Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 July 14

= 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)

03:46:09, 14 July 2022 review of submission by Moamelaldarraji
Moamelaldarraji (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 Articles for creation. If you do, please also read 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)

04:01:15, 14 July 2022 review of submission by Suborna01
I Suborna01 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)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


 * We don't accept promotional junk. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 04:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't accept promotional junk. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 04:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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. Sports/badminton related. Thanks in advance :D  Just ' i ' yaya  06:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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) (I wasn't sure how to collapse the quotes, but I could at least make them smaller... Tamtrible (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC))

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)

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


 * 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?  Just ' i ' yaya  11:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Which is a large part of why I think it should be its own thing, rather than trying to mush it into the existing herbs-and-spices page. Tamtrible (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * sure... Tamtrible (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * But I can't find any reliable sources about Rebecca except for random sources. WhiplashLock2000 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then that means that Rebecca does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note the OP has now been checkuser blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

13:56:21, 14 July 2022 review of draft by Maelstromdat
Maelstromdat (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Maelstromdat See 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your connexion to Gowtham and to User:OMGSiddharth? —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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)


 * No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * @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)
 * i forgot what page it is but its around 470-490 Simohayhafan (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are responsible for citing the quote. See WP:V. QiuLiming1 (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Simohayhafan You need to put the citation into the article, not here. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)

19:15:29, 14 July 2022 review of draft by FatimahSarfrazz
FatimahSarfrazz (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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
 * No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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)


 * This is an investor-fishing exercise, not an encyclopaedia article. What is your connexion to Signify? —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note that Mednax is marked as problematic. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And while we're on the topic, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * https://www.signifyhealth.com/news/signify-health-announces-pricing-of-initial-public-offering is useless for notability (connexion to subject). This also applies to all other citations to Signify's own website. Anything a subject says, writes, films, commissions, sings, pantomimes, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for determining notability as we define it.
 * https://homehealthcarenews.com/2022/06/its-about-being-in-the-home-signify-moves-away-from-telehealth/ appears fine, but something doesn't sit right with me about it.
 * https://www.marketwatch.com/story/signify-health-ipo-prices-well-above-expectations-valuing-company-at-over-53-billion-2021-02-11 is useless for notability (routine coverage). Routine news that would be covered as a matter of course - funding, IPOs, partnerships, service announcements, M&As, staff adjustments - do not help for notability in the slightest.
 * https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/signify-health-scoops-collaborative-aco-caravan-health-250m is useless for notability (routine coverage). M&A news.
 * https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220614005246/en/Signify-Health-Opens-New-Regional-Service-Center-in-Oklahoma-City is useless for notability (connexion to subject). This also applies to all other citations to BusinessWire and the Yahoo! citation. BusinessWire only ever publishes press releases, which are written/commissioned by their subject.
 * We can't use https://journalrecord.com/2022/06/14/signify-health-celebrates-opening-of-okc-regional-service-center/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who actually wrote this?
 * https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/tech/carecentrix-files-corporate-espionage-suit-against-signify-health-former-exec seems fine.
 * We can't use https://www.omm.com/our-firm/media-center/in-the-news/law360-home-care-co-ex-exec-settle-trade-secrets-row/ (too sparse). The article it cites, however, seems good. Cite that instead.
 * https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/signify-health-lists-nyse-564m-initial-public-offering is useless for notability (routine coverage). IPO announcement.
 * We can't use https://seekingalpha.com/article/4478676-revisiting-signify-health (No editorial oversight). Op-ed.
 * https://www.dallasnews.com/business/health-care/2022/07/11/signify-healths-restructuring-will-cost-up-to-35-million-in-employee-payouts/ is useless for notability (routine coverage). Service announcement.
 * 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^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)