Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abdullahmehta (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 15 July 2022 (→11:37:10, 13 July 2022 review of submission by Abdullahmehta: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


July 9

12:26:46, 9 July 2022 review of submission by Brah Lyrix

I was never told the reason why my article was declined. Brah Lyrix (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected not declined, the reason is in the big pink box "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." You have zero independent, reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:51, 9 July 2022 review of submission by 146.196.37.155

146.196.37.155 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you do not ask a question but the draft is rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. Social media are not reliable sources so should not be used and the article was recently deleted because Kumar does not meet the notability standards. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

00:43:34, 10 July 2022 review of submission by Webdesignsbynat

What needs to be changed in order to have this page published? I've removed the Amazon links as requested. Thanks. Webdesignsbynat (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webdesignsbynat Your draft was deleted as a clear copyright infringement. A Wikipedia article should not just be copied from elsewhere, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:44:37, 10 July 2022 review of draft by Angelstrick123!


Angelstrick123! (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelstrick123! You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have written an article on a living person, who is a famous Afghan Child Right’s activist, I am personally following her work, since 2017. She is 2021 BBC 100 Most Influential Women in the World as well as 2022 World Economic Forum Young Global leader, she heads an non-profit organisation that provide access to education to over 50,000 children ever month in war torn regions. Even if we don’t look at other awards she has won, and international acclaim, many of which i have tried to add to the article, she should still be considered as a noted individual. All references added nearly 20, are from independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelstrick123! (talk • contribs)

I've fixed your comment for proper display. For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This may be easier to do in full destop mode, even on a device- the mobile and app versions of Wikipedia do not have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Angelstrick123! The draft says very little about her work with the organization which you say is the claim to notability. There needs to be reliable sources that discuss her work with the organization and why it is important. The awards and recognition she has received might indicate notability, but the article must describe what that is. 331dot (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:52, 10 July 2022 review of submission by Wertgh 5678

Wertgh 5678 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wertgh 5678: What is your connexion to User:Helloo 68? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 10:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sock has been blocked. JavaHurricane 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:38:14, 10 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 203.109.79.213


203.109.79.213 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you do not ask a question but the sandbox was deleted because the content was inappropriate for Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:32, 10 July 2022 review of draft by NasrinAbdelghani


I tried to publish this "article with its reference" many times, but it declined! Could you please help me make it publishable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hamdi_Zurqani

NasrinAbdelghani (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NasrinAbdelghani: Your cited sources all are either written by him or have some sort of connexion to him, and you haven't shown how he meets either the general or specific notability guidelines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:13, 10 July 2022 review of submission by Baruah ranuj

Baruahranuj 14:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:50, 10 July 2022 review of submission by Series7whisperer

I dont understand the reasoning behind the rejection. I click on the Series 7 Exam Wikipage and there is a hyperlink to the SIE exam but no page so I thought I would add some basic information on the test ( that has a link but no page) The SIE exam is a vital part of the Series 7 registration process and is most likely searched as much as the Series 7 exam. If you dont like the style thats one thing but thats not the reason stated Series7whisperer (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about the exam. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

00:09:03, 11 July 2022 review of submission by MilesAxlerod862

MilesAxlerod862 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesAxlerod862: No sources, no article, no debate. We don't accept articles clearly intended to be obituaries. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:26:03, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Jenzibringzi056

Jenzibringzi056 (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenzibringzi056 You do not ask a question, but your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:08:33, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Johnjeffy098


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

Please Do not Reject my article i will add some more source URLs

Johnjeffy098 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjeffy098 Drafts should not be copied to this page, it is linked to above. Your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. It is clear advertising and does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article. If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:09, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Iamjadhao

why my article removedIamjadhao (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iamjadhao If you are referring to Draft:Vitthal Jadhao and your attempt to put it in the main encyclopedia, it appears to just be advertising for yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves, which is why autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:05, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Bhupesh alvin


I want people to Know My Self In The Article & Page's Bhupesh alvin (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupesh alvin As I have told you, that's not what Wikipedia is for. You won't get a different answer by asking different people. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhupesh alvin: Continuing to push for this is likely going to end with you blocked. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia as an ersatz Facebook. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:47, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Fortytwoandmore

Fortytwoandmore (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:11, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Izo Pro

Izo Pro (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:24, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Izo Pro

Izo Pro (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:23, 11 July 2022 review of submission by Computerstoreug

Computerstoreug (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:57, 11 July 2022 review of draft by Gwils


Copyright flagged up on my submitted draft. Need to understand the regulations before re-submitting. Gwils (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwils: Don't take content wholesale from elsewhere. This isn't hard to understand at all. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 11 2022 review of submission by TexasTeam

Hi, I'm a new editor here. I created a new article : Ciclope Festival which is a festival of crafts (sound, music videos, productions etc) in Berlin, Germany and got declined as per Wiki Policy. How can this draft article be improved and accepted? Most sources and citations are coming directly from its main website? Kindly advice and thank you. TexasTeam (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

Becoming a participant of the “WikiProject Articles for creation”

Dear Help Desk,

i would like to become a participant if this group but idk how🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️. Please help. Reply on talk page or here(preferably my talk page). Thanks 😀👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLathrop202020 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't submit article

I wanted to submit a article named Draft:Government Boys Primary School, Mothparja but I couldn't. Could someone help me to submit it. FAAHS (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:45, 12 July 2022 review of submission by CLathrop202020

Why did you edit this. It was fine as it was. Germerican (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't something that would one day could be an *article*. (Which are what things submitted review are) The content was *somewhat* more appropriate for a talk page. Wikipedia is not Facebook.Naraht (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:28, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Jitsujay


Hello Wiki Pros...

I need some of your fine assistance with determining which sources I used are not a wiki "reliable source". If I know which ones to address I should be able to correct and move forwards. I want to thank everyone so far for their help and assistance and look forward to producing my first artificial.

Thanks and be safe...

Jitsujay (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitsujay: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are usable, with half of them being about the dojo's sensei and not the dojo. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:38, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Naani1986

My draft article was declined after submission. I have added additional citations to my draft. There was a note about the neutral tone, which I think I have maintained all over. Please help me with any suggestions for my draft article. Thank you! Naani1986 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very experienced neither but I see the personal life section still don't have any reference. I think you could write some controversies related to him? You can also check WP:WEIGHT. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:20, 12 July 2022 review of draft by QiuLiming1

This draft was created 7 days ago, and it still hasn't been reviewed, so I went here to ask.(Other drafts I created often got refused in less than 3 days)

I cited a scholar journal 'art technology', it in total has over 3 million downloads, according to CNKI, [1]So I think it could easily pass notability guideline and be accepted.

References

  1. ^ "艺术科技". CNKI. Retrieved 12 July 2022.

QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QiuLiming1: The review process doesn't work that way. It's naturally going to take longer because most of the sources are in Chinese (which generally returns word salad in automated translation), and thus would require someone who can read the language. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:QiuLiming1/Inappropriate illustrations of Chinese textbook got declined in 1 day. QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am just questioning does it always require a language expert to review a draft. QiuLiming1 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:53, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Delaneysteve


The reviewer who has rejected my latest draft for this entry indicates that the tone of the article is not formal, and that it uses "peacock" terms. I have looked at the definition of peacock terms, but I can't really find any examples of such language in my draft article. Furthermore, I believe the tone is indeed formal, and "just the facts". If someone (perhaps the reviewer) would like to point out specifically which terms are peacock, or where the tone drifts away from formal, than I would be able to address those issues. Failing that, I am at a loss to see what could/should be changed. Please advise!

Delaneysteve (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Delaneysteve: At the very least the list of courses and the results table need to be 86'd. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Jéské. I modeled my entry after the Calgary Marathon entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Marathon) which is already online, and has been for some time. That entry does include a list of results. I can certainly remove our table of results, and the list of courses, but they are indeed just simple facts. I had thought that providing factual evidence of the history of the event was actually necessary to prove that it deserved an entry.
Do you have any advice regarding the "peacock" comments of the second reviewer? Is "oldest" considered peacock? Delaneysteve (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:13:00, 12 July 2022 review of draft by Wriphe

My article was declined on the grounds of failing to "meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." I thought I had sufficient citations, and I didn't think any of my sources were unreliable. I'm not sure what exactly I need to do to correct my mistake. Can someone please point me in the right direction?

Wriphe (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wriphe: The "Works" section needs to have a source for each and every one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I assume using the artist's website for reference is a violation of Wikipedia's rules against self-citation, yes? (I see other visual artists have have no works listed. Can you advise whether it is better practice to omit individual works altogether?) Wriphe (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sometime but not always, see WP:ABOUTSELF. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

07:02:24, 13 July 2022 review of submission by 2603:6081:7740:435:51A1:27E2:4D0:4A97

2603:6081:7740:435:51A1:27E2:4D0:4A97 (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


What

The draft is obvious vandalism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:10, 13 July 2022 review of submission by Abdullahmehta

Hi! I got a notification for speedy deletion after I submitted the article for review, owing to possible promotional material and advertisement. Having gone through the material again, I understand that the phrasing was promotional in certain areas. I have rephrased several parts of the article so as to make it as objective as possible, and would like for it to be reviewed again please. Thank you!

Abdullahmehta (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to submit the new version of the draft for review, and you haven't even created it yet. Deb (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdullahmehta A Gartner login page cannot be used as a source. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am i allowed to use the company website as a source for certain information, such as company headquarters and founders? Abdullahmehta (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:38, 13 July 2022 review of draft by Meistravels


Hello, I submitted an article "The Raw Society" and it has been denied twice. I include multiple independent sources including from National Geographic of Spain and it still was denied. Can someone help point me in the right direction? I've linked to multiple independent sources and articles and it's still getting denied. Please help!

Meistravels (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is just advertising the society and is littered with spam links to their website. We don't use any external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks I will remove all the external links, would that fix the issue? It has independent sources. Meistravels (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-edited. Can you review again and let me know if it's good to go? Meistravels (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meistravels See WP:EL. "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article." QiuLiming1 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just reworked the draft and took out all external links and sentences that weren't backed up my verifiable sources/made it sound less like an advertisement. Can someone please help me get it approved? What else do I need to do? Meistravels (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:05, 13 July 2022 review of submission by Simohayhafan

Every time i fix a new prob in my Suomi KP-22 article a nnew one appears. im done with it. and this website. i feel like im being trolled Simohayhafan (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you could use first person as your style when writing an article. See Wikipedia:TONE Also there's no reference provided. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Simohayhafan: Trust me. You're not being trolled. You have to do things right, but we're here to help. I Googled The Suomi KP-22 to find you some sources, and don't see anything in the search results. If you can find anything, take a look at this as an example of how to write a gun article using proper sources: Suomi KP/-31. Also, you really should read WP:YFA, or you might get more unexpected advice. TechnoTalk (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Simohayhafan "then beyond this point i cannot grant any information has uhh lets see here. i cant find anything more about it." Not appropriate language for an encyclopedia article. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

03:22:51, 14 July 2022 review of submission by ArgonautOfHistory

Hello! I have noted the feedbacks for my previous declined article (i.e., Engineering Historical Memory (EHM), which is an online database for historical resources and is free for the public to access). I understand that I need to remove all promotional languages and excess external links, and ensure neutrality with reliable and independent sources. I am also aware that I need to disclose COI (paid contribution) when submitting the article for the AfC review even I am not specifically paid for the edition but because I am part of the research team for the project.

I am planning to draft a new article again for EHM for which I will take note of all the above. I will also refer to some existing Wiki-pages (knowledge database related) to see how they structure and present information.

I would like to seek the community's further help to provide some more suggestions on any other things that I should pay attention to apart from the above, please? Thank you so much in advance for your support! Sincerely, ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArgonautOfHistory: Thanks for following the rules regarding disclosure. The conflict of interest guidelines are not just if you are being paid. You have a conflict as a team member that is connected to the project whether or not you are actually paid to create the article. Making a disclosure is important. The reason it's discouraged to write about things you are familiar with is that you might add unsourced info that can't be verified, and I'm not saying this applies to your project, but if there is notable criticism of the project, you may feel discouraged from including it. I recommend you read WP:YFA. Writing an article is one of the hardest things to do here. If you feel you can write a well-sourced, neutral article, and make a proper disclosure, you can go here to start the article. Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you think you are ready to go, you can always ping me before submitting, and I can give you more specific feedback. TechnoTalk (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply! Noted on the above. Yes, it would be a great help if you can provide specific feedback to the re-drafted article before I submit again. I will work on it and give you a ping once ready. Thank you again! ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:46:09, 14 July 2022 review of submission by Moamelaldarraji

Moamelaldarraji (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moamelaldarraji: I don't see a question, but your article draft has been rejected. That means you shouldn't try to edit it and resubmit it. Instead, I suggest you look at WP:YFA and concentrate on the information about sourcing. Also, look at WP:GNG, our guidelines about determining notability of the subjects we have articles for. If you want to try again, and feel your subject has sufficient sourcing, you can try again at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you do, please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest about how to make the proper disclosures if you have a connection with the subject. TechnoTalk (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:01:15, 14 July 2022 review of submission by Suborna01

I Suborna01 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Template:Why my article submission has been declined? Can you please mark my article so that I can make changes to publish it again? Please I need help[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Caretutors.com
@Suborna01: We don't accept promotional junk. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:12:47, 14 July 2022 review of submission by Justiyaya

Probably not the right venue but requesting a second opinion on the notability of the draft above, see also a quite long discussion on User talk:Sachinsonune5#Your submission at Articles for creation: Revati Devasthale (July 13). Sports/badminton related. Thanks in advance :D Justiyaya 06:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:28:51, 14 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Tamtrible

I was told "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of culinary herbs and spices instead." That's not gonna work.

1. My table has a somewhat different focus than the List of culinary herbs and spices. It is more about the plants than the herbs and spices obtained from said plants (eg there is only one listing for Coriandrum sativum, instead of separate listings for coriander and cilantro), and it explicitly includes some *non* culinary herbs (eg St. John's Wort, valerian), as well as some things used as teas (which are also excluded from the list of culinary herbs and spices).

2. Given the extensive nature of this page, and of the page I am told to "improve" using it, I would have to either entirely replace the existing page with my own, or basically have the information on the page almost entirely duplicated. The former has been rejected by the people who normally edit the page, and the latter seems... pretty silly, honestly. As evidence of the first, I quote from the talk page for said page:

(start of quote)

Anyone up for completely changing this page?...

I have been working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices , after it was deleted as allegedly being a fork of this page (I argue it isn't, quite, as it has a somewhat different focus). It currently contains most of the information on this page, plus a lot of information *not* on this page (including a few herbs that are medicinal rather than culinary). However, thus far almost all of the entries are, in fact, culinary herbs and/or spices, so I would not in any way object to the page I am working on (a table, with additional information besides the common name and the species) being used to replace this page--I would not consider it a significant loss to have to drop the few non-culinary herbs thus far listed. But I do not wish to simply take over a page I have never previously contributed to, and in any case I have neither the knowledge nor the spoons to add *everything* currently on this page to that one. So, I ask those who *are* regular contributors to this page which of the following they would prefer:

1. Wholesale replacement, as is (or possibly with subtraction of the few non-culinary herbs) of this page with mine

2. Continued work on the draft until it contains all of the entries on this page, then replacement

3. Turning this page into a table somewhat different from mine (a task I would probably not contribute to initially, though I might work to improve it after it was begun)

4. None of the above

Thoughts? Tamtrible (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 

   Absent any objection, I support the proposed revision, though it would be helpful if it was sourced (I presume sources can be found in the articles on the individual topics). It is otherwise fairly broad and thorough. BD2412 T 05:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

       Oppose. 1. Unnecessary. 2. Not enough benefit 3. Too vague.Ttocserp 12:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

       Oppose. The proposal as written is too vague to permit a reasonable response. I agree with Ttocserp's other comments as well. MonteGargano (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

           Um... what's vague about it? I have a table that contains most (though not quite all) of the entries on this page, along with some additional information (a few culinary herbs that aren't on this page; some non-culinary herbs; and additional information on each plant). It can be transferred as is, I (and possibly others) can keep plinking at it until it does, in fact, contain everything on this page and then it can be transferred, someone can turn this page into a different table (a sortable table is a much more functional format than a mere list), or the page can be left as is. If you have questions about the page I have made, I put a link right there for you to look at it. Tamtrible (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(end of quote)

So, as you see, there seems to be little or no interest in turning the list of culinary herbs and spices into a table, either mine or another one.

Honestly, I think my table has more in common with the List of plants used in herbalism, though again a somewhat different focus.

3. My table *has more information*. And is more functional (a sortable table rather than a list). I include (where it was listed on the wiki page for the individual herb, at least) the part of the plant used, the general growth form, and the general types of use it has (culinary, medicinal, etc). The default sort is by species name instead of common name (thus less issue with finding something that has multiple common names). If both pages were in mainspace, and someone wanted to merge them, I suspect my table would be the one that dominated the resulting merged page. But I don't want to just replace a page that many other people have put a lot of work into with my own thing, because that's kind of a jerk move. And that would essentially be the only way I could "improve" the existing page with my page.

4. There are lots of other pages with partially overlapping content... eg the outline of herbs and spices, the various specific regional spice pages, Tea blending and additives, even the list of plants used in herbalism. What's one more, with, again, a somewhat different focus?

Plz let my thing be a thing, or tell me what I would have to do to make it be a thing, since absent moderately severe jerkery I can't make it be a thing by following the suggestion I was given when my move request was rejected. If you want me to include more non-culinary herbs, I can do that. If it needs more sources, I can do that. I'm even willing to change the name, if you can think of an appropriate name to change it to. The one thing I can't do is make the people who actively edit the list of culinary herbs and spices want my thing instead of the thing they already have. Tamtrible (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamtrible (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BD2412 and MonteGargano who participated in the discussion you started in 2021 if they are interested in commenting. Also @Tamtrible can I collapse (hide) some of the quotes above because it's a bit long? Justiyaya 11:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of critiques of the proposed table. While I realize that it is impossible to include all non-English names of every herb, the existing table does a good job of covering the terms that an English speaker is likely to encounter in a market selling the herbs and spices in question. The proposed table does not, but it could be amended. More significant, though is that the lack of distinction between roots, leaves, seeds, resins, etc., makes the list more botanical than culinary, which is somewhat contrary to the purpose of the current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteGargano (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:35, 14 July 2022 review of draft by WhiplashLock2000

I need help with my draft on Rebecca Kyler Downs because I really don't understand what else to do. I need professional help. WhiplashLock2000 (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WhiplashLock2000 A Wikipedia article about an actress or singer must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia defintion of either a notable singer or a notable actor/actress. Neither of the two sources you have offered do that, and for that matter they only seem to be used to source information about her place of birth. None of the prose in the article is cited. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I can't find any reliable sources about Rebecca except for random sources. WhiplashLock2000 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WhiplashLock2000 Then that means that Rebecca does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:21, 14 July 2022 review of draft by Maelstromdat


Maelstromdat (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maelstromdat See Wikipedia:Inline citations, because this article is about a living person, it should include citations on any statement than could be challenged. QiuLiming1 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as regards the Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations and citing my sources using footnotes. I improved the draft including several inline citations and footnotes. Does the draft satisfy in your opinion the minimum standard for inline citations? Thank you very much for your help!

15:03:10, 14 July 2022 review of submission by 007fps

007fps (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

007fps You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I'm pretty certain this is part of a sockfarm that's been trying to promote this guy. The last time this draft showed up here was under another account, and 007fps has only two edits to its name, the other edit being to the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@007fps: What is your connexion to Gowtham and to User:OMGSiddharth? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:13, 14 July 2022 review of submission by 103.5.132.35

103.5.132.35 (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, this is common sense that the community won't accept this draft. There are millions of Youtubers with 200+ subscribers. QiuLiming1 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:01:12, 14 July 2022 review of submission by Simohayhafan

there is a reference now. its very long book but i found stuff about the KP-22 on it Simohayhafan (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simohayhafan I don't think it will support all of your content. Could you provide a quote? QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i forgot what page it is but its around 470-490 Simohayhafan (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are responsible for citing the quote. See WP:V. QiuLiming1 (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:17:25, 14 July 2022 review of draft by Wheelertom


I submitted a draft for an article on Temporal Technologies, Inc., which was rejected because it does not "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This message is not specific enough to be actionable, so I am seeking further commentary on what changes I should make.

The article cites a diverse set of sources (by my count, there are 26 references from 15 different sources) to support what I'd written. Should I add more references, additional sources of information, expand my explanation of the technology, remove a certain reference, or something else?


Wheelertom (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wheelertom! Many of the sources aren't reliable -- Github, Youtube, and Stack Overflow are not considered reliable. Many more are just the company's webpage, which is a primary source. None of the rest meet WP:42. A good essay you should read is WP:SERIESA, in particular the section on reliable sources. Make sure you are familiar with the notability guideline for companies before resubmitting. Thanks! >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wheelertom (ec) The sources you have provided do not have significant coverage of your company. Some are press release/announcement type stories. An article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. In some ways a lot of references is a bad thing; fewer high quality sources is preferable to a plethora of low quality sources. We don't want brief mentions, but sources that go in depth without prompting by the company. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the reply. This is exactly the guidance I needed, so I'll make the necessary changes and resubmit. Thanks again! Wheelertom (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:29, 14 July 2022 review of draft by FatimahSarfrazz


FatimahSarfrazz (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimah Sarfraz obtained her BSc in Computer Engineering and her BSc in Electrical Engineering from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities in the USA. She obtained her MSc in Electrical Engineering and her MSc in Mechanical Engineering from Rochester Institute of Technology in the USA. She has accumulated eight years of industrial experience working in sensitive projects as technical subject matter expert, advisor, and delegate in the fields of engineering, construction, nuclear energy, manag

@FatimahSarfrazz: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:01, 14 July 2022 review of submission by Cross0703

Hey there, This is a corporate page for a newer company that never had a presence before. I added information about recent controversies, lawsuits and layoffs to make the article a more balanced history. This page draft looks a lot like other healthcare companies (see: Mednax as one example) that just provide a summary of services, a timeline of recent news, etc., without being accused of being a direct advert. If there is anything else that would optimize this page for Wiki inclusion, please suggest. Cross0703 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cross0703: This is an investor-fishing exercise, not an encyclopaedia article. What is your connexion to Signify? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cross0703: Please read other stuff exists as to why it is a poor idea to cite the existence of other articles as a reason for yours to exist. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Mednax is marked as problematic. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cross0703: And while we're on the topic, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
This is a situation where the bad sources are literally choking out the good, not helped by the draft's actual text reading like it's intended for investors and not Joe Blow from San Antonio. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1098346791"