Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 3 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 5 >
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.


November 4

[edit]

00:15, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Beezy Gh

[edit]

Can I get an assistance with this article I am working if review and guidelines may help but if you can also hop on too great Beezy Gh (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beezy Gh: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but this draft is pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 4 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:587:243D:C100:2122:B236:C5A6:F6B0

[edit]

Hello,

when I want to state that a main activity of one person is being a commentator on public issues by making frequent appearances as a guest on TV and radio programmes while also by witing frequently on news platforms:

is it ok if I use as a source his personal website, where all of that person's appearances and articles are concentrated?

while also referencing to a number of different platforms on which that person has appeared?

The logic of the question is that one cannot reference to every appearance or piece one has made or written, and since those can be found concentrated on one place, I should also add that place as well, even if it is that person's personal website, and then add a number of independent sources as indicative, since adding all of them would be impossible. 2A02:587:243D:C100:2122:B236:C5A6:F6B0 (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and no. You can use primary sources, such the subject's own website, for purely factual, non-contentious information. What that means in this context is, if they merely state that they've appeared as an expert on BBC and CNN, and link to those pieces, then that's fine. Whereas if they say they've appeared on 100+ TV programmes and written feature articles for every major newspaper, without supporting these claims with anything, then that's clearly not okay. Likewise, if they say they're the world's foremost expert on X and are in high demand by the greatest media outlets in the world, that's not factual, that's their opinion.
But as I said before, media appearances etc. do not make someone notable, so in that sense it's debatable what value such information would have, other than in promoting this person.
Please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

[edit]

I would like to create this page. Sunuraju (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunuraju, do you have a question we can help with? We know you'd like to create the page, since you've written a draft about it. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that since this page was created multiple times under many revisions and now deleted, I just would like permission to proceed with it. Is that ok? Sunuraju (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunuraju: this title is protected, and a comment left by the protecting admin was that the protection can be lifted "when consensus is that draftspace article is ready". So far, this draft has been declined twice, therefore I would say there is currently no consensus that the article is ready for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. I understand that the draft has been declined twice, and I appreciate the feedback provided so far. If consensus hasn’t been reached on this version, would it be possible for me to create a fresh draft on the same topic? I’m committed to addressing any issues and making improvements to meet the standards required for publication.
Thank you. Sunuraju (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make changes to address the concerns, you should edit the existing draft and resubmit, you shouldn't create a new draft. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Draft: FAMM - Female Artists of the Mougins Museum

[edit]

I recently updated the draft titled “Female Artists of the Mougins Museum” for "FAMM - Female Artists of the Mougins Museum" and would appreciate if an editor could review it. The draft clarifies the title to make less ambiguous. I did not create a disambiguation page since there is no other article on wikipedia with the same name than mine. Can you give me your feedback and help me in the publication of this page on this museum ? Thank you for your assistance! Wikirobag (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikirobag: you have resubmitted Draft:Female Artists of the Mougins Museum and it will be reviewed once a reviewer picks it up. For future reference, please direct such questions to the help desk, WP:AFCHD. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409

[edit]

it is my request to approve my page ,as i m creating a page for an singer who deserve to have it's own wikipedia page Adityaksingh409 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityaksingh409: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. There is hardly any meaningful content, and no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offered no independent reliable sources whatsoever, and gave no indication how this person meets the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adityaksingh409, your phrase that somebody "deserves to have [their] own wikipedia page" makes no sense except with the false assumption that a Wikipedia article is for the benefit of its subject. It is not, except incidentally. ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Jeffrey Barish

[edit]

All of the programs listed in tables at "Comparison of audio player software" provide links to pages with more information about the software. Accordingly, I created a page with information about Wax. It was rejected for lack of support by reliable sources. What are the reliable sources supporting the pages for other programs in the table, e.g., Exaile? I see "external links" to sources analogous to mine. Is it the reviews under "Notes" that provide the necessary reliability? Jeffrey Barish (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffrey Barish: the Exaile article (to take your example) cite seven sources as references. Your draft cites (actually, not cites; only lists) one source.
The notability guideline WP:GNG explains what sort of sources we need to see to establish notability. If you find a few (3-5) such sources, summarise what they say about this subject, and cite each source against the information it has provided, that will give you the appropriate content as well as necessary referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Barish Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet dealt with by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about; there are many ways inappropriate articles can exist and go undetected, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Mdhor123

[edit]

Not sure why this keep getting rejected. It isn't a how-to guide, but an explanation of what the topic is. What can be done to get the article accepted? Mdhor123 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be done, it has been rejected. This isn't the place to offer PowerPoint usage tips. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 4 November 2024 review of submission by 141.155.162.213

[edit]

Well we added the sources about Not Quite Narwhal that's needs to be release on Wikipedia. So its that's not trouble to approve this page. 141.155.162.213 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Clioos

[edit]

I’m submitting my article Clioos (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_4&oldid=1256464053"