Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 February 2

= February 2 =

02:39:59, 2 February 2019 review of submission by Esaïe Prickett
Esaïe Prickett (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I HATE YOU🤬 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaïe Prickett (talk • contribs)
 * To be fair, that's not the first time we've heard that this week. Chetsford (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

02:42:09, 2 February 2019 review of submission by Mr Pinecone
G'day Mr. Reviewer. I do not agree with your rejection. On the subreddit alone, there are 157 thousand players. This is not the only place where this phenomenon occurs. Also, this trend occurs on knowyourmeme.com (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/rbreadstapledtotrees) where there are thousands of other player aswell. Over 170,000 people who know this subject, I think that it is "notable" enough. Mr Pinecone (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr Pinecone - you need to source the article to multiple, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RS. As a general rule, Wikipedia is not itself a RS, nor is Reddit or any social media. Because your only source is Reddit, and we don't consider Reddit to be a reliable source, you essentially have no sources and, as such, we can't prove the game actually exists. Insofar as that goes, there could by 170,000 or 170,000,000 players and it will still be rejected. Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

With over 160 thousand players in this game, I do think that its "notable." Anyway to prove this to potentially get this article published? Mr Pinecone (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr Pinecone - you'd need to source the article to multiple, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RS. As a general rule, Wikipedia is not itself a RS, nor is Reddit or any social media. Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

10:47:21, 2 February 2019 review of submission by Johndevn
Johndevn (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - Hi there. Unfortunately, your draft does not currently have the multiple high quality sources needed for inclusion - these need to be "reliable, in-depth, independent and secondary". These rule out both of the current sources in-article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

13:33:09, 2 February 2019 review of submission by AlexCruz289
AlexCruz289 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? This about my YouTube I know I should do it in my sandbox, but I want lots more people to know!
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a venue for promoting your YouTube page. Theroadislong (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

13:39:14, 2 February 2019 review of draft by Sean12986
I am very new to Wikipedia. I was asked to create a page. Sadly I am unfamiliar with this medium. Thank you for any help you can provide to make this page educational. Sean12986 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your draft User:Sean12986/sandbox is unreferenced and not sufficiently notable for an article. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

15:07:54, 2 February 2019 review of submission by 124.43.93.235
124.43.93.235 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi IP editor - there are a couple issues with your article. First, it was copied entirely from a Wikipedia-like site That's not much of a problem, per se, since the other site in this case has a CC license, but the content would need to be attributed to it unless you're able to demonstrate it originated here from a previously deleted article. The larger problem is that it's not sourced to WP:RS. YouTube, etc., is almost never considered a reliable source. If you can rewrite or properly credit it, and then source it to a few RS (if there are RS that exist about this subject) you should be set. Chetsford (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)