Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.
Hi, CherriGasoline. I was looking at the request you filed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, when I noticed that your article, Miwkoʔ Waaliʔ Debate, had serious issues under one of our most important policies, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Specifically, most of the article is criticism of a living person, but that criticism is not supported by references to reliable sources. Other than the original Hankins paper cited and the Native-Lands.ca page citing him, two of your sources are different versions of the same video on YouTube, one is an agenda item linking to that same video, and one is a website's homepage relating to the same presentation. That means that the whole article is criticism sourced to one person. That is a serious violation of the biographies of living persons policy, which states that Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis original). As such, if the page had stayed an article, I would have had to remove everything critical of Hankins and then request the article's deletion since there wouldn't be much establishing the debate's notability. To avoid that outcome, I have instead sent it back to draftspace, so you can work on it more, finding higher-quality sources that discuss this controversy. (If there aren't higher-quality sources, then it's premature for there to be an article on it yet.) This time, I would encourage you to use Articles for Creation (AfC) to resubmit, rather than publishing it on your own. AfC reviewers can make sure that your draft is compliant with our policies on biographies of living person, reliable sources, and notability.
— Thank you! I will work on finding more reliable sources and post it in AFC next time. I tried to mark it as a stub since I wasn’t super sure if it was long enough. Thank you for moving ir and giving feedback! <3 CherriGasoline (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Film notability
Hi! I saw that you were arguing for notability for a film. I wanted to give an explanation as to what gives notability for films on Wikipedia and what doesn't. This brochure gives a good overview of film notability, but I wanted to give some feedback in person as well.
Only very specific reviews and ratings give notability on Wikipedia. Audience ratings on places like Amazon, IMDb, and Rotten Tomatoes don't give notability and are generally considered to be irrelevant to Wikipedia unless the ratings have gotten coverage in the news. I always like to hold up Saving Christmas as one of the rare times audience ratings should be mentioned on Wikipedia.
The reason why they don't give notability is because anyone can write one of those reviews and it's easy for them to be manipulated if someone were to choose to do that. What gives notability would be reviews in places like Dread Central, New York Times, and so on. Now the critic reviews posted on Rotten Tomatoes can be used to establish notability, but the audience reaction will not.
Being released on a notable platform or venue doesn't guarantee notability and isn't considered to be noteworthy in and of itself. Being released to or an exclusive of a notable platform can make it more likely that something will be notable, but it's really not a guarantee.
With coverage, make sure that the coverage is in places that Wikipedia will consider reliable. For horror we have a list of some sources considered reliable at WP:HORROR/S. Now unfortunately with horror it's harder to establish notability sometimes because there are always more films than outlets willing to cover them, even when you consider the niche outlets like Dread Central. It's kind of the nature of the beast, honestly. For every one article I've made there are dozens of ones where I just wasn't able to find sourcing to establish notability - and that's not including the ones I've tried to save at WP:AFD. Science fiction has the same types of issues.
Basically, we can't go by Google hits - we have to look into the sourcing to see if it's something that Wikipedia would consider reliable. A general rule of thumb is to look and see if it has/meets the following:
Does it have clear editorial oversight and staff? If yes, then that's a good sign it could be usable.
Is the site free of grammatical and spelling errors, as well as dead links and imaging? If any of those are present then that's a sign the site is almost certainly unreliable.
Does the site sell sponsored ads, reviews, and the like? Is it run by a marketing/PR group? If either of these are true then the site is most likely not reliable. If the article/review is purchased then that makes it questionable as to whether or not the content is really independent.
These are just a few parts of this - if you have any questions, definitely feel free to ask me. I enjoy creating film articles, it's kind of my thing. I also recommend taking these guidelines into account when working on the draft for Lucifer Valentine, as the same principles would apply. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CherriGasoline. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Miwko Waali Debate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, CherriGasoline. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Miwkoʔ Waaliʔ debate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hallucination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substance use. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
