User talk:11WB/Archive 2025/08 (August)

Re: Close of Kuju (company)'s AfD

Hello, I am asking that you please withdraw your closure and relist the AfD. So far I do not believe any policy based arguments have been made demonstrating the page is notable, and the discussion at the very least could use a relist or two in order to gain consensus.

IF you do believe that there have been actual significant coverage shown about the company Kuju, please explain which ones. I have refuted why every single one would not count towards the company's notability, so I really would like to see where I am apparently wrong, thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I have only been partaking in AfD for two months, and only actually started assisting with closures and relists today. The AfD you refer to which I closed earlier today as keep is based on the numerous comments providing sources to prove the company has WP:SIGCOV. I did consider relisting however with nobody else commenting for deletion I felt the discussion had come to a consensus and relisting would otherwise draw out an otherwise complete AfD! My only reasoning for withdrawing my closure would be for a source analysis, but because of the number of keeps (all with reasonable arguments for article improvement or providing additional sources), to withdraw my closure I don't feel would be the right decision in this instance.

I am still new to closures/relisting however so I welcome my closure to be looked at by an administrator or through an avenue like WP:DRV. (I'm not sure exactly which one applies in this scenario). 11WB (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm, my apologies for not citing the exact procedure above. I meant to link WP:REOPEN which explains the specifics. There is something called a closure review, however I personally don't know if that simply refers to DRV and WP:MRV, or if it also takes place at another noticeboard like WP:AN. I would like to think this doesn't require opening a topic at AN, however I'll leave this up to you! 11WB (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This is what I was looking for along with WP:REOPEN. It took me a little longer to find, my apologies. 11WB (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, a deletion is WP:NOTAVOTE. Regardless of the amount of keeps or deletes it has to be decided on the merits rather than by pure amount of people. That is why I consider it a WP:BADNAC unless you can explain, besides the sheer amount of !votes, what you personally consider "proof" of the WP:GNG being passed and why. It does not have to progress to Deletion Review unless you refuse to reopen it because you believe your reasoning is sound, but you haven't actually *explained* your reasoning besides pure WP:VOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't articulate myself very well. I didn't mean to say 'number of votes' in terms of a poll, I'm fully aware that is not how AfD works. It works by consensus. Those who took part in the AfD discussion provided sources and rationale for the company being notable, having significant coverage (of which several are linked in the AfD) and being worthy of an article. I believe there is now a consensus for this, which is why I chose to close the AfD as a consensus for keep. I understand the way I said this above wasn't the best way of wording that, I apologise. I appreciate you have made a case for deletion both in the AfD and now here! If you feel a DRV is required then I fully support that decision! Thank you! 11WB (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Since this landed on my Talk page, I'll chime in. Zxcvbnm makes a strong case in the AfD, as he always does. Most of the Keep arguments there carry little or no P&G weight. But even if we take it to the extreme of WP:DISCARDing all the Keeps there (which I'm not saying we can or should), we're still essentially left with a single !vote for deletion, contested by multiple participants. This puts it on par with a contested PROD; no quorum to delete. The AfD was open for the full week, with no new arguments posted in the final four days of it, so the basis for calling for a relist is weak. Should the close be amended to a No consensus? DRV is usually unfriendly to arguments from principle that have no practical effect on the outcome. That said, since the case for Keep here was weak, we should allow renomination in two months, making this effectively identical to a N/C. Zxcvbnm, does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenX (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  I had pretty much the same thought process for a relist, in that I didn't feel it would result in much more than what had already been established. No consensus is sound and easily amended on the AfD! 11WB (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, but I'd like to hear from Zxcvbnm first. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  At the moment it would be a no consensus. I still think a relist or two may draw in new participants without alienating the ones who already participated. Obviously this is a weird edge case where all the participants did a WP:VOTE or otherwise had problematic arguments. If it would make no sense to be relisted, I'd be fine with no consensus as an alternative, of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  Sounds good. 11wallisb, feel free to amend your close. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 23:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  I personally think the discussion was somewhere between "keep" and "no consensus", but still in a fairly volatile state. I could see a re-list as potentially establishing a clearer consensus. Left guide (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

   Done. Thank you to everybody here for an agreeable resolution! This has been a valuable learning opportunity for me and I will take greater care in future when considering AfD closures. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Enderman

Could this constitute a reliable source for an effective introduction? Newbamboo (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

And this?Thank you. Newbamboo (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_4#Wired and WP:RS/PS, Wired is considered a reliable source, yes. This particular one seems to have a few paragraphs on the Enderman from the perspective of somebody playing the videogame. Whether it passes trivial mentions would come down to the discretion of the reviewing editor. For the GameZone article, I personally would not consider that one substantial enough on its own. I don't know whether GameZone is user-generated or if it has vetted writers. 11WB (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTIFY

Hello, 11wallisb,

Please review Wikipedia policy on when it is and is not appropriate to draftify an article from main space. This article was created in 2023 so it is too old to be moved to Draft space. Please make sure your actions are in line with Wikipedia guidelines. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this @Liz. I assume you have seen the discussion here and here. Sergecross73 expressed disapproval of my accepting the draft through AfC due to bad prose. I then returned the article to draft. I was unsure of whether I had authorisation to do this. However I assumed it okay under WP:DRAFTONCE - which is an essay on a guideline? Sergecross (being an administrator) didn't undo what I did so I assumed the return to draft I actioned was ok! This mistake is on me! I've been advised to take a break by Sergecross and return to AfC when I feel ready to. I'm going to carry on at NPP/S to gain more experience. Thank you for undoing my error! 11WB (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Sergecross73 so they are aware of this too! The draft (Draft:Sonic the Hedgehog fandom) has now been moved back to mainspace by Liz due to the article being created 2 years ago. Per policy. I was unaware, my return to draft has been undone. The article will need immediate copyedit work as a result of this. I will inform the author on their talk page. 11WB (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see this message for the follow-up on this discussion. 11WB (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Draft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted (not; self reverting is needed). Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. There is no clear clarification for this but go ahead with that. You should undo your review as now you have conflict of interest there. Your continuous involvement in the page for which it seems that you are missing misusing your rights granted. You waited for closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhajan Singh Walia as you were very interested in the messages left on my talk page "2 weeks ago". You interestingly waited enough but implied that you won't be taking part in the review which garnered a previous conversation and you should have respected your own words and as another reviewer's review was expected, yours again put all the work, your word and messages behind. Some links for the coi [] , []. Your reviews are not reflective of the guidelines either as there is nothing that points to the facts or is mentioned in the guidelines and is not available in the draft. I am sure about any serious and non-picky reviewer would have accepted it given that I know what to check and where to check as not all draft writers are pros. Overall, these are things a few can understand, kindly stop from disruptive editing and false projections. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 08:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. These are some quite serious accusations. I was not aware that your AfD had been closed and I am sorry that it was not the outcome you were looking for. That is a separate issue from your AfC submission, however. As I said in my comment, your draft is well researched however there are issues with the sources that need addressing. I fully appreciate you aren't very happy, and I am happy to discuss this calmly and respectfully. If you believe I am incorrect about my review, as an Extended confirmed editor you do have the ability to move articles to mainspace without using AfC. This would be my best suggestion to you currently. 11WB (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is any accusation here but facts which you can obviously say you were not aware of while waiting for exact time, though that is about a different subject. Anyways, agf, your re-review on a previous contested review is conflicting with high interest on your side with the comment by yourself verifying your current review being not justifiable. You added that for other reviewers and it begs the question that you reviewed it again? That is why you should undo your review as it is COI and let other reviewer review it rather than being stuck on vague points you have raised. Those are not even related with guidelines to review. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 12:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I have contacted Owen as you have made an accusation with regard to an AfD discussion. I understand you are not happy, however I'm afraid I cannot reasonably continue this discussion unless done in a civil way. If you genuinely believe I am guilty of disruptive editing, I can only refute that and advise you seek assistance on that at WP:AN/I. 11WB (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved. See this for that discussion. (For the benefit of other editors reading this talk page.) 11WB (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Mesuno Treasure draft

Hi user,

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft article Draft:Mesuno Treasure. I appreciate your contributions and edits to the article, especially the wording for some of the sections. I have included better sources to the sections that either required a source or a better source. Additionally, the source that you questioned this one appears to be factual and it includes a list of sources used to create that article (see bottom section of the source). Thanks again for your time to review the article. Anfecaro (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! The source I tagged looks okay, I think I was being cautious when I reviewed the draft. I have accepted the draft, which you can find at Mesuno Treasure. Thank you for submitting this to AfC and happy editing! 11WB (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

AFC: Sylveon

Thank you very much for the comment and your help! I would like to add an image, but when I went to do so it warned me about it not being in Mainspace, and I couldn't find anything on whether images are allowed in drafts or not no matter where I looked.

I will definitely try to add some information about the manga, and the voice actors! Serilly (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! No problem at all, your draft is very promising! For image uploads, they need to follow Wikipedia's image use policy. Once an image is found that is either free from copyright, has the relevant copyright licensing attached to it (such as CC BY-SA 4.0) or is not free but comes under fair use, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia for use in a draft or article. I will have a look for an image of Sylveon and if I find one that can be used, I'll happily upload it and add it to the article myself! I am also more than happy to accept the article any time you believe the draft is ready! 11WB (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Serilly, it turns out the non-free official artwork of Sylveon can't be uploaded to Wikipedia until it is accepted through AfC. Currently, I am not able to accept the draft properly until the redirect page is deleted by an administrator. My main concern is that once the draft is in mainspace, other editors may not believe there is enough information to warrant Sylveon having its own article. In this scenario, an AfD nomination would be quickly submitted. I've added some information regarding the manga, however it is really important that more information is found that sets Sylveon apart from the other few Pokémon that have standalone articles. It could be that there is available sourcing discussing Sylveon and how it is relevant to LGBT. I can see there is a source already added for this, I do think some more of these to make a section for 'Cultural impact' or 'Design' would be very beneficial here! 11WB (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I will try to locate some more sources on that topic! I'm sure some more exist out there, but Google is a huge pain sometimes. Thank you again for all your help! Serilly (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Serilly, here are some sources I've found:

Kotaku article - Kotaku has mixed opinion for reliability on Wikipedia according to WP:RS/PS. Each article has to be judged individually I think. This is the one you have already included in the draft.

vocal.media pop culture article - I have no information on this as a reliable source or not as I've never heard of them. My scripts don't flag it as either a bad reference or a good reference either. So I would just say use with caution.

LGBT characters in Pokémon - May be helpful for information in a paragraph generally as this doesn't discuss Sylveon specifically. Newsweek used to be reputable per WP:NEWSWEEK, but not anymore, so again use with caution.

List of queer Pokémon - PinkNews is considered reliable per WP:PINKNEWS. This article does actually list Sylveon, so this could be helpful?

There could be enough for a small paragraph or subsection, however there is not a lot of stuff on the subject, even less so with Sylveon. I hope these are okay and that you're able to find some others too! 11WB (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I was able to find some more to make a small paragraph, including the PinkNews article! As for the Kotaku article, I think this one specifically should be alright? Post-July 2023 Kotaku content is considered unreliable because of AI usage according to this and this, but since this one is juuust before that and does list an author, and this specific author has also written for IGN, Polygon, and Paste Magazine according to his introduction here.

Vocal is user-generated, it would seem: the homepage reads "Vocal is an all-in-one platform where you can share your stories, build an audience, and earn money". ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I would avoid vocal.media in that case then, the author of that specific article is not an expert so this would not be a good source to use. You are absolutely right about Kotaku, it is listed at WP:RS/PS as no consensus currently. If you think that it is reliable based on the available information about the author then I don't see any issue with using it as a source. 11WB (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The LGBT paragraph looks fine. I have requested the redirect page that is blocking acceptance to be speedily deleted. I've also had a look at some of the other Pokémon species articles. A major thing that has stood out to me is the sheer length of their respective reception sections. For example in Pachirisu#Critical reception, Jynx#Critical response and the only current Gen 6 Pokémon with a standalone article, Klefki#Reception. I imagine Sylveon has had a lot of reception, definitely more so than Klefki, which I am surprised has an article. This I think will be fairly straightforward, finding out whether Sylveon has been used in official tournaments, journalists who have commented on it, both positive and negative criticism. This section I think could be expanded out quite easily. I am happy to assist with this as and when I get the opportunity to! 11WB (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw that you added {{db-afc-move}} to Sylveon to make room for the acceptance of Draft:Sylveon. I have carried out the deletion now. Please feel free to carry out the move at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mz7! That was automatically done by AFCH. Thank you for deleting the page, I'll accept the draft now! 11WB (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mz7. It looks like @Serilly beat me to it. Please could you delete this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sylveon_fairy.png Thanks! 11WB (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

This is up to you @Serilly, but almost all of the Pokémon species articles at WP:POKEMON#Our ultimate goal have GA status. I would recommend nominating Sylveon! 11WB (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Signature contrast

Hello, I'm Femke. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not meet the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature may have too little contrast. You can use a tool to check the contrast to determine if your signature meets the minimum contrast ratio of 4.5. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

My apologies @Femke, I wasn't aware of this at all. I have edited it now. This is an improvement? If not, I would be willing to receive an appropriate hex. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

For archive purposes, this was resolved here. 11WB (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi 11wallisb, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! asilvering (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Asilvering! I saw you are signed up for the backlog drive! I hope it goes well! 11WB (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)