January 2

• Fowlerjlr (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Quanta Cloud Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I am trying to understand how this article does not meet the notability standard: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This article is drawn from 17 independent news articles from well-recognized, reliable publications in the data center industry. These publications have written articles specifically about QCT.

Thank you for your assistance. Fowlerjlr (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)fowlerjlr[reply]

• Shaky44 (talk · contribs)
  • Limetown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to read info about image copyrights, but it is very confusing. I would think that the most likely image for this article would be the Limetown logo, which is used on their website, podcast feed, etc. I assume I can't just copy that image, but the article on requesting permission is very confusing. What should I do next?

Shaky44 (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaky44: The joy of Wikipedia is that you can safely let someone else do it. One way to find out more is to use {{Helpme}} on your talk page and explain the problem there. There is a string probability that someone will not only pop along to describe what you need to do, they may also do it for you. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaky44:, my bust, the logo rules can get pretty confusing and it takes me under five minutes to do it myself, so I knocked it out for you. I would still expand your article a bit by putting in more facts about the show, like how it came to be, how it's been received by audiences, etc. There's a decent amount of media coverage out about it, so I'd suggest finding a few interesting facts, and adding those facts in (cited clearly to the source they come from). Sounds like a fun podcast! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Donnie Park (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cliff Lett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Whilst it has since been re-edited, I am struggling to understand what it means by "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" when the most of its notability came before the internet (print media) and subject fall under criteria 1, 3 and 8 in WP:NMOTORSPORT (and is considered to be in some countries (they are sanctioned by the same governing body as its full-sized counterpart in Finland and Sweden and in some like France and the UK, affiliated with the similiar bodies)). Also the topic gets nowhere the coverage as almost every other sports/hobbies covered in Wikipedia and is widely ignored by the mainstream media. Donnie Park (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Donnie Park:, I saw there are a few R/C driver drafts in the queue these days, glad to see folks finding an interesting niche where Wikipedia is underserved and working to fill it!

So far as the Decline goes, allow me to ping @RadioFan: to this discussion to see if they have some more specific feedback.

For me personally, with a quick look at the draft, I think overall it's on the right track, but my primary concern would be that the sources are almost entirely from within the R/C community, so it makes it hard for an outside reader to assess how strong the sourcing is. For example, I have no idea if Radio Control Car Action had 100,000 readers or 10 readers, since I'm not an R/C guy. Broadly speaking too, it helps a lot to demonstrate someone's Notability when you include coverage from outside their immediate community. For example, if there's some Buddhist spiritual teacher that someone submits a draft on, the Notability is way more convincing if people outside of Buddhist media have written about the person, like if he's been discussed in the London Times or in a book by Harvard Press about modern spiritual movements. For Lett, I did just some 1-minute googling, and I'm seeing that he gets at least briefly discussed in some articles in the New York Times, LA Times, Wired magazine, etc. So one of my suggestions would be trying to find a little coverage about him from outside the R/C world, to demonstrate that the wider world finds him a figure worth exploring.

So far as pre-internet sources, it's perfectly legit to use WP:Offline sources, such as a magazine you only have on-paper but doesn't exist online. We just ask that when you do so you use crystal-clear citations, like what journal, what date, what page, article title and author, etc. so that an inquisitive reader could (in theory) track down your source if they had a serious need to prove a fact. So far as some interesting things in the world not getting as much documentation as others, I agree it bites, but as a WP:Tertiary source, an encyclopedia can only write about things that have already been written about, so there are a lot of cool people and things that just never got the press and research they deserved, but that issue has to be addressed by scholars and journalists, it's not an encyclopedia's role to "uncover new things".

I hope this gives a few good ideas, but my non-binding estimate is that Lett's bio can indeed publish after a little tweaking, but getting RadioFan here to weigh in would help a lot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]