Hello, Squiddyonwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Below are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! User:Samoht27 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Samoht27 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squiddyonwiki! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please avoid only citing to primary sources. HG101 is the only secondary source with significant coverage and that isn't even concerning the same game. User rankings are inappropriate to use in an article per WP:USERG and the last several sources should be removed entirely.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Papa's Pizzeria (video game) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zxcvbnm, thanks for the feedback. I've created a new draft for all Papa Louie games that therefore expands my article, and therefore sources that have covered this: Draft:Papa_Louie_(game_series)

I can currently add more within my development/gameplay section but cannot find if this source is reliable: https://gameluster.com/review-papas-freezeria-deluxe-sundae-fundae/

After doing a sweep it seems they have an experienced senior staff and employed writers, though I do not see it listed anywhere in VG sources. Apart from this though, I have added IGN, Apple, AG.ru, and other 'mixed' sources such as Dexerto, GameRant, TheGamer, and PCGamer. Squiddyonwiki (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Squiddyonwiki: I've never seen GameLuster used on Wikipedia before. I'd err on the side of "unreliable" - much of the staff seems like students or freelancers, and a few of the editors don't even have pictures. It screams blog to me and if I wouldn't use it for a major game, we shouldn't make an exception for a minor one either.

My source analysis: (1) is a database entry, so it doesn't count towards notability. (2) is a primary source. (3) is TheGamer, SIGCOV and counts towards notability. (4/6) is GameRant, Valnet site and doesn't count towards notability. (5) HG101, counts towards notability but SIGCOV unclear. (7) Dexerto, content farm and doesn't count towards notability. (8/9) are database entries, no notability. (10) is arguably a primary source due to the advertising motive. (11) PCGamer, a reliable source but clearly trivial coverage of the series as a whole. (12) GameLuster, probably not notable.

My overall verdict is that there is 1 obvious SIGCOV (TheGamer), and 1 that I don't think is SIGCOV but some might say it is (HG101). Given the typical basis of 3 reliable, significant sources to pass GNG it's not quite there yet in my opinion. Hope that helped. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate all this feedback with in depth explanations. If you can tell I'm pretty passionate about this and am confident I can bring it to publishing status! Will continue to work on it. Squiddyonwiki (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Squiddyonwiki (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks like I've done all I can -- added a print source, other SIGCOV (TheGamer, HG101, Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer) ... going to submit, and hoping for the best. Appreciate your guidance and experience @Zxcvbnm Squiddyonwiki (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to allow someone else to review the page, since I already rejected your page once before, but I would almost definitely turn down this one too, unfortunately. I did note the additional GameZebo source existing before, but it is solely about one game rather than the series in general, and a ground rule on Wikipedia is that notability cannot be inherited, otherwise there would be a studio article for every video game simply because it was notable by association. There is precedent for lists being created out of otherwise individually non-notable things, but this wouldn't pass WP:LISTN either.

A common error with new editors is thinking that they can WP:OVERCOME lack of notability with sheer effort. It's helpful to read the aforementioned essay there whether or not your page gets rejected. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a possibility it also gets accepted because people have differing opinions on GameRant as proof of notability. But I vehemently believe it is not. There are just so many generally low-effort articles that they pump out that if it really was the case, we'd have an article on every Pokemon, every Street Fighter character, etc. but they'd all be bad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]