncoso received National Award of Computer Science in 2024 (criterion 2), She is President of Spanish Association of Artificial Intelligence (criterion 6), she was vicerrector for IT at the Pablo de Olavide University from 2009 to 2020 (criterion 6) MMEscuredo (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMEscuredo The whole url is not needed when linking, and when used in the header on this page it breaks the formatting that provides a link, I fixed this for you.
Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Grammy Award). I can find no article about "National Award of Computer Science". She may meet the other criteria, but you need to do more than just describe her work; you need to summarize what others say is important about her or her work.
If you are associated with her, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Johnny Prey

[edit]

Request edit Select VoiceCom Hello! I would like to ask for some help or feel free to edit my draft article for it to be accepted to the main space. Thank you so much! Johnny Prey (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prey You provided as the title of your draft "request edit". I fixed this for you. The whole url is not needed when linking.
Your draft was in the article space, but I have moved it to draft space so you can submit it for a review when ready. We don't do co-editing here at this Help Desk. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Select VoiceCom, showing how it is a notable company- not describe the offerings of the company and its activities.
If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Iotorrent

[edit]

Please help make the article more neutral and formal. I don't have much experience in creating articles. YouHaveDownloaded was widely covered on the Internet in 2011 and was very interesting. Iotorrent (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do co-editing here at this help desk. The main issue with the draft is that it seems like.an AI/LLM was used to write it. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Iotorrent.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. However, I have been using Wikipedia as a reader for over 10 years. Iotorrent (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Kalingad

[edit]

I understand that the submission was declined due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I would like to clarify that the person in question is a highly experienced and long-active voice artist in India, with notable work across many Indian-language Disney dubs and many major productions like BMW, Starr Sports, Lenovo, he has been voicing projects since early 2000s. However, voice artists in India often receive little to no media attention, which creates a structural challenge in demonstrating notability through traditional media coverage.

There is a broader gap in Indian media when it comes to documenting voice artists (as opposed to on-screen actors), despite their essential contribution to the entertainment industry. This is exactly why I am attempting to create a Wikipedia article not to promote the individual, but to ensure such contributions are preserved and accessible in public knowledge archives.

I am also referring to other Voice Actors in India and how their pages were made

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetan_Shashital

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Kulkarni

These and many others have worked with the person I am making page of

If additional specific types of sources or coverage are required (e.g., trade magazine interviews, festival panel appearances, awards covered in press), I am actively trying to track those down and will include them in future updates.

I appreciate your time and guidance and am open to any further suggestions on improving the draft to align with Wikipedia’s content standards. Kalingad (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of people who are essential to parts of society, many in far more crucial areas than entertainment, that are not notable by Wikipedia's definition. We follow the sources, and if the independent sources aren't there, then neither are we. If you wish to preserve information about people in the industry who are not yet notable, that is certainly a laudable goal, but it's not necessarily Wikipedia's purpose, and you and like-minded individuals should start your own online resource with this information. It can even be designed similarly to Wikipedia; see Fandom or a host of other independent sites using wiki or wiki-similar software. (I have no opinion on whether this particular person is notable or not, but I'm responding to the general thrust of your argument). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalingad: The articles on Shashital and Kulkarni both predate 2018, when WP:ACPERM was enacted. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have pretty much nothing to work with beyond the award. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Smoreau12345

[edit]

Hello. I recently sent this article for review, and it was rejected partially due to it "reading like an advertisement." I was wondering how I can make this page sound less like an advertisement, as there is no true promotional material inside. The FTA is a non-profit organization, and all of the information in the article is factual. There is no product listed on the page either. What advice would you give to make it sound less promotional, since it is a non-profit, and promotion of the organization was not the goal of the article. Smoreau12345 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just tells what the organization wants people to know about it- not what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable organization. It reads like content on its own website, not a neutral encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion doesn't necessarily have to involve profit. Promotion for a cause can be just as against Wikipedia's purpose as promotion for money. There's a lot of non-neutral language here, scattered throughout the entire article, and most of the content appears to be what the Flexographic Technical Association wishes to say about itself rather than what third-party, reliable, independent observers have said about this organization. Phrases like This conference/exhibition is for flexographers who are interested in enhancing professional skills and connecting with industry leaders and similar come off as what the FTA wants to say, not what independent parties say. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pursue this article, I'd start from scratch. Start with only independent sources, and then write an article based solely on those sources. As it is, I think there's far too much WP:PRIMARY involved to make the current version of this article salvageable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Hyggemule

[edit]

The commentator for the above draft (who declined this version) does not appear to have read the draft and followed its references. "Nearly all citations are about one specific work (the subject artistically photoshopping their ex out of images), which would likely make this bio fail WP:BLP1E. Other sources, such as the archived New York Times article that included a photo he took, succeed at verifying the claim that his work has been included in this outlet or that outlet, but that's not the same as coverage of him by those outlets and so it doesn't help further the subject's notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)" This is untrue and an incomplete reading of the both the draft and the subject.

The citations range from early graduate work published in the New York Times Magazine and included in the permanent collections of the Library of Congress and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, to more contemporary references including a major survey of digital photographic object makers at the George Eastman Museum. Further: the references are actually discussing work from a variety of projects reviewed and commented about over a period of thirty years from reliable, secondary sources, including recent survey articles that are explicitly about the subject of the article and not just one of his creations.

The subject of this article is prolific and the article understated. There are over one hundred and forty projects on his website, which includes links to his international exhibition record and other notable achievements (his academic career, his inclusion in many permanent collections of fine art photography, and his publication across a wide variety of social documentary and purely visual arts media sources).

I disagree strongly that this bio fails WP:BLP1E and seek help on how to get this draft a fair reading. There are many other references within his official website (see information, CV, about) that make notoriety across a range of sources. Please help. Hyggemule (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Hyggemule. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
Sources from galleries and museums that he has worked with are not independent, and do not contribute.
Sources that discuss his works, even in depth, but say little about him, do not contribute. (It is even possible that some of his individual works are notable in Wikipedia's sense, without him being).
Which three sources meet all the criteria in WP:42? ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many kind thanks for this thoughtful reply. All of the sources (and several not cited) are features about this artist in particular and not just passing mentions. The citation of the gallery information is to certify that what is stated in the text is in fact true. As for the sources cited, they are independent and reliable. Please tell me how they are not. They are in publications noted in this artist's area of expertise (fine art photography). Why is the Library of Congress not considered an independent and reliable source? Hyggemule (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 30 June 2025 review of submission by JimmyHartill

[edit]

Hi,

I'm not certain which sources aren't considered acceptable - I know the initial two are the businesses website so not secondary and the BBC point is contained within the video which may disqualify it, but the others are all coverage about the businesses activity from secondary news sites? I'll try and find some more prominent news sites if that's a step in the right direction but I'd just want to be clear which failed the bar where so I can steer my efforts better :)

Also thanks for the rapid feedback! JimmyHartill (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JimmyHartill.
"A wide range of products in the garden structure space" is marketing speak for "garden buildings", which is already there in the previous sentence. "Maintaining vertical integration across design, production and delivery" is marketing speak meaning almost nothing (after all, no other company does that, do they?). "Remains a family-run business", with that positive-vibe "remains", is highly promotional.
Basically, you have made the common mistake that most new editors make when they try the challenging task of creating an article about a company before spending time learning how Wikipedia works - and particularly editors with a WP:COI - they write what the company wants people to know.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
What makes writing with a COI so difficult (and thank you for declaring your status, by the way), is that, having found the requisite independent reliable sources, you need to effectively forget everything you know about the company, and write a summary of what those independent sources say - even if you dislike what they say, or think they're wrong.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin, I take the advice and will have a think about how to approach this.
I DID probably fall into the marketing speak trap given I work in marketing. I'll see if I can work on my neutrality with some more practice, as an additional would getting somebody unrelated to the business try and create a draft solely from outside sources be a reasonable measure as well? It seems like a good way to ensure I keep it unmarketing and I can still submit as an edit.
Also, if possible, am I missing anything obviously incorrect with the sources? JimmyHartill (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 30 June 2025 review of submission by 2600:4040:A8BF:1C00:1409:1431:B58E:D31F

[edit]

Hi, I just want to make sure the issue is needing better secondary sources for this article. Or does it also need to be more in depth? 2600:4040:A8BF:1C00:1409:1431:B58E:D31F (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Please read my reply to Jimmy Hartill in the section immediately above: most of my comments apply equally to you and your draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Smoreau12345

[edit]

I recently resubmitted this article for review. I utilized the information that two editors provided me on this Help Desk page to remove the "promotional" material and non-neutral language from my draft. The language in this draft is entirely neutral. All of the sources in this version of the draft are from independent, and reliable sources (well-established industry magazines). I have been told that this draft reads like an "advertisement," and I do not understand how that is true given all the changes that have been made. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I submitted the article at 16:00. The editor declined it at 16:01, which seems like a very small amount of time (1 minute) to read the entire article thoroughly. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Smoreau12345. Your draft immediately reads like an advertisement, because it appears to be saying what the association wishes people to know about itself.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I am not an associate of the organization. All of the sources used in the article are independent third-party sources, with no information coming from the organization itself. All of the magazine articles are reliable industry magazines. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smoreau12345: even if there isn't promotional wording in the draft, it can still be promotional. This draft is basically a corporate presentation, which tells the world about the association and what it does. That is pretty much the definition of promotion; see WP:YESPROMO. Instead, what we want to see is what independent third parties, especially secondary sources, have said about this association and what in their view makes it worthy of note. That would also go a long way towards establishing this subject's notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (and would have been my preferred reason for declining this). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Does your paid editing COI on behalf of Techkon USA relate to this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My COI with Techkon has no relation to this subject. Smoreau12345 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 30 June 2025 review of submission by FurretSuperFan

[edit]

Hi, I'm a little confused right now. The last time I submitted the article they said sourcing was a problem but that Mitchie M was notable enough to have an article but now they said he isn't? He has two albums released under a major album and both albums placed in the top 20 in Billboard Japan and the Oricon charts. I also need a little help identifying which sources are deemed unreliable because I thought I had removed all of them. FurretSuperFan (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FurretSuperFan not exactly. A reviewer stated "arguably notable enough" which is not the same is stating they are notable and they requested "substantial, independent and reliable sources" to demonstrate notability because the sources were "poor". You made updates but it appears the updates did not fix those issues thus the subsequent decline which also pointed out is has a promotional tone. Please note what someone says about themselves or what those associated with them say are not useful. S0091 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made sure to remove the sources from his blogs and stuff, does that also mean I should remove the informatiom he stated in the interviews? I feel like some of that stuff should stay (unless it's deemed unnecessary information), as he talks about how he got introduced into vocaloid, how he uses the vocaloids, and majority of his past. FurretSuperFan (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sources stating which labels the albums were released on and where they charted were taken from the Warner Japan, Sony Japan, Oricon, and Billboard sites. Do I need a different site to cite them from? FurretSuperFan (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Googlealt

[edit]

bruh Googlealt (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Googlealt
You appear to have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and very little else.
Unlessx you start by looking for and finding several published sources about your chosen subject, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, you are probably wasting your time trying to write about it.
Please read WP:YFA. ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:22, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Googlealt

[edit]

Bruh Again Googlealt (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Googlealt: We're not interested in your novel ideas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Cheyhart

[edit]

Thank you for working with me to improve this article. Could you point me to the section that requires further improvement? I'll do my best to meet the requirements for a significant contribution. Cheyhart (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheyhart: This reads like a hagiography. Unless it's part of their most commonly recognised name (for example, Mother Teresa) we don't use first names to refer to article subjects, nor do we use titles or honourifics. Portions of the article show up on the copyvio checker still; considering the prior decline was for copyright violations I'd strongly suggest rewriting the article from scratch, in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 30 June 2025 review of submission by Lumenb

[edit]

Hey guys! Just got declined for this article again, but I've included References at the bottom and the project is notable as there is already a distributor and spin-offs attached. Unsure what to do at this point. Would appreciate the help, thanks. Lumenb (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lumenb: An OTT series having a distributor and spinoffs is just an average Tuesday. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spin-offs meaning a feature film and TV series developed by Viral Nation Lumenb (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lumenb: Again, just an average Tuesday. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are shows that used to be digital-first on youtube that were turned into features / TV / streaming services like Netflix. Is there a certain threshold for views? Can you articulate what makes something notable vs. "just an average Tuesday", given that most everything is digital and traditional broadcast content isn't performing the way it used to. The vague responses isn't very heplful. Lumenb (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lumenb. Please read again Wikipedia's definition of notability.
It is nothing (directly) about what the subject is, or does, or how popular, famous, important, or influential it may be.
Basically it comes down to, "Has there been enough material reliably published about the subject to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the info. I reviewed the notability definition from Wikipedia and it seems the series meets the guidelines. There are multiple sources from different authors from legitimate organizations. The news channel sources are independent of the subject. The articles cover the subject extensively. So I'm not understanding what is missing? A previous reviewer suggested that someone who can analyze the Chinese / Korean / Malaysian articles may be a better fit to help. How do I go about getting in touch with them? Thanks. 2001:569:7E9A:E500:9C2D:7C45:834C:EC32 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_June_30&oldid=1301230175"