Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 5

= January 5 =

Request on 08:13:20, 5 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Clkluigi
Hello, My draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clkluigi#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Montreal_declaration_on_animal_exploitation_%28January_5%29 has been refused. The reasons for the refusal are clear in themselves, but I don't see how to apply them. I felt I had sourced everything correctly and the peacock terms are in sections dedicated to feedback, which seem balanced to me. Should I delete the "reactions" section? Thanks in advance for sharing your expertise--Clkluigi (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Clkluigi (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

08:34:22, 5 January 2023 review of draft by Mamajudi3
I came across an magazine article recently about Qeuyl and wanted to know more about him so I turned to wikipedia but i was shocked to see that theres no info on him on here, I don't really understand what wikipedia considers worthy and my friends tell me not to trust it for info because the people who write these are bias and trolly. than i went down a rabbit hole and decided to find what i can it sorta seems like some if not most wikipedia editors are only following trends.

I thought the purpose of wikipedia is to archive information like an encyclopedia, I remember my favorite letter was M I learned my first magic trick from reading about a boring card trick, now that trick wasn't popular or glamours at all but it was worth it

I need help with the subject Qeuyl as well as a few other subjects like a list of all the top TikTok influencers, and not just the ones who you see a lot because they pay for advertisement, I want to know what happened to E_Brzy the creator or 75% of all the transition's on TikTok is he still alive, Is my fathers favorite action star Sho Kesugi still making movies?

I have questions you got answers if not lets find them together.

Mamajudi3 (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mamajudi3: do you, after that diatribe, have an actual question you would like to ask, related to the AfC review process? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yes can you help me cite this article I'm new to this Mamajudi3 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mamajudi3: sure — WP:REFB explains the process of referencing; WP:RS describes the concept of 'reliable sources'; and WP:GNG explains how to establish the subject's notability using such sources, where the subject doesn't meet one of the special notability standards such as WP:MUSICBIO. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding "I thought the purpose of wikipedia is to archive information like an encyclopedia"; this is not exactly correct; the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * in other-words popular information, but what happens when the topic doesn't have enough coverage but is a key part of other topics Mamajudi3 (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mamajudi3: if a topic doesn't have sufficient (in both quality and quantity) coverage in published sources, then it is highly unlikely to be included in Wikipedia; that is pretty much the gist of the whole concept of 'notability' (as well as 'verifiability'), which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * in other-words popular opinion, do you not see the confusion here, on one end you are saying a topic must have sufficient resource information but I have already helped add references to topics with little to no references at all yet these topics have be accepted by the community. I love reading topics on here and helping add to the information but if I don't see a particular topic that I am actually interested in I am compelled to do all the research and start the Topic but according to the volunteers of wikipedia if it's not popular enough than theres no need to add it correct. Mamajudi3 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mamajudi3: be that as it may, the fact remains that Wikipedia is based on the principle of summarising what earlier sources have published, we are never the first outlet for disseminating new information. You are simply not going to change such core policy by debating it here at the help desk. Did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand and yes that is why I asked for help on the Topic of Qeuyl Mamajudi3 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

11:57:04, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Сергеич Иванов
Hi everyone! Happy New Year! I've changed my draft and waiting for resubmission. Could you watch and tell me if everything OK with it? Thank you!!!! Сергеич Иванов (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Сергеич Иванов If you have updated the draft, and you want it to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button. David10244 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

14:15:18, 5 January 2023 review of draft by Philosophymaybe
I just submitted an article about a person. I was trying to upload his picture but every time it gave me an error. How do I do it?

Philosophymaybe (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Your account is not yet four days old so you cannot upload images- but don't worry about images until your draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

14:33:21, 5 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared
I know that HBO made controversies surrounding it's programming in years. CastJared (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't submitted it for a review, and it has very little content and no sources. "Controversies" is often considered not neutral; perhaps it should be along the lines of Criticism of Walmart, "Criticism of HBO". 331dot (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I updated to have sources. CastJared (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @CastJared I see the sources there.  If you are ready for the draft to be reviewed  again,  click the blue Resubmit button. David10244 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

15:50:05, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Hickeygamez
I've requested a re-view because I've made several updates to the notability section. In particular, an article from journal has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles as of late.

Hickeygamez (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the template so you can submit it, since it's been awhile. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

18:29:28, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Rachelemg
I am trying to get a page published but it keeps getting declined for lack of credible sources. How do I fix this? Also note, this page existed before for some time before deleted and I was working on a new one.

Rachelemg (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume this is about Draft:Jay Feldman. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Mr. Feldman, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  Your main source is an interview, which does not establish notability as it is the person speaking about themselves.  We want to know what others wholly unconnected with Mr. Feldman have to say about him and why he is important or significant.  The only claim to notability I see is that he is friends with Mark Wahlberg, but notability is not inherited by association. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand now. If I were to post a new article but on the company and not him as a person, would that be doable? There is way more information and credible articles on the company. Rachelemg (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you might have a better shot that way, but it depends on what the sources say and if the company meets the definition of a notable company. The sources cannot be interviews of company staff, press releases, announcements of routine activities, or other primary sources.(they can be used for other purposes but do not establish notability). 331dot (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like the Company page was declined as well. How do I go about requesting some one who is fluent in the Wiki world to create the page instead? Rachelemg (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You can make a request at Requested articles, but it is so backlogged that any request you make may not be acted on for some time, if ever. If there are not the sources out there to support notability, it doesn't matter who writes it; without appropriate sources, it would not merit an article at this time. Do you have a connection to this business? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

22:26:24, 5 January 2023 review of draft by SonOfYoutubers
My draft has been awaiting review for over 2 months and I want my draft to be reviewed a bit quicker. I've completed about as much information that I can find, but I've been waiting and waiting and it still hasn't gotten reviewed. I understand there are many drafts to review, but I believe 2 months is a bit much. Thank you for the assistance! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,112 pending submissions waiting for review." Can you tell us why your draft should be put on the front of the line ahead of the thousands of other people waiting? This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm trying to be patient, but I just personally feel like there's not much more changes or information to really be added. Another problem I'm having is really getting any involvement from others so that information that I may be unaware of can be filled out. I'll wait further, but I'm just afraid that it won't ever really get reviewed. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's no more to add, then there's no more to add. You are free to tell others both on and off wiki about your draft. If you are 95-100% confident it would survive a deletion discussion, you are free to move it to the encyclopedia yourself, this process is voluntary for most people. It's a good idea if you lack experience in article creation, but it's voluntary. If you would like advice, please be patient. I understand your frustration, but this is a volunteer effort. It will eventually be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually a few years ago drafts were taking upwards of 6 months for some to be reviewed, so you are lucky there are now a relatively small number articles for review. Remember that we have no deadlines, so please be patient. ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)