Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 December 12

= December 12 =

09:07:32, 12 December 2017 review of submission by Skazoo73
Skazoo73 (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting assistance because my article was rejected. It's my first attempt and I'm going to improve, with any help you can provide of course. I included as references my imdb.com page and an interview with a notable publication LA Weekly. I also included my website, which I have since read should not be included. Was having it there in the first place and automatic grounds for rejection? Did I even include my references in the correct place? Please let me know my biggest inclusions or omissions that will help me going forward. Thanks.


 * Hi . Your website may be used as a source in an article about you, but should not be a major source and does not help demonstrate that you are notable. Similarly, although the LA Weekly interview may be used as a source, it's Gelbart talking about Gelbart, with no analysis by the interviewer. So it's a primary source, isn't independent of Gelbart, and doesn't help demonstrate notability. IMDb is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference.


 * I see that you've added some other sources and resubmitted. It will be reviewed sometime in the next couple months. If by "I also included my website", you mean that you are Gelbart, be advised that autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Be particularly cognizant of the law of unintended consequences and declare your conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 10:39:04, 12 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by MichaelLawson
Hi, could you please help with the article I'm writing... It's on WOW Video Production : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WOW_Video_Production

They are specialists in a niche area of video production for people trying to raise money through crowdfunding.
 * They have a book published
 * Interviewed and featured on Sky News as part of a major feature (lead story for the day)
 * Featured in Funded Magazine in a two page spread (print and online)

But the article was declined.

Is it because the link to the video of the Sky News report is not hosted on Sky News' website? If it helps, Sky News don't store video on their site for more than a few weeks which is why there is a copy of the programme referenced and linked to on the WOW Video Production website. If you take a look though you will be able to see it's the real thing.

MichaelLawson (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

11:37:55, 12 December 2017 review of submission by KingBruce
When can we have the approval for the page Hindu Chetana Sangam - Sajjan Shakti Sarvatr as there will be no relevance for this page after 7th January 2018 KingBruce (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . About 2,150 drafts have been waiting longer than User:KingBruce/sandbox. At the current rate of reviewing, that suggests it will be reviewed by the first week in February 2018. One of the inclusion criteria for events is enduring historical significance, so if the draft would truly have no relevance after 7 January 2018, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a community bulletin board. This is not the place to advertise, publicize, or promote an event. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 11:58:19, 12 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Sjalkema
After the following discussion with Verbcatcher, I did make changes on 11 April 2017, in response to question he asked on 7 March 2017. These changes were in accordance with all questions posed on my Talkpage:

Verbcatcher wrote and I quote: 'Hi, I noticed your edits to Talk:Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra. I suggest you add a note to the Your username section of this talk page (or on your user page) to clarify your non-connection with the CTPO, in case other editors reach the same conclusion that I did about a conflict of interest. I have not studied your proposed changes to the article in detail. As you have no conflict of interest you could edit the article yourself, subject to the usual Wikipedia rules and conventions.

You are allowed to cite your own PhD thesis, or other works that you may have published. This is not normally treated as a conflict of interest, provided that the citations are merited. I quickly found your thesis online – you may want to read WP:REALNAME.

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Verbcatcher I re-wrote the article: Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra on its Talk page. Above it, I wrote an Affidavit explaining why there no conflict of interest in my opinion, and would like to continue discussions on the article in an effort to have it placed in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Can you suggest what I need to correct, please? Sjalkema'.

The article of the Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra is still in my Talkpage, but as I did not hear from anyone since my edits, six months have lapsed, and the article has been deleted. I did make myself quite clear about conflict of interest. Can someone help to have this article 'reinstated' and say what is still needed to have it placed on the main article page, please?Sjalkema (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sjalkema (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . It isn't clear to me exactly how Draft:Cape_Town_Philharmonic_Orchestra figures into your tale, but if you wish to retrieve it, please see the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13.


 * When you propose changes to an article on the article's talk page (as you did on Talk:Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra) if no objects within a week or two, it's normally safe to make the proposed changes. As it has been 8 months, and no one has objected, I suggest you make the change, using the edit summary  The worst that can happen is that someone reverts your change, in which case you can engage them in discussion.


 * For a better understanding of how the community uses article talk pages, see Talk page guidelines and the explanatory supplement BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Information page Merging, although specifically about merges, has a well-written section about proposing changes. The practices outlined there apply well to most article talk page discussions. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

16:21:14, 12 December 2017 review of submission by 71.169.130.143
I am requesting a non-partisan review of this entry. Regards and thank you in advance. 71.169.130.143 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

23:16:12, 12 December 2017 review of submission by Mightymouse00
Mightymouse00 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering if someone can check out my first article and see if it is done, correctly - can edit if it isnt, just let me know what needs to be changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mightymouse00/sandbox#Parkpnp

ThanksMightymouse00 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note:The draft had moved to Draft:Parkpnp for AFC review. Matthew_hk   t  c  04:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)