Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 December 12

= December 12 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Charl Stephanus Oosthuizen
Hello - I have submitted a new page for review, of the South African philosopher D C S Oosthuizen. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Charl Stephanus Oosthuizen

I would like to request that if/when the page is created, it is under the title: D C S ('Daantjie') Oosthuizen. The page has been submitted for review under the title: Daniel Charl Stephanus Oosthuizen (which is his full name, and how the article started). The reason for the request is that he wasn't known under this name - he published under D C S Oosthuizen, and was often referred to as Daantjie Oosthuizen.

I'm so sorry - I know that this was my fault in the way that I started the article.

With thanks

Bev ('Blodwyn34')

Blodwyn34 (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅It's no problem at all; if and when articles are approved, the reviewer can select the title the article will move to. I have copied your wishes to the comments setcion so the reviewer can take them into account. Rankersbo (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blodwyn34 says THANK YOU!!!

Review of User:Dcocchiarella/Colorvision International
I have an article waiting for review at User:Dcocchiarella/Colorvision International, at the bottom of the yellow 'review waiting' box I see the following warning: "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colorvision International (move)." This is my first article for submission, so am in the middle of the learning curve. Should I move the article, will it be reviews more quickly there, or will it just go to the back of the queue?

Also, the article was previously reviewed and rejected by another user, I have made substantial improvements, should I let that user know (on their talk page) that I have resubmitted, or should I just wait for a fresh set of eyes?

Thank yu for any advice. --D Cocchiarella 13:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think the "probably should be located" warning is intended for the reviewer. So you don't need to do anything.


 * In general, waiting for a fresh set of eyes seems like the best idea. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. --D Cocchiarella 16:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Centre for Sight
Nobody answered my quesiton and it got archived - how do I get some help?!

Thanks!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2013_November_30#Review_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FCentre_for_Sight

✅. Article is not outrageously promotional and there is enough of a claim of notability to give it a chance at AfD. Bellerophon talk to me  18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mario Gosalvez
Please, I have finised a short version of my Wikipedia a would like to submit it for your revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.183.250 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You have been told five times that this submission requires the addition of multiple secondary sources that will allow the reviewers to make a clear judgement of the subject's notability. Since the last decline, the only edits you have made are cosmetic in nature and to remove 10 primary references. This has done nothing to enhance the notability of the subject or satisfy the BLP policy. Bellerophon talk to me  19:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Wehrhahn
Hi, I submitted a page today and it was denied. Could you please let me know what corrections I need to make to get this approved?

Thanks Katrina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat426 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, three editors in a row have given you the exact same specific advice (inside the pink boxes), with clickable links to the specific guidlines that show you what to fix and how to do so. Have you checked out those suggestions? Do you have any questions about that guidance? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Only the 'interview' source actually discusses Wehrhahn in detail, which does not pass WP:ANYBIO and I don't think his involvement as the producer of a yet unreleased film make him notable per WP:FILMMAKER, or sufficiently to overcome the concerns which led to this article's deletion in 2012: Articles for deletion/Michael Wehrhahn. Bellerophon talk to me  20:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher H. van Dyck
Hi! I was confused by the feedback I got on the page I just tried to create called "Christopher van Dyck". It said that "only a handful of the sources are independent", but I don't think this is so. The US Chess Federation's list of winners at their website is the definitive source for this information. The scientific papers cited are all from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, and prove the accuracy of the sentences which cite them. I don't know how to get more definitive information! Thank you 23:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Amyarnsten (talk)


 * Primarily van Dyck is an academic, so we need to see independent reliable sources that demonstrate he fully meets the notability criteria for academics -- which can be found at WP:PROF. Any independent peer reviewed journals/docs that show he "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Bellerophon talk to me  11:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)