Help desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 13

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Guetzloe Report

Changed references on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Guetzloe Report, added information and deleted previous information to focus on The Guetzloe Report, which I believe fit requirements. Can anyone let me know any further information? I think it now looks fine. Thanks.Jerosaur (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are valid, as far as they go, but guetzloe.com and phoenixnetwork.us are both controlled by Doug Guetzloe as owner of The Phoenix Network and are therefore not neutral sources. The 2006 article Suit against Guetzloe dismissed is also outdated to the point of being misleading as subsequent developments in 2011 Doug Guetzloe loses defamation case, ordered to pay $1.6M tell a very different story. If you must create this page, do be prepared for subsequent editors to remove the material sourced to Guetzloe himself and add as much dirt from sources unflattering to your subject. The topic is valid but I don't think you're going to like the result of dumping this into an encyclopaedia that any danged fool can edit where highly-negative but reliably-sourced info can be added to cut your golden boy down at least a notch or two. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Seems a more likely candidate for merging in Doug Guetzloe than an independent article. Pol430 talk to me 19:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard David Hames

I am the author of material you have cited as being authored by others. My position is PA to Richard David Hames and Dhurakij Pundit University used my copy and not the other way round. Thank you in anticipation of your advice concerning this. Suna Butsuwan Asian Foresight Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suna Butsuwan (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrote this text during the course of your employment as personal assistant to Richard David Hames, you have two problems. One is that copyright in something someone else paid you to write likely belongs not to you but to the company. The other is that you have a huge conflict of interest on this particular subject. As such, it may be best to leave the topic alone - if someone else who only heard of this topic in a book or newspaper somewhere (assuming it's notable enough to merit more than a mention in either) wanted to try to write something and cite reliable sources, that's different but self-promotion is generally a no-no here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adding a word to wikipedia

Hello, I have created a new word that I would like to place in the wikipedia dictionary. By placing Manny in the dictionary will this establish a copyright trail? Mymanny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mymanny (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Wiktionary is a dictionary but the word has to already exist and be noted by reliable sources to justify its inclusion - which it is likely not the case if you have newly created it. Wikipedia and Wiktionary content is made available for attributed free re-use by anyone so isn't a good way to establish copyright in any case. In other words, don't bother. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shoreline Scripts

Hi, I was wondering what I need to add to ensure Shoreline Scripts is listed on Wikipedia? I don't see how our entry is any different to Kao Films Competition, which is listed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaos_Films

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorelinescripts (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need better sources to establish notability; Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or your own site are neither neutral nor reliable. To write a page about yourself is also a huge conflict of interest which almost never results in a neutral, factual encyclopaedia article. Blatant self-promotion tends not to be welcomed on Wikipedia. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the organization 'Shoreline Scripts' does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unless you can evidence that they do, by following the advice above, the submission cannot be accepted. Wikipedia only wants articles about notable subjects; it is an encyclopedia. Thank you for pointing out the Kaos Films article, I have nominated it for deletion as it also seems non-notable. Pol430 talk to me 19:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joan Susannah Sadler (nee Wilkinson)

For the help desk: The reviewer of my proposed article for creation states that I should add an "info box." I'm uncertain what this means, beyond the table of contents that's already shown in the draft article. Please advise me. Tswilk3 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an Info Box. I don't know why the reviewer suggested it. I don't know why the reviewer had a problem with lack of neutrality either. The major problem is that the subject is not notable or, if she is, you need to provide the sources to prove it, as per the 'golden rule'. Sionk (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]