Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 September 9

= September 9 =

00:54:12, 9 September 2015 review of submission by Nrsmoll
Hi, I recently created a page for "Ischemic Cardiomyopathy" which was rejected by LaMona. The reasons was, is that it was too similar to the page, or the information could be contained within the page "Cardiomyopathy".

I was alarmed that "ischemic cardiomyopathy" was not included as one of the causes of secondary cardiomyopathy, in the page "cardiomyopathy", as it is arguably the most common cardiomyopathy by far. Therefore, the explanation for ischemic cardiomyopathy I believe needs its own page. Several of the other cardiomyopathies listed in the page for cardiomyopathy have links to their own page. Therefore, I think that it is important that ischemic cardiomyopathy have it's own page, and I think that it is even more important then the other rarer forms of cardiomyopathy. It is a very large, and important topic, for which needs its own page.

Therefore, I make a request to have a page for "ischemic cardiomyopathy", with links from "Cardiomyopathy".

Nrsmoll (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Nrsmoll, I have copied your above message in its entirety to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, where editors with the appropriate expertise can give advice or opinions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

09:25:35, 9 September 2015 review of submission by TechGeekPedia
Hi, I have cited my content by still my article did not get approved. Can you please help and let me know where am I going wrong? Thanks. 09:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)TechGeekPedia (talk)


 * Hello TechGeekPedia. I have read your draft (Draft:Opteamix). The reasons for the rejection are clearly stated there. First and foremost it reads like a blatant advertisement. Secondly, it has not satisfied the notability criteria for businesses and organizations. All the references for this three year old start-up are either to the company's own website or to press releases authored by the company. I strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself thoroughly with the guidelines at Notability (organizations and companies). If you have any connection whatsoever with this company, please read Conflict of interest. The fact that you cannot see how blatantly promotional the draft is strongly suggests such a connection. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go through the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechGeekPedia (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

23:27:28, 9 September 2015 review of submission by Yjola
I would like to know if I should wait for my (first) article to be reviewed (there are 561 articles waiting for review), or should/can I go ahead and post it, if I'm fairly confident it doesn't have any flaws, per se?

The week or more that is mentioned as how long it may take for review is pretty open ended, so I don't know if I will see my article getting closer for review each week, or is there anyway to know how long the wait will be.

If it is okay to go ahead and publish the page, can you give me the steps to do so, or a link thereto?

Thanks!

Yjola (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)