I don't see how notability guidelines helps improve Wikipedia. Sure this person doesn't meet the guidelines' criteria, but they are not definite or absolute. What about WP:verification or WP:BLP? Do they help much? Also, I created this to distinguish the other Edward Leung. --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How "in-depth"? I checked sources from Google Books, and they say the same thing about his accomplishments. Nothing else about his private life or interviews or anything else. --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's already six sources there, so forget about counting them or that adding "one more" will be a magic fix. Here's the actual problem George Ho. The sources need to show the notability of the person. At this current time none of the numbered footnotes demonstrate notability. What do they teach us about the guy?
Bettinson - He was one of 4 scriptwriters on a film. (I can't access p247 though. Is he mentioned in that page?)
Charles (p.25) - He was one of two writers on a film.
Charles (p.52) - I can't access this page
Morton - He was one of 6 writers on a film
Charles (p.300) - He was one of 6 writers on a film
Charles (p.176) - He was one of 3 writers on a film
Charles (p.201) - He was one of 2 writers on a film
Charles (p.156) - He was one of 3 writers on a film
Charles (p.366) - He is the sole credited writer on this film. Does the source discuss his writing? Not very favourably, describing the first half of the film as a "washout", while the second half does not capitalize on its ambitions.
Golden Horse - Nominated for an award but didn't win.
Sina.com - He directed a television show, but it is a passing mention because the article is about someone else.
Each and every one of these 11 references from 6 different sources (excluding two pages I can't access) merely give a passing mention of him as a scriptwriter, without giving any discussion about his work, or him as a person. Please see the general notability guideline. The first step of that is:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
Currently this article fails the first sentence because there is no detailed discussion of the subject. To fix it, you need to find sources which discuss in detail his work and/or him as a person. More sources saying "he is a scriptwriter" will not help. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner. Here is an explanation addressing each of the three links you've mentioned:
WP:NOTEWORTHY is about content within an article. The best way to explain is by giving you an example. Akihiro Ota is a Japanese politician who was the nation's transport minister this time last year. His political career has received significant coverage over many years, because he was also the president of one of the ruling parties a few years ago. So his notability is well-established and he has an article. Within the "early life" section of his article, it mentions that he was the captain of his university's sumo club. This piece of information is not the subject of significant coverage - the source is Ota's own website. So if "captain of a college sumo club" was his only claim of notability, he would fail WP:GNG. This is where WP:NOTEWORTHY is applicable - that fact about his college sumo does not need to satisfy the notability guidelines, because it is one piece of information within an article about a notable person. By comparison, Yiu-ming does not have anything to establish the required significant coverage. If he was notable for being a top politican, then his film-writing career could also be included in his biography per WP:NOTEWORTHY. But currently that first hurdle of notability has not been cleared.
WP:NRV - Yes, notability requires verifiable evidence, just as that link says. My point is that so far, the article contains no verifiable evidence of notability.
WP:ARTN - The last sentence could be applicable here. If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. If there are Chinese sources which establishes Yiu-ming's notability within the film industry in his country, then we can say he is notable even if they are not used in the article. I can't read Chinese, so I can't help you find those sources. If the sources do exist you need to present a list of them, or better still, use them to expand the article.
The google translation of the Chinese links are very poor and the excerpts are quite short, so I can't give a fair assessment. What does the material say? If they are more one-sentence mentions of him writing a film, I don't think they will help. I do not think WP:SUSTAINED helps in this situation either. The subject is not really receiving coverage, they are merely passing mentions. So far we have no biographical information about him, you know, the basic stuff like where he was born, how old he is. In this day and age, if that sort of information is not provided in sources, then it is a fair indication that a person is not notable. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we must include his age. What I mean is that none of the sources provided so far have any information about him. If we remove the details of what films and shows he has worked on, this would be a two-sentence biography "Edward Leung Yiu-ming is a film screenwriter. He and his co-writers received the Golden Horse Award nomination in 1990 for Best Featured Film Adapted Screenplay for The Swordsman." That is not enough to satisfy the requirements of a biography of a notable person. Which part of WP:ANYBIO are you referring to? There is no evidence of receiving multiple award nominations. Similarly, there is no evidence of a "widely-recognized contribution" to his field.
I agree that more needs to be added to make this page significant but I'm having a hard time finding more background info on Thomas Harte (no surprise there!). I did add information on how the Offenses Against the State Act which was used in this case, it would be good to have a page dedicated to someone who was executed under the provisions of this Act. Im new to this but I'm sure this page would be valuable once I learn how to link other pages/categories to it: Irish People convicted of murdering Police Officers, Executed Irish People, Offences against the State Acts 1939–1998, Irish Republican Army (1922–69) etc.
I will work to find more significant info on Tom Harte, can you refer me to the place where I can learn how to insert links to categories? Thanks very much.Palisades1 13:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisades1 (talk • contribs)
If you want to insert articles to categories, copy these words below, and paste them in your article, the category name is the name of your category:
It seems like that only 1 is accessable without buying (which is free), and that shows quite notablity, adding more will make it acceptable. 333-blue09:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10:27:20, 15 July 2016 review of submission by 4a4a7a
Thanks so much for your time 333 blue. And for your review, too.
You had mentioned that there should be reliable external sources mentioned in the article. The best source I have is the original Suzuki manuscript (hard copy scanned and the link mentioned) which was given to my father when he purchased this machine.
I combed the internet. But I failed to find what you advised me to look for. But I would keep on trying.
There is another way. But I don't know how to do it. I will tell you what.
Now take a look at this following article about a motor cycle. The article has been approved by Wikipedia. This is also about a motor cycle like the one I am about to publish.
Now how did that user got through? I want to get in touch with him and find out on what reliable source he wrote the article.
Thanks
First, there is a template about adding sources for verification. Second, it even didn't go through the AFC process. Third, that article would probably not be passed if went with the AFC process (or at least passed with stub-class), but there is notablity. And also that your article reads like an advert and needs to be broken into sections, though. 333-blue10:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tabletop game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Can't Stop. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm just a little confused as to why this 101-year-old, statewide Buddhist organization with 12 separate temples is not considered notable. It seems a bit strange that small, single-town Christian churches with little more than "it's old" are considered notable but a statewide religious organization is not. Is there a reason for the inconsistency? Or should articles like the following be reported for removal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodi_Methodist_Church
This is with reference to your review of my draft on Suzuki GP 100 a week ago.
In your review you informed me that "Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
Unfortunately there are no such reliable sources I could find. Nothing in Suzuki Motor cycles official web page.
The only authentic document I have is the Suzuki's commercial leaflet printed some 30 years ago. I have posted it in my blog too.
Can you please take a look at my blog and advise me what I should do? please.
Have you even read the article you reviewed blue? The GP 100 is a 40-year old motorcycle. The blog is where this author is writing about the motorcycle his father once owned. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Blue, your perspective is somewhat biased. Whether I am advertising or not, please try to look at the facts. Suzuki GP 100 bike EXISTS! So why cannot it claim a place of its own?
I have produced perfectly acceptable scanned images of the manufacturer's leaflets! Did you go through the blog, Blue? Please do.
And there is another message from you that is quite disturbing. Here:
Hello, 4a4a7a. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Suzuki GP 100".
I did NOT edit it six months ago! I edited only 6 days back. Please assist me. I beg of you.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 333-blue 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4a4a7a (talk • contribs)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 333-blue was:
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:333-blue/sandbox/Sleeping and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! 333-blue,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 333-blue13:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 333-blue was:
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 333-blue was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:333-blue/tbd and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 333-blue was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Moved to Draft talk:Edward Leung Yiu-ming
