Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 3 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 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.


February 4

[edit]

10:14, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Rojja1996

[edit]

Kindly help as some users have declined the page and i want help Rojja1996 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rojja1996 I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. You seem to have a connection with this person as you took a picture of them and they posed for you. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. What help is it that you are seeking? Please see the advice left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not like that. I don’t have any connection and doesn’t have received any payment. How to make it look more valid. Kindly help. Rojja1996 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you personally take the picture of him? Have you seen the advice left by the reviewer? They told what it is that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I took it from the source of that reality show. With his consent Rojja1996 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He can't give consent to using an image of the show, it's not his to give. This means that you must declare a conflict of interest as you communicated with him, and you must immediately request deletion of the image from Commons as you are falsely claiming it as your work.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images may wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your suggestion what can I do to look more relevant? Rojja1996 (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is almost completely unsourced, and the sources you give are not appropriate for establishing notability. You have gone about this backwards. You should first gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage and then summarize them. These sources cannot be interviews, press releases, announcements, or brief mentions. Once the image is removed and a deletion request made, and you declare a conflict of interest, please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Sukhi vale

[edit]

Please help me for create mahroos siddiquee Nadim article Sukhi vale (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the advice left by reviewers. Social media is not an acceptable source. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Musicworkflowacademy

[edit]

Hello,

Please publish my page for DJ Omar Meho

Thank you. Looking forward to working with you. Please keep me in mind for all future opportunties.

Kind Regards,

Omar Meho Musicworkflowacademy (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a venue for promoting your business, try Linked in instead. Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of your sources is independent of Meno. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 4 February 2024 review of submission by 69.118.230.235

[edit]

This article seems notable, even if not for the play, and it seems that the comment about the article being restructured wasn’t listened to. I know this is an OSE argument, but Lunatic Lateral is leaning towards keep at the AFD and I fail to see how this is less relevant. Yes, it is too soon to determine a lasting impact, however that means no article should be created at the time. I don’t see how the article could possibly be merged effectively into 2023-24 NFL playoffs without bloating the section. Even if the field goal isn’t notable, the viewership record is. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Origamikuren

[edit]

Hello! I am working on an entry for a band. The band's active years were in the late 90s/early 00s--before they were able to establish a significant digital footprint, which makes citations difficult. At this time, my greatest concern is that I am the primary author. What is the best way to include additional contributors to the page while it is still in a review mode? Is this something I should promote in a public manner? Not many people I know who were fans of the band have experience with contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for your advice. Origamikuren (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be online, only that they be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. In this case, you will need to establish that they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band.
You are free to invite others to edit the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can have every fan the band ever had contributing, but unless they find reliable, independent, published sources, they won't make a blind bit of difference. Your own, and their own, knowledge and memories are not acceptable unless supported by a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:37, 4 February 2024 review of submission by WV Veritas

[edit]

Hi,

My draft was rejected and not sure why. The information I submitted was essentially the same as what wa on the following page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloat-Horn-Rossell_House WV Veritas (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WV Veritas! One thing to keep in mind is that not all articles are created equal - and many, many older articles are not up to the current standards. The article you have used as a base was created in 2011 and is only a stub; I think it would probably be declined (as yours has been) if it were created today. Have a look at the Featured Articles and Good Articles listed in the Historic Houses Task Force page for the kind of article you should be basing yours on.
What you probably need to look for at this point is independent, reliable secondary sources - articles in newspapers/magazines/etc that are about this house, for example. The National Register you are relying on is a primary source and is not useful for Wikipedia.
However, I do see there's an awful lot of citations in the National Register application you have cited! Starting on page 9, many articles from what look like potentially reliable sources are cited. If you can track down those articles, use information from them in the draft, and cite them properly, you may well have a notable subject on your hands. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification and all suggestions. This is very helpful information. WV Veritas (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64

[edit]

Hello! I have added more information to the article in order to prove it is notable. May it be analyzed again? Thank you! Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 4 February 2024 review of submission by Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64

[edit]

Hello! I have updated a draft I made. Could you please take a look? I have done more research since it was rejected and I've added more information and sources 

I feel like it is worth reconsidering.
Thank you for your time!  Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Turcu Mihai Ionuț-Minekratt64: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_4&oldid=1206039308"