• LunaSparks (talk · contribs)
  • Red Leather (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Red Leather (Artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isnt a question about editing, but I was wondering if I would be allowed to post this article to a fandom community while I wait until Red Leather himself meets all requirements to have a wikipedia page. LunaSparks (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask the relevant Fandom community; you would need to attribute the posting there to Wikipedia to just reuse it elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• HAL 7C0 (talk · contribs)
  • Mital-U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Mital-U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I find the reason given ('topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia') for rejecting the submission difficult to understand and very subjective. Depending on the interests of the person making the decision, this entry may be more or less relevant. The fact is that mital-U is an independent music label that has produced some relevant releases (including chart entries in Germany + Austria with Eisbaer by Grauzone, as well as Record of the Week of the song automaten by mittageisen on the John Peel Radio Show BBC1). Therefore, I would be grateful for a reversal of the rejection and an indication of where there might be a need for additions to the list. HAL 7C0 (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL 7C0: this draft was declined five times before being rejected. I'd say that's plenty of opportunity to demonstrate notability, but if this isn't forthcoming, then eventually we have to reject as we can't keep reviewing the same draft indefinitely.

Notability of companies is defined in WP:CORP, and there is very little, if any, subjectivity in that guideline. It certainly does not in any way consider the "interests of the person", or "relevance" of the subject (whatever that means, exactly). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing, thank you for your feedback.

The previous rejections were due to the missing sources/references, which have been added in the meantime. So far there was never any mention of 'not relevant'... which as I noted before I consider to be a very subjective judgement. Especially when I look at other approved/accepted entries from other small independent labels.

For this reason, I would ask for approval or information on what is specifically missing. HAL 7C0 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• JuniperChill (talk · contribs)
  • Sun Haven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Sun Haven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First thing, is the layout of the article Sun Haven alright? I have been looking at other video games that are released in 2023 like Coral Island (video game) and My Time at Sandrock.

And second, are reliable sources required since I think none of them (other than the link to the official website presented in the 'external links' section) are primary sources. I feel like the main reason for my article being rejected (even though I put a few reviews on that game) is because of the fact that there are little to no reliable sources for Sun Haven at WP:VG/S and does not really meet GNG even though I thought it just creeps it (see the history) Although I did find a few reviews of it. There is also not currently a Metacritic review. I was thinking this game is quite popular it is more popular than Fae Farm IMO but I think what matters is that not how popular it is but if there are at least a couple of reliable sources. The closest I can find is from RPS but that is not its own page.

As well as my comment here, you should see the reviewers one too. JuniperChill (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JuniperChill: in short, yes, reliable sources are very much required, because everything you say must be supported by (ie. come from, in practice) a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2603:3024:1526:EB00:90DF:2BAB:6CC3:EDC0 (talk · contribs)
  • Yeastie Girlz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Yeastie Girlz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This band was a very well known 1990s punk band. I can provide many more references. I wanted to ask which type you find most credible - 1) Scholarly Journals, 2) rock/music magazines, 3) fan pages, videos. -- One of their songs is a viral tiktok song - the #yeastiegirlz hashtag on TikTok has 2.5M views. They were on Lookout records, there are lookout bands with Wikipedia pages that I would argue are much less significant that the Yeastie Girlz. I am sure that I can meet the standard, but I want to know what sort of references that best meet your requirements. Thank you. 2603:3024:1526:EB00:90DF:2BAB:6CC3:EDC0 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Journals and rock/music magazines would be best, fan pages and videos would confer zero notability. TikTok views confer zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Youraveragemothra (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jeff boi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

don't ask for that, because i was maked jeff boi on wikipedia page Youraveragemothra (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Youraveragemothra (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jeff boi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

when i was 11 year old. i was be created of jeff boi to make a page for wikipedia, however this page got Rejected i guess. anyway i live on brazil fortaleza and my youtube username is YourAverageMothra.i hope this page was accept, thank you Youraveragemothra (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Youraveragemothra, thank you for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopedia. Unfortunately, the draft will not be accepted because Jeff boi does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, which is the standard for an encyclopedia article here. I enjoyed the artwork though! :) S0091 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ngaihthang (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cin Lam Mung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did you not accept? This is what I can do it for also that is strong enough. Truly, no one big media is asking about the question. I do not have any idea of anything. If you guys need anything more please adding for me. I think you can help me with that. Ngaihthang (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngaihthang the reasons for not accepting are outlined in the multiple declines and comments. The draft is now rejected so will not be considered further. S0091 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ineck (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bertil Egerö (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand what's not good enough with the citations. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to allow a reader to verify a claim in an article, from a reliable source - and preferably a source unconnected with the subject. If a book by the subject has been discussed by an independent commentator, cite that commentary; if it hasn't, why is it important enough to be mentioned in the article at all?

The article should be a summary of what independent commentators have published (in reliable places) about the subject, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Southport Fire Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Denied for no 'Viable sources'. I have added more that do relate to the topics discussed yet I'm unaware if it is enough. Could I get some assistance with this though? I'm unable to look at it in libraries ect as I live miles from Merseyside.

Though any help if i need more sources would be helpful FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add onto this, before you ask there is TWO Southport Fire Brigades. One in Merseyside, United Kingdom and one way down under, in Australia. So sources can look like the UK or Aus one but be the opposite!

I'm also aware that Southport Fire Brigade has little sources of it even existing. This is due to the fact of what it says in the article. It was, later on in its existence, a one bay station. This means that all info is likely to be hidden deep in the web or come from museums etc (Which means it cant always be 100% proven!).

Some things, such as the 'Ranks' section has 0 source. It was one of, if not the only, Fire Brigade in the UK to not have the proper rank system.

Many thanks for reading admins. FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, WAS not IS. Mistake on my part as they no longer function.

Apologies FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FireBrigadeFanaticNO1. The very first step in creating an article is to find sources that meet the golden rule: they are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject; but they do not have to be online, or even in English, as long as they have been published.

If you cannot find adequate sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there is no point in spending any more time on such an article, as it will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hramrach (talk · contribs)
  • Michal Olšiak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Michal Olšiak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What's not 'in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article', specifically? Hramrach (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]