Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 March 16

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 15 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 17 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


March 16

edit

01:37, 16 March 2025 review of submission by Mast303

edit

How can I improve the article? Should I publish it after removing the placeholders Mast303 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mast303: You can improve the article by doing what the reviewer suggested and taking it to a Minecraft-oriented wiki (such as, well, https://minecraft.wiki/ ). We do not host game guides. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a game guide; it lists the mobs in the game. Also, should I create articles on the significant mobs (like the Ender Dragon)? Mast303 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we are telling you is that this type of in depth coverage of the minutiae of a game is most appropriate for a wiki type website about Minecraft itself, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jéské Couriano, @331dot,
Personally I believe that the article may be notable for inclusion and is not contary to the purpose of wikipedia, considering how mainstream minecraft is. However, I am sure it likely needs stuff like tone change and should be rewritten to fit the format of wikipedia. Perhaps a decline may be better Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer. If that fails(as, frankly, I expect), then your last avenue is to appeal to the community and show a gross violation of policy somewhere in the draft process. Disagreement with the decision does not mean that policy was not followed.
"How mainstream Minecraft is" is not relevant to the notability of this topic, which requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Minecraft is notable, but for this specific aspect to be notable, you need to show coverage of that which goes beyond just documenting its existence. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac: Whether or not Minecraft is mainstream is irrelevant. This is game-guide material; we don't include, for example, lists of mobs in World of Warcraft, the Tales of series, or the first Dragon Quest. You would need to find third-party sources that discuss the specific monsters or characters at length (using those three as examples, Thrall (Warcraft), Luke fon Fabre, Slime (Dragon Quest).) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Jéské Couriano I have no part in editing the article, just stating that i think that the article can be turned into a format suitable on wikipedia instead of a game guide(e.g. removing idk, game tactics). There are quite some third party sources relating to this topic. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac: The problem is that a list of mobs in the game is meaningless by itself, and would be unambiguously a game guide thing. Joe Blow from San Antonio isn't going to have any context as to why they should care about a random list of random monsters in a game they are unfamiliar with. Contrast - fittingly enough - Creeper (Minecraft), which discusses the cultural impact of that specific mob. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:36, 16 March 2025 review of submission by Whenadamopenshiseyes

edit

I'm confused why my draft page for horn player Keefe Jackson was denied for lack of significance? Keefe is a pretty major player in the Chicago jazz scene, with multiple records, gigs, and collaborations with players with Wikipedia pages (Dave Rempis, Roscoe Mitchell, etc). Also there's a German Wikipedia entry for him, and not an English-language version which seems odd since he mainly plays in the US... not sure what else to cite to show his relevance, beyond album reviews, interviews, and upcoming shows? Any advice would be appreciated! Whenadamopenshiseyes (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whenadamopenshiseyes: you need to either cite sources that satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or show evidence that at least one of the criteria in the special WP:MUSICBIO one is met, clearly and objectively. And your sources must be reliable and independent; some of the ones you're currently citing are not. And no, upcoming shows would not be relevant here, and interviews don't help either, as they are non-independent primary sources.
Whether an article on this person exists in the German-language Wikipedia is a matter for them. To have one included here in the English-language one, requires for the subject to meet our inclusion criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 16 March 2025 review of submission by Mightyonin

edit

I'm new to making articles, so this Deftones song is my first start. Is every attempt at making an article of Sextape always like this? If so, makes sense, considering I can't find any additional sources for the song.

Should I quit or keep pushing on? If it's the latter, give me additional sources regarding the song Mightyonin (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no more reliable sources, that's probably the end of the road for this draft, at least for now. Most articles about songs need to have professional reviews of the song, or other sources that discuss analysis of the song or its production. See Shake It Off. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to find sources, i would suggest finding a relevant wiki project.
As for whether you should quit, it is not rejected, meaning there is still a chance for it to be accepted. Maybe a google search would help out with sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 16 March 2025 review of submission by KeTebZ

edit

Hi - this is a matter which is of great interest in the Aberdeenshire area. There is an upcoming court case associated with it. Why is it claimed to be not notable enough? KeTebZ (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is not a reliable source, see WP:RSPFACEBOOK. My guess is that if this is ever going to be notable, it won't be until the court case is concluded. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @KeTebZ. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. If you remove the unreliable facebook citations, you have two primary sources and one probably independent, possibly reliable, source (Local papers often do not have the level of editorial control and fact-checking required), none of which mention "The Westhill Dog Walking Wars". If your article was about the ZEST charity, that might have more chance of acceptability, though a single independent reliable source is not enough: see WP:NORG. ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review for acceptance? KeTebZ (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a new thread for every post, just edit this existing thread for this draft. Your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You may ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider, but if they decline, you will need to show a gross violation of policy by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


17:02, 16 March 2025 review of submission by Sano Bakhtiyorov

edit

Hi, please help with the article upload as such its been 3rd time rejected. Please specify the reason more clearly and in a simple language. Thanks a lot. Sano Bakhtiyorov (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
The article claims there is not notable enough for an article. Simply said, there is not enough references shown to make it qualify for an article.
I would suggest maybe finding more sources on this; Maybe find mainstream media or official sources on your article;
Additionally your draft is not "rejected", it is declined, meaning if you improve it it can still be considered.
As for helping with the article, this is not the place to ask for contributors, i would suggest finding a relevant wikiproject. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sano Bakhtiyorov, you need to provide references to reliable sources completely independent of Sakibekov that devote significant coverage to Sakibekov. Not database listings because that is not significant coverage. Not pages from organizations that he fights for, because that is not independent coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 16 March 2025 review of submission by Gangalang

edit

What do I need to make it official? Gangalang (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to summarize what independent reliable sources like news reports say about this group. That seems unlikely to occur, which is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gangalang, please read

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_March_16&oldid=1282855354"