Help desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 17 >

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.

October 16

11:03:56, 16 October 2022 review of draft by Darkfall7

Darkfall7 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Bill Murphy (Irish actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have submitted the above draft for revision three times, and the two most recent times I was told that the lede being unsourced was a problem. I have since sourced the lede with the same sources I use further down in the "Early Life and Education" and "Career" sections, but when looking for cast listings for several of the film and TV series', I could not find listings of the full casts. The only place that had the full cast listings that I could find was IMDb, but the use of cast lists from IMDb as a reference is a disputed use, so I removed all IMDb citations. Is there any other trusted websites where I could find full cast listings, or is the film/TV series itself considered a primary source? I have watched most of the media in question and can confirm that the subject appears in them, so I am not clear on whether or not citing a cast list is necessary? Also, if I cite sources in the lede that I also use in later sections that go more in depth, is it necessary to cite the same sources again, or should I remove the citations in either the lede or later sections?

Darkfall7 (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to cite a cast list; for film/television it is assumed that the named person is in the credits, which can be verified simply by viewing the production. If they aren't credited, then you would need a source. Theater productions are harder but they usually have published lists to cite.

I'm not sure why you are being told to cite the lede; the lede should be summarizing the contents of the article, so as long as the article is sourced that should be sufficient. I think the main issue is that you don't have much beyond listing his productions/appearances. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:54, 16 October 2022 review of submission by David1212121

David1212121 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Active flow network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please advise how you would like this article to be edited. The science has been reviewed properly and the definitions are quite clear. Please tell us in details what is missing, so that I can improve the message, Best wishes, Pr. David Holcman Computational Biology and Applied Mathematics, 46 rue d'Ulm, Paris France.

David1212121 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, so there is nothing that you can do. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:58, 16 October 2022 review of submission by Brahmastra85585

Brahmastra85585 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

I want to know my page is rejected Brahmastra85585 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmastra85585 Your draft was deleted as a blatant advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about something. Please read the five pillars and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. You may also want to first edit existing articles, to help you learn. Creating a new article is difficult. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:40:12, 16 October 2022 review of submission by TLarish

TLarish (talk · contribs)

Thanks to MaxnaCarta for reviewing the submission. Please clarify whether the issue is a) a lack of reliable, in-depth, secondary, and independent sources on the subject, or b) one of the sources fails to fit that category.

My thought is that the issue with it is the "efemeridespedrobeltran.com" citation. I have since removed it (and the information relying on it), leaving only Forbes, Financial Times, and HelloMonaco.

My second thought is that two of the sources (one FT and the HelloMonaco) are interviews with a Nahmad. However, the articles appear to be journalistic beyond rehashing the Nahmad's opinions — especially FT's.

TLarish (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TLarish this article is not suitable. "journalistic" is not relevant. There is "journalistic" content of all sorts of things. There needs to be significant coverage of a topic covered by multiple reliable sources, and the coverage within the article does not meet that standard. Also, just because something has been covered somewhat by media, that does not guarantee inclusion. There is absolutely no need for a separate article on the artwork owned by a person when they have their own article. So, per WP:PAGEDECIDE I do not consider this appropriate for its own article. That coupled with a lack of notability, this particular topic is not appropriate for Wikipedia. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't repeat what has already been said, especially as I'm asking for elaboration. "The coverage within the article does not meet that standard" — what standard? I see multiple reliable sources, and believe this coverage to be significant, especially compared to other articles on Wikipedia.

I admit fault, however. The purpose of the article was not sufficiently clear. This is not the art collection of one person, as you suggested; it is a family art collection, and therefore it cannot be placed (likely more aptly— I agree with you) within a single person's page. This is the largest individual art collection in the world, and has a great deal of notoriety in the art community that has leaked out public coverage on the Nahmads — much as they don't want coverage, much as they'd like to keep their record under the radar.

Again, I agree with you; this is certainly the type of content that would usually appear in an individual's article. However, there are five Nahmads relevant to this collection. David Nahmad is not the only one (Giuseppe might be a better choice for merger, if any). Purchases and Nahmad activity cannot be attributed directly to David Nahmad, and therefore do not belong in his article.

The closest precedent might be the Borghese, Royal, or Farnese collections. Or the Waddesdon Bequest. However, this has a public presence.

Please help me think of a solution. TLarish (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]