Help desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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.

August 21

08:02:24, 21 August 2019 review of submission by Omer Canon

Omer Canon (talk · contribs)

I want to ask how should I get this page published. From my side, this page is ready to be reviewed and published. Below is the link to my page.

Omer Canon (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need guidance in order to get this page published. This is finalized and ready to be reviewed and published. Please help me and let me know the process. Thanks

Omer Canon (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Omer Canon: Do you have a specific question? The draft is in the review queue now. Due to the volume of submissions and everyone being a volunteer, it can take months for drafts to be reviewed. However, I can point you to WP:SYNTH -- the article is basically an essay combining multiple topics, all of which are covered on Wikipedia in one form or another already. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz I selected this topic from the list of Most Wanted Articles... Though I do not have any particular question, I just want to know that is this topic acceptable or not? Thanks Omer Canon (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure why this page is linked to so many times. I looked at a couple histories of article linking to it and it looks like these links are extremely old and were never discussed. I think the "most wanted pages" can be deceptive like this. I'm pretty sure that an article like this wouldn't remain in this form due to multiple concerns. It could may be a list or an outline if all the relevant topics are added. But there is already an Outline of industrial organization. And, there are many categories (like Category:Production economics) and navboxes (like Template:Microeconomics). And, of course, each individual topic has an article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz Well... so what am I suppose to do now? Please guide me accordingly. Thanks for your prompt response.

Omer Canon (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omer Canon. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. You don't have to do anything else to make that happen. The backlog is 5 months, so it may not be reviewed until next year. If comments here, on the draft's talk page, and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Production, costs, and pricing foreshadow the review, it will be declined.

While you wait, you could work through the list of articles at Special:WhatLinksHere/Production, costs, and pricing, evaluate each red link to Production, costs, and pricing, and determine whether a link to an existing article would be better than one to what you've written. For example, in Management, would it make more sense to link the word production to production (economics) (using a piped link)? Through this exercise you might discover that the draft is not as wanted as the list suggests. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:19, 21 August 2019 review of draft by RhoderoPat

RhoderoPat (talk · contribs)
- Draft:GOMYCODE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there anything or feedback related to the review of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GOMYCODE ? it took too long without notice and no idea about the progress?

RhoderoPat (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhoderoPat. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 1 month. The backlog is 5 months. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article, see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:44, 21 August 2019 review of submission by 67.251.198.90

67.251.198.90 (talk · contribs)

I would like to start a page about my work as an actor and writer. I believe I cannot write it myself because it is autobiographical and a conflict of interest. May I merely start a page and allow other users to edit it? External links: www.imdb.com/name/nm1249604/?ref_=rvi_nm davidlavine.com 67.251.198.90 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.251.198.90: The relevant read is at WP:AUTOBIO. You can disclose your conflict of interest and still edit it yourself. It's almost always not a good idea, but it's not forbidden, especially for drafts. There are very many drafts, so the odds that someone else will come to edit aren't any better than that someone else will create the article and edit that. And before you start, make sure you have multiple independent reliable in-depth sources to satisfy the notability sourcing criteria. There is some extra leeway given by actor-specific criteria. Without these, the article won't get accepted (and might even get speedily deleted because of COI and poor sourcing for a biography). This means no profile, credit or directory entries, personal websites or social media accounts, passing mentions such as articles for related topics, interviews without publication's commentary, etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:26, 21 August 2019 review of submission by Maraviva

Maraviva (talk · contribs)
- Draft:NextFab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to request some more specific help with my draft. I am a current employee of the company that the article is about and I've done my best to avoid bias and conflict of interest. I have read the Wikipedia policies on this topic and I neutrally believe that the company deserves to have a presence on Wikipedia. As a new editor, I understand that I may be subject to more scrutiny as other editors attempt to assess how well I adhere to Wikipedia standards.

After submitting it for review for the first time, the draft was declined for not being adequately supported by reliable sources. I'd like to know which of the sources I've used are not considered reliable.

I'm more than willing to remove anything that isn't supported but I need to know what that is first.

Thanks!

Maraviva (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maraviva: - Technical.ly Delaware doesn't look particularly reliable - lots of focus on companies and an employers section generally indicates that it would be against their interests to be negative towards a company.

What would you say your 4 best sources are for proving notability, that is, they're: in-depth (on the company itself, not an owner or funding etc); reliable (reliable publications); independent (non-biased and not interviews) and secondary (newspapers, books etc)? Drop them on your talk page and I'll have a look at them and give you some feedback on if they're any good. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thank you! I've posted to my talk page. I look forward to your response. Maraviva (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:28, 21 August 2019 review of draft by Jm2474

Jm2474 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:MossRehab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to make my page "less promotional" in order to post it. I am trying to post an article about MossRehab, a rehabilitation center in the greater Philadelphia area. I am unsure of what parts of my article are promotional and am requesting more clarity for what I should change. Thanks! Jm2474 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jm2474: As the reviewer said, one of the biggest immediate issues is the "Core Services" section -- it is wholly not appropriate because it is unsourced. At best, a source could support a couple sentences about the services. In general, services is not encyclopedic content. Then there are various small issues. We don't include addresses. Content based on primary (center's website) should be minimal to none. A lot of places need more neutral language, but this is really hard to give general advice about.

However, the reviewer also noted that the article may not pass Wikipedia's notability threshold with multiple in-depth sources focused on the subject. I quickly looked through the sources and only a couple appear to talk about the subject and I am not sure if it's substantial enough. Most sources are passing mentions or focused on related topics and not the center itself. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:21, 21 August 2019 review of draft by Nsctrl

Nsctrl (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Uri Refaeli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article about Uri Refaeli has been moved to Draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsctrl) due to not having enough sources and citations as written to remain published.

The article was written with cooperation of Uri Refaeli and affiliated parties. Could you advise please if this fulfills requirements for "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE&redirect=yes) and if not how can this article be improved considering that it is supervised by and based on life events of living person? Thank you :)

Nsctrl (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsctrl: Self-published sources can be used for some basic facts for article content, but not to show notability. By self-published sources we also mean something that we can verify -- an article, a blog, social media post, book, whatever. But use of such sources is kept to the minimum. You need to add multiple reliable independent in-depth sources to satisfy notability criteria for the draft to get published. We need independent sources, so we cannot use anything the subject has said directly or otherwise for that. It is highly discouraged for someone to write or help writing their own article, although not forbidden. Anyone with conflict of interest should also disclose it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]