User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2018/January

A page you started (Ultimo Tiger) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ultimo Tiger, Lee Vilenski!

Wikipedia editor Triptropic just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great work on the article on Ultimo Tiger. Thank you for your contribution

To reply, leave a comment on Triptropic's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Triptropic (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Your GA nomination of Dolphin (emulator)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dolphin (emulator) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jd22292 -- Jd22292 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Insane Championship Wrestling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grado

Poker Million (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phil Taylor

Pool Paradise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pool

Virtual Pool 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Your GA nomination of Dolphin (emulator)

The article Dolphin (emulator) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dolphin (emulator) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jd22292 -- Jd22292 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Defiant champions information issue

How the championship table are to much information you said to put good sources right i have used Global Force Wrestling as an example to do it so what's the problem.TheCorageone1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @TheCorageone1:, It's not so much that I have a problem with the sourcing for the article, it's more that generally title histories are created in their own pages, as it's far too much information for an article on the overview. I understand you are sourcing from Global Force Wrestling, but that article suffers from the same issue. Just because something is wrong twice, doesn't make it acceptable. I understand that you really want the title histories to be on Wikipedia (which is why the other topics were created), but that information can easily be found on Cagematch, or the defiant website. To me, I'd rather have them be created as their own articles, but you would have to prove notoriety, which doesn't seem likely.
I would say, however, I have zero real investment in the project, but it does irk me that we can have an AfD, and the result is simply ignored. If this had been discussed on the talk page by yourself, or on the Wikipedia: WikiProject Professional Wrestling, as I originally asked on the talk page, I'd be more forgiving. Wikipedia is a place where people come to a consensus as to what should be included.
For now, I won't remove the table, as it's not really my place, as I really dislike edit wars, but I will eventually look at the GFW article. I'd recommend visiting the WikiProject for Pro Wrestling, as Wikipedia is a really friendly place when everyone gets along. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Persona 5 characters

Hello. This has been tagged for several issues. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Lee Vilenski. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Biblio (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing my draft charbila

Hello my draft:charbila has been rejected so i edited it and improved it. Can you please resubmit my draft again for approval? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbelfakhoury (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you please resubmit my draft. Thanks.

A page you started (AO Tennis) has been reviewed! reply

Thank you for reviewing it, beforehand The1337gamer kept deleting my stuff, without telling my why. I'm thankful, that I now know what I did wrong, because you told me. I see the link you gave me about WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTALBALL, I think that it is fixed now, but please let me know, if it is not. thomediter (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Thomediter:, What the user has been doing makes sense, as I see that he's removed content that isn't really nessecary, which I can see you haven't re-added again, which is right. The things I noted aren't things that you have addressed, however, look for major publications for references especially for video game articles. A quick google search found an IGN article, which would go very far towards proving Notoriety. I'm sure if you looked, you would prove it. The idea of Crystal ball, is that some articles will eventually pass GNG, but don't right now. Usually these articles get deleted until such times as it can. Add the above reference, plus find some more, and look at the Video Games Manual Of Style, and you can create a good looking article. Feel free to reply when you have, and I'll help you out. Lee Vilenski(talk) 21:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my other page about the players and tournaments in AO Tennis. This is not a complaint, but I still wondered why my sources aren't good enough? (Notability is added). Because for the mobile release players, there I have given a link that confirms all the players in the mobile release, and Nadal & Kerber, has a source which confirms that they are in the game, the same with David Goffin. I have an official tweet from Kokkinakis, where he says he will be in the game, and a very precise picture of Kevin Anderson, so i don't understand, what of those sources are wrong. I am very willing to corporate, so please just tell me, and I'll make it better, (I can understand I need more sources for AO Tennis, but the List of licensed players and tournaments in AO Tennis, is the page I'm talking about.) thomediter (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Thomediter: I think you are mis-understanding exactly what notability is. Sources are used as you have suggested to prove what you have said is correct, which is fine. However, for almost every article on Wikipedia, you do need to prove why the article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. For instance, why does Wikipedia need an artile with a list of players included in a game? Usually you would need to have a secondary source that states that the list is important, etc. I list isn't notable, just because you can prove that the players are in the game. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again. Thank you for replying. So what I have to is find a source that tells the wikipedia is interesting? Also the page AO Tennis, I added some sources to it, it should be better now. But still if you have time to help me, I would be happy. (I am a little new to making wikipedia pages, and I of course want to improve, but it seems I'm not doing it right, yet currently I would like to do it right) thomediter (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Thomediter:, it's ok. We all start somewhere. Although, your account is actually older than my own. The AO Tennis article is on the brink of passing WP:GNG, and remembering that the game comes out in just over a week, the game will be fine with the reviews that will be out for it at that time. For now the other article is fine, but don't be surprised if the article ends up simply being merged with AO Tennis. Your best way to learn wikipedia, is to find a featured article that's on a similar topic, and use the same style as that one. From my knoweledge, there aren't many great Tennis Video Games articles, Top Spin 3 is ok. I made a article the other day Virtual Pool (video game) that you can feel free to look at, although it's far from perfect. Hope that helps. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But the thing is. Is it really true I can't include the licensed players list, and tournaments, on the original article AO Tennis, I have been told I couldn't, but are that really true? I just don't see the negative, in that the general reader can see a list of players and tournaments in the game. thomediter (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thomediter: Generally, you should discuss content disputes on the article talk page. Originally, because of the lack of references, I believe the editor deleted the information, because it was artificially inflating the importance of the game. If the game has more and better references, that generally means you can add more information. I would stress, that the roster of a game, etc is less important than information on the development, release, critical reception etc. which should be added first Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the help @Lee Vilenski:, I understand what you are saying. I have detected that he went and deleted players list of tennis pages, on about 70% off all wikipedia tennis pages. The things is, for me personally, I have used tennis wikipedias, to read about the game, but for tennis games, which licensed tennis players, and tournaments is in the game, matters about 33% of the game. I often used wikipedia pages to see which tennis game had which players, and tournaments, (now he removed it), so I just think that a lot would use wikipedia pages for the same as me, and that's why I added the lists. (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally find it to be irrelevent, it's not really what Wikipedia is for. You're better off creating a features section for the game, and mentioning players included that aren't in comparitive titles. A video game article, is usually an overview of the product, rather than every intricate details. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah ok, thanks again for reply. I don't want to sound mean, or anything, but do you have interest for tennis games, because I seriously believe that those reading wikipedias about tennis game, would love a list of players and tournaments, and I will keep it updated. (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thomediter: it's not about what people wish to read. Wikipedia is a worldwide encylopedia. I'd invite you to Wikipedia: WikiProject Video Games, and see if anyone there has a Tennis VG theme. We have Manuals for Style for how articles should be written, the idea being that all articles should be able to read in the same style. I'd recommend looking at that link if you have any more questions on Video Game Wikipedia entries.
P.S. you may want to create a User Page, as it helps put everyone on notice as to who you are Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

CWA Titles

I have noticed that you have wanted to delete my articles CWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship and CWA World Middleweight Championship on the basis of lack of notability. These were actual articles which have existed in history and I have provided enough sources and enough information to make them complete articles. Kindly do not delete them as there have been much effort and hardwork on these articles. Deleting article is very easy but creating them and putting effort takes a lot of time.--Mark Linton (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mark Linton:. Neither of those pages have been marked for deletion. The articles have simply been tagged as possibly not meeting WP:GNG for articles. All articles on Wikipedia need to be notable topics; which currently neither of those articles can prove. It is almost exclusively from [1]. Cagematch doesn't account towards notoriety; as it's simply a list of results. You'd need secondary sources that talk about the subject for it to be notable. I'd actually make the same case for the original article Catch Wrestling Association. My job is to tag the articles, and if someone feels as though there is no Notoriety to start an WP:AfD. Many Thanks, Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 23:43:09, 7 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mastercourington

• Mastercourington (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brenda J. Sell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In reference to the Brenda J. Sell page that was recently declined for the 3rd or 4th time, I am in desperate need of understanding. Everytime I have addressed an issue, and everytime, more vague "reasons" for a rejection, when lesser pages, with purely false articles and statements are rife within them exist here on Wikipedia.

What is not considered credible on my page? How much coverage is "significant"? Which of my sources are not reliable? None of the other administrators have bothered with giving me any direction as to what my crimes against Wikipedia are. This is an article about someone who is a first in the Taekwondo community. How is this NOT considered significant? Her husband, and at least one instructor are on Wikipedia with much less information and less articles of reference. I have referenced the ranking body that has approved her for the rank that I am claiming she has attained. What more is needed?!?!?! Please help!

Upon investigation of other niche interests,

Christian comedian Tim Hawkins has a total of 6 references. Edward B. Sell, American Martial artist has 4 references The Kukkiwon (a place I reference both within Wikipedia, and the Kukkiwon itself) has 18 references World Taekwondo Championships has 2 references The Christian metal album Hellig Usvart by "Unblack Metal" band Horde has 9 sources Nuclear Blast record label has 9 sources

My niche Person of Interest, Brenda J. Sell has 15.

I realize many articles have many more sources. But this short list, with a top of my head search on Wikipedia reveal that I am well within resourced material for an article...

Mastercourington (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mastercourington:, usually if you have a question regarding an WP:AfC, you should really place it in the Help Desk. However, I will answer here anyway. First off, I should make it clear, that aricles on Wikipedia are not perfect. There are articles that exist that are badly sourced, or do not pass GNG. That does not mean that new articles get a pass because of poorly referenced current articles. AfC is the process of vetting and accepting new user's pages. The idea of something being niche is erroneous on Wikipedia. Either it passes a version of GNG, and is important enough for mentioning on the encylopedia, or it doesn't, and an article isn't warranted.
As a new user, creating a new topic, you need to prove that the topic you are writing about can pass WP:GNG. It is not about the amount of references, either (Although WP:BLP articles like this one do need to be well sourced). You need significant coverage in reliable sources. As I put on the article:

The Stars and Stripes article is great, but not quite enough on it's own to prove WP:GNG. The rest of the references are either non-reliable (The Bio ones), Primary (United States Chung Do Kwan Association), or about something other than Brenda Sell. Seems like POV has been reduced however. Lee Vilenski(talk) 9:34 am, 5 January 2018, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC+0)
At the time of review, the article had 11 references, which I can go through now:

• 1 - Taekwando Times - Doesn't have a mention
• 2 - Lakeland Ledger - Actually seems ok as a reference, but doesn't prove notoriety on it's own.
• 3 - Regestry Lookup - Doesn't go to a functional page - even if it did, a registry isn't notible.
• 4 - Martial Arts University - Seems promotional, and not a reliable source
• 5 - Quora - Not a reliable source
• 6 - Lakeland Ledger - Doesn't speak about Brenda, but about her husband. She gets passing mentions.
• 7 - United States Chung Do Kwan Association - This is a bio page - Doesn't help towards notoriety
• 8 - United States Chung Do Kwan Association - As I understand, she is the leader, so this is a primary source of information.
• 9 - Lakeland ledger again - Same as before.
• 10 - No single mention of the word "Brenda", and "Sell" brings up Ron Sell
• 11 - As stated above, this also helps towards notoriety, but it's just not enough.
  I see you have added four new references, so you may well meet GNG, so I would make sure you are happy with what you have seen, and re-submit. I hope you appreciate that a lot of work goes into creating articles, and welcome to Wikipedia.

- By the by - I have taken the liberty to update your draft and setting the references that are the same as one references. You can do this by naming the references, as I have done in your article.
Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, @Lee Vilenski:, I appreciate it. I specifically directed it to you, as you would have more insight on the specifics (given that you reviewed it). I believe you gave better help than one who would be looking on as a 3rd party, as it were. May I ask why a registry is not considered notable? The registry is for an organization that is referenced here, which has its own referencing and is widely recognized as the World Taekwondo Headquarters. This registry would prove that a specific rank has, indeed been registered. Given that part of the notable worth of the article, I would have thought a registry of such ranking would be required? Thank you again, for your responses! It is refreshing to know that a reviewer has been willing to respond!!! (One can only learn so much on their own!!)

Indeed, @Mastercourington:. Whilst in the article of a living person it is important to cite facts, like this, it doesn't add towards notoriety. The fact that someone is a black belt doesn't make that person a notible subject. If you have a registry, it would likely simply say that the person has the rank, and wouldn't be significant coverage of them as a person.

It also wouldn't be strictly speaking independent, as they are covering the governing body for the award. I'd also check out WP:ITEXISTS Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ronald Macpherson

I am surprised that the first governor of Singapore is not notable in your view. Articles for the first leaders of almost every other state exist. Why the anti-Singapore bias? Eurocentrism? Astana1974 (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Astana1974:, usually if you have a question regarding an WP:AfC, you should really place it in the Help Desk. The article Draft:Ronald MacPherson failed AfC, due to not meeting WP:GNG, which is that everything on Wikipedia should be notable for inclusion. The way we do this, is to find sources independent of the subject that talk in depth about it. If it's important for reliable sources to talk about the subject, it's important enough for Wikipedia to.. Full details by following WP:GNG.
You have 5 references, two of which are the same. So, I'll review all 4.

• Book SG displays an image of the person, with a brief overview. I would think it's better to reference the book it's from, rather than that page, as it's very confusing. The book it comes from seems ok, but as it's a paper reference, I'll have to take that it goes into depth as WP:GOOD FAITH.
• InfoPedia is not a reliable source. However, If you encorporated some of the sources in there, you would probably reach GNG.
• Third reference is paper - Probably reliable, although seems to be a reference on street names, so unlikely to be only a passing mention
• The last reference is for Wikipedia itself. You can't cite wikipedia, ever. Wikipedia, as you know is user generated, so it can't be trusted for information, especially about people.

Try adding some of the InfoPedia references into the text, and clicking re-submit, and I'm sure you'll be fine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nina Teicholz

Hi there. Confused as to rejection due to use: 1) "Peacock language." Would appreciate if you could cite example. 2) Lack of references. Sources include New York Times, Economist, CNN, Wall Street Journal + diet and nutrition experts. Unclear why that wouldn't be considered credible for the purposes of this article. Appreciate your guidance. Leslieaun (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leslieaun: - The first review was done by someone else, claiming the article didn't have enough references. I see there are now references in place. I reviewed the article, and placed it as declined due to the tone of the article. It's not written in the same way as would be expected on Wikipedia. I wouldn't say you use Peacock terms, but that there are a few issues, first, you haven't placed the article into sections. There is no infobox, and thirdly, it's not written in a formal tone, more just of a list of things that she's done. Have a look at how it's written, and compare it to a good article on wikipedia, say Lindsay Lohan, and note the differences. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Writing based on article about a woman author with a similar profile -- see Natalie Angier -- who would seem to be more relevant than an actress. Tone is very similar and there is no info box. Is that a requirement? You did not reference the need for sections in your note, but I can certainly add sections. Please advise if info box is required. And anything else you think is necessary. Thanks! Leslieaun (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Have added sections and an infobox. I respectfully request that you reconsider your objections to the writing style and tone. The writing is straightforward, clear, grammatically correct, and does not employ Peacock terms. The information is backed up by credible sources and the tone is comparable to articles on similar topics. I am happy to provide more examples if that would be useful. Will be resubmitting tonight. Thanks for your consideration.Leslieaun (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leslieaun: - I don't think it's acceptable still. The article still doesn't meet WP:GNG. The article needs reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Whilst you have secondary reliable sources, they aren't independent of the subject, as the vast majority are simply things that she's written in notable publications. I can see that the draft has been reviewed once more by someone else, and the same thing has been spoken there. I suggest asking SeraphWiki for more info. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert Lydecker

Robert Lydecker has composed xXX: Return of Xander Cage alongside Brian Tyler and is composing the TV shows Lethal Weapon and Designated Survivor, the latter alongside Sean Callery. He also composed the show Sleepy Hollow, which hasn't been added in that article. It's been hard to find some reliable sources for this composer. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @BattleshipMan:, thanks for replying. I'd like to make it clear that all articles on Wikipedia need to prove notoriety through the references they have, so they can pass WP:GNG. For a biography of a living person (WP:BLP), in particular, having zero references is a really big no-no. We all have to be very careful, about what is written about living people, as posting unsourced materials can be considered slanderous. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found a decent sourced material for him. That means the article will have to be deleted until reliable source can be future. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. I find it a little hard to believe that you can't find a single reference about an Emmy awarded composer though. It's likely WP:TOOSOON is the problem here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. I goggled the name and came up with very little info, other the news of the xXx and such. Nothing really says about else about him. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I found is that Lydecker was a native of Darien, Connecticut as you can see on this link. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Top Secret (magazine)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Top Secret (magazine), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

History Merging

Hello, my page Charbila needs history merging to fix copy paste problem. Can you do it? Thanks. Charbelfakhoury (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)charbelfakhoury

@Charbelfakhoury: - I see you didn't reply to my message on your talk page. I am not going to copy paste on the article you created. I simply deal with AfC, and New Page Reviewing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: - Yeah sorry about that. Anyway the page is now officially an article, but i want to ask you how much time does it need to be indexed in google search. Charbelfakhoury (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Charbelfakhoury

@Charbelfakhoury: the article is in the main space because you moved it there. It will still go through the process of being new page reviewed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Alright, thanks. Charbelfakhoury (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Charbelfakhoury

A page you started (List of Persona 5 characters) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of Persona 5 characters, Lee Vilenski!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged for 3 issues.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

06:52:11, 12 January 2018 review of submission by Cosecant57

• Cosecant57 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Diep.io (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Lee Vilenski, I am replying based on the rejection of my draft submission for the AfC recently. I am NOT requesting for a re-review, but I would just like to ask if it would be better to merge the content from the draft to Agar.io, which currently has an article. I am looking forward to your reply.

Cosecant57 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Cosecant57: luckily, I do quite a bit of work with video game topics on Wikipedia. First, I'd recommend visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games; where you'll find all sorts of information on Video games articles, and the style guides. Sadly, as this article has little to no independent coverage, it's unlikely to ever warrant a stand alone article. I have created a talk message on the WikiProject regarding this, which I recommend you look at here Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Jimmy White's Cueball World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blackball

Wheels of Aurelia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to NPC

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Skylords Reborn

I really don't get it, why the wikipedia page of Skylords Reborn should get deleted. Kingdom Hearts III is also not published yet, and it won't be deleted. Besides, Skylords Reborn may have a simmilar gameplay to BattleForge, but it is more likely a Fan based BattleForge 2 and can be considered a completely own game, and not anymore a reboot of Battleforge So, if you may, close the deletion discussion and let the article stay, besides, it will be in open beta in two weeks. So don't be like that, and delete the article, just because open beta is still 2 weeks away. If you delete the Skylords Reborn article, i will suggest Kingdom Hearts III wikipedia aricle also for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leomide (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Leomide:. I'm a little confused as to why you requested me to close the AfD, as I'm not an admin, and I simply took part in the conversation. However, I do not mind explaining my rational for requesting deletion/Merging decision. In your article, there are zero references. Every single article on Wikipedia needs to pass some sort of Notability test. Thus, if an article is notible, it is included on wikipedia, else, if not, it isn't. This isn't a subjective thing, and Notoriety is based on Reliable, independent and in-depth mentions in sources. Games that have not come out yet can still be notible. The KH3 article you mentioned has had press from places like GameSpot, Gematsu, IGN, etc, which make it notible, and you can see these references in the article. I'd recommend updating the references for your article if you hope it to pass WP:GNG for video games. It really doesn't matter if the game is in beta, only just accounced, or if it is already in circulation, all that matters is that it passes the above guidelines. If you can prove it does, I will change my information on the WP:AfD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski:I have edited it and added over 7 references. if you would have googled it, you would have seen enough references

@Leomide: I did look up the game on Google, and only one or two of those references really helps towards WP:GNG. The rest are unreliable sources. The Gamers Global link and PC Games are ones that I found; but aren't enough for a game article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt - Is It Reliable?

There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 08:39:10, 16 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Rishrambhia

• Rishrambhia (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kumbhathon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want you assistance as my article is getting deleted for Neologisms. The work is Kumbhathon. It is the name of an event, which was hosted in my city, Can't it be considered as a proper noun? or please suggest a way to edit.

Hi Lee, I had changed the wording, as the first draft was not giving a proper idea about the event. Please help with this.

Rishrambhia (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Animal Aid Unlimited

Hi, Lee Vilenski/Archives/2018, you recently reviewed Draft:Animal Aid Unlimited. As requested by you, I will add more decent sources soon. Thanks for pointing out the deficiencies. SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 11:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Souravdas1998:, please see WP:REFNAME, on how to cite a reference in multiple places. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Did that draft has some issues regarding inline citations/format? SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 11:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really, it simply didn't have enough to pass WP:GNG, however you do have the same reference (2 & 4) in multiple places. If it were named, it would help the draft, and reduce the amount of erroneous references. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Lee Vilenski, I have modified the draft which you rejected. Please review Draft:Animal Aid Unlimited now. I have added the references and citations which were required. SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 14:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Souravdas1998:, I have accepted the draft. It still needs work, however, but this can be done in the mainspace, and not the draft. Have a nice day Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski:, thanks, it was quite fast. You are also welcome to make valuable edits, if any, which are necessary. SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 15:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Short mat players tour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wooden Spoon

Steve Davis Snooker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Joypad

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For great work in maintaining civility, helping juniors, kindly. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 15:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Claybourn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notifying you about the discussion, since you have made significant contributions to articles related to this subject. --IndyNotes (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

20:05:24, 21 January 2018 review of submission by OsmaniAlbana

• OsmaniAlbana (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Albana Osmani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I am a public figure in Albania and worldwide, you can just prove it by searching my name on Google: Albana Osmani. I really need to have my Wikipedia biography article, every information I provided on there is real. I can even send ID photos if my want me to. Best Regards, Albana

OsmaniAlbana (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@OsmaniAlbana:, as you have stated this is an autobiography, I have left a message on your talk page regarding declaring this. Autobiographies are rarely welcomed on wikipedia due to WP:COI. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portkey Games for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Portkey Games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portkey Games until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Rush Soccer

Hi Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}', Thanks for your feedback on the article Rush SoccerI submitted. You mentioned you edit football related articles. So you must be aware of several football articles on Wikipedia lacking content and references and still be published. I present 14 different sources from third parties describing the organization. You recently edit an article for example ExtremeZ-IP with only 3 sources. So I was wondering how many sources you believe would be enough to pass the article? Because I am confused by your logic.

--Pelo1007 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Pelo1007:, thanks for getting back to me. I should explain, I do a lot of projects on Wikipedia, with one of them being the WP:AfC, where we spoke before. The article you referred to earlier, was as a batch of articles I edited as semi-automated edits, where they have erroneous parameters in their infobox, and I was deleting this. There are actually reasons why, a badly sourced article may be acceptable on Wikipedia, whereas others might not be. For instance, with football related articles, a player bio may have one or two references, but as the player in question is a professional, he might pass WP:FOOTY.

The WP:AfC process is around to make sure an article that goes through it is a good one, and is very unlikely to be deleted (One of the main criteria for acceptance, is that an article would pass the WP:AfD if nominated). Currently, the sourcing you have wouldn't make me vote for a "speedy keep", in such a discussion, so I didn't pass the article. I have also not declined the article, and left it for another reviewer to look at, and why I left a table regarding this on the talk page.

I would also suggest that an article really only needs three or more quality sources, in my opinion, but they need to be articles about the subject (The Rush Soccer Organisation), that are in no way tied to the subject, and from reliable sources. As stated, there are reasons why most of these references are ok, but do not really help towards WP:GNG. However, I did think the fourFourTwo articles helped towards it. I hope this helps Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. - I think these are good sources to add: Woodlands online, Washington Post. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lee,

Thanks again for your help. I answered about your chart on the other page. It is very helpful thank you so much. I am new as well and just tried to do a quality article about an organization that think is worth to be on Wikipedia page. I will add the two sources you recommend me. Let me know what should I change about it if you see any improvements. Thanks a lot. Also one of Rush Soccer subsidiaries has an Wikipedia article Arizona Rush. So I was wondering how a subsidiary club could have have a wikipedia page and not the main organization?

One last thing if you may: I checked the Washington Post source you included and it seems that it does not talk about Rush Soccer itself. Only a referee referring a game between two Rush clubs. On the chart you've made, you declined many articles that I referenced for Rush Soccer cause they weren't talking mainly about Rush Soccer organization itself. I don't see how the Washington Post article is different. --Pelo1007

@Pelo1007: the truth is, that it isn't particularly better. However, it may be something worth adding as a reference to show there has been media coverage of the sport. The fact that it names the league by name is also a plus.

The fact there is an article based on a league that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. I would nominate the team article for deletion; however I feel like that would be counter-intuitive for your cause. I'd also like to point you to wikipedia policy on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that another less well sourced/well suited article is included on wikipedia is not an arguement for inclusion of a seperate article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Andrews (wrestler), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Handicap and Doug Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)