Talk:Nafir (trumpet)

Removal of a new page
The user User:Rosguill removed my |my efforts to document a IMHO famous and important artist. How can I challenge the claim that the artist has not enough general notability?! The number of followers of social media channels, the word of the street, and the prices for his artworks in Norway, Sweden, Germany speak a different language, that is why I was suggesting an English wikipedia article.

Hou710 (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a formal challenge process for this method of creating an article. One of many reasons not to convert redirects into articles.  Some of the others include incoming wikilinks that will be broken (although these can be detected and fixed), possible external links to the redirect (which can't be found or fixed and are going to confuse people a lot), and just the plain old possibility that you are wrong about the primary meaning of the term you just hijacked.  I would suggest creating such articles under a different title, possible disambiguated (eg. Nafir (street artist)).  It can always be renamed later if it survives the review process.  Completely new pages will not be deleted immediately unless they are seriously flawed, so you will have a chance to present your case.  Or create in draft and go through the articles for creation process, so the article is reviewed before it reaches mainspace.  Converting this redirect into an article should probably only be done after discussion, which you have started.  Or possibly someone else will agree with you an reinstate the article.  If they don't, perhaps you should take that as a hint about the real notability of your article.  You should probably read the relevant policies on notability, and in particular those about the notability of living persons and other important rules about such sensitive issues.
 * I notice you also tried to create a disambiguation page. That was a complete non-starter.  Dab pages are not for you to create a list of things you think a word might mean.  They are a method for letting readers choose one of several possible existing Wikipedia articles that might be intended by an ambiguous term.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd add to this that the general process to "formally challenge" an article created from a redirect would actually come from the side advocating delete/redirect; i.e. if you had converted the redirect back to an article again, instead of just redirecting it I would take a discussion to articles for deletion to get a firmer consensus about what to do with the article.
 * As for the merits of the article itself, Lithopsian is right that you should read the relevant guideline on notability. The short version is that social media and artwork prices are not indicators of notability on Wikipedia; notability on Wikipedia is determined by the amount of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the article draft had a lot of trivial coverage (sites indexing artwork for sale) and coverage in sources of unclear reliability and independence (e.g. blogs, softball interviews, or other articles where it's not clear that the information about the subject wasn't just provided by the subject themself). Additionally, the fact that the largest section of the article was a paragraph of pure speculation cited to a source that didn't mention Nafir at all was a red flag. signed,Rosguill talk 18:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the merits of the article itself, Lithopsian is right that you should read the relevant guideline on notability. The short version is that social media and artwork prices are not indicators of notability on Wikipedia; notability on Wikipedia is determined by the amount of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the article draft had a lot of trivial coverage (sites indexing artwork for sale) and coverage in sources of unclear reliability and independence (e.g. blogs, softball interviews, or other articles where it's not clear that the information about the subject wasn't just provided by the subject themself). Additionally, the fact that the largest section of the article was a paragraph of pure speculation cited to a source that didn't mention Nafir at all was a red flag. signed,Rosguill talk 18:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)