Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 25 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 27 >
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 26

[edit]

03:05, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Ernestina1844

[edit]

I cannot find Edit tab at top of window to reedit the text of my article. Ernestina1844 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernestina1844, this question isn't really suitable for this help desk. Have you tried turning your computer (or whatever device you use) off and on? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 26 October 2024 review of submission by 103.161.144.33

[edit]

Its for the third time the article gets rejected. Can some one say which sources are not reliable? 103.161.144.33 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2024 (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.
The Times of India has dubious reliability(see WP:TOI). The main issue is that you have no sources that establish the film is a notable film as defined by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 26 October 2024 review of submission by 100.8.233.48

[edit]

a 10 y old kid has open 2 company! 100.8.233.48 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When independent reliable sources that you can cite write about that and its significance, let us know. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your latest post. Please don't spam the help desk. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, we err towards not having articles on minors if we can help it as a Wikipedia article would irrevocably destroy their privacy. The sourcing would need to be absolutely flawless for us to even consider an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Witzcraft1

[edit]

why is this not approved? Witzcraft1 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Witzcraft1: because it is completely unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable.
I assume this is about yourself? In which case, please note that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its not an autobiography it is all factual and can all be checked Witzcraft1 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you want i can snd all the sources Witzcraft1 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't Mr. Martin, you clearly have access to him as you took a photo of him. You also created the logo of his first electronic release and the album cover of another. These things mean you almost certainly have a conflict of interest to disclose.
If you have sources, it is imperative that they be provided when writing about a living person. If you can show that he is a notable musician as Wikipedia defines it, add the sources (see Referencing for beginners if you need assistance with doing it) then ask the reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Dancematters

[edit]

this page has now been deleted???? Dancematters (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dancematters: correct, Draft:Billy Cowie was deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this was not promotional Dancematters (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancematters: I can't comment, as I haven't seen the content; only explaining what happened. The reviewer clearly felt it was promotional, and the attending administrator concurred and consequently deleted it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to increase the woeful lack of choreographers on wikipedia and had planned a whole series on major figures who are not represented. the page in its second form was completely neutral and only relied on third party sources (over thirty) my suspicion is that wikipedia editors and administrators have no experience of dance and its importance. I would be grateful if you could request to see the page and give a second opinion. Dancematters (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancematters: you can contact the deleting administrator to discuss this, if you wish. You can see their name by clicking on the red link in my first reply, which takes you to where the draft used to be.
Wikipedia editors and administrators, or for that matter AfC draft reviewers, do not need to be experts on a particular topic, to be able to assess whether a draft complies with our policies and guidelines. By all means, please do create drafts on notable figures in dance, just make sure they align with our policies so they can be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should contact the deleting editor User:Jimfbleak who deleted it as "unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page". Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what really puzzles me is that I should have to contact jimfbleak who has described the page as an "unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page" without any evidence. if he had just left it there while I prepared the other half dozen choreographer pages that I started working on then he could have seen the bigger picture. I think he has no idea of the amount of time a well researched page with dozens of links takes. and to just delete without a second thought. hmm? who was it said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Dancematters (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to contact him. You only need to do that, if you want this draft restored. Up to you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted him of course. It is a little confusing as it says on the deleted notice that it was Explicit?? who deleted the page??? Dancematters (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You initially created this draft at Draft:Billy cowie. It was moved to the correct capitalisation, at Draft:Billy Cowie. This move left behind a redirect (from the first location to the new), which was deleted by Explicit as routine housekeeping. The draft was then reviewed and declined, and subsequently deleted, from there by Jimfbleak. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not an admin, I can't see the deleted draft. But usually when a draft is deleted as promotional, the problem is that it says either what the writer thinks about the subject, or what the subject says about themselves (or what their associates say about them).
Neither of these is of any relevance at all to writing a Wikipedia article. The article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the the subject have published in reliable places. Further, if there is any evaluative language, it must be attributed, not in Wikipedia's voice. So "Lucy Smith, writing in the Gotham City Reporter, described him as ..." is fine (with a citation), but not "he is ...". ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is really the issue. Once the page is deleted it seems no one can see what the truth is. In the deleted page there is absolutely no evaluative language and there are over 30 references from entirely independent sources. Why not make the page available for discussion? So that advice can be given. I was already working on five other choreographer profiles but it seems pointless to put in that effort if it can be deleted on a whim. Dancematters (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancematters Any administrator can see it. The deleting administrator is the administrator to ask. Visit Draft:Billy Cowie and you will see who deleted it. There is little point in messages here until you have done that thing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked but had no response which is not surprising in view of the cavalier way in which the page was taken down in the first place without any discussion or communication. If you are an administrator and can see it why not take a look and let me know your thoughts. Dancematters (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP's been blocked for spam; they continued their argumentativeness on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 26 October 2024 review of submission by JTokyoNaught

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_NmrmndGM

I need help with citing this youtube video multiple times. I don't know how to cite it multiple times at different timestamps. JTokyoNaught (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JTokyoNaught: I struggle to see why you would want to cite this video even once, let alone "multiple times". It's an interview, and as such won't contribute towards notability. It's also of somewhat dubious quality, so arguably couldn't even be used for verification purposes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview done by a well established interviewer. Nardwuar has been interviewing musicians for over twenty years, including Sonic Youth, Pharrell Williams, Drake, Kendrick Lamar, and many other artists. He's also known for his accurate research on musician's lives which is why I want to use the source. JTokyoNaught (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos are rarely considered reliable sources, unless it is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your help. JTokyoNaught (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JTokyoNaught: An interview conducted by a "well-established interviewer" is every bit as useful as an interview conducted by Borat Sagdiyev - i.e. not at all. Interviews are the subject talking about themselves and can't help for notability regardless of the medium it is published in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your help. JTokyoNaught (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:33, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Mehadi akash

[edit]

i need explanation Mehadi akash (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehadi akash: We don't cite Facebook (no editorial oversight). Are there any news stories about Hassan? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_26&oldid=1254872237"