Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:08, 3 May 2025

Revision as of 13:19, 3 May 2025

Line 754:

{{Lafc|username=82.8.141.222|ts=12:40, 3 May 2025|draft=Draft:New_Love_(The_Doodlebops_song)}}

Whitgift School [[Special:Contributions/82.8.141.222|82.8.141.222]] ([[User talk:82.8.141.222|talk]]) 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

== 13:19, 3 May 2025 review of submission by ModalNode ==

{{Lafc|username=ModalNode|ts=13:19, 3 May 2025|draft=Draft:Optigram}}

Hello. This submission has been declined with the comment "the sources don't mention Optigram or are only passing mentions". I just double checked and there was only one source that didn't mention either Optigram or his real name Manuel Sepulveda. This occurs in the paragraph about his work before adopting the name Optigram and I added that source only to corroborate the statement about the Grime albums bringing dubstep to a wider audience, but I have added a source to confirm that he was the album's designer as well.

I did carefully read the notability guidelines and as he has been featured several times by independent writers on prominent sites I thought that showed significant coverage. I was wondering if the issue might be that most of those writers interviewed him for their articles? I noticed in the talk section for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability) that someone has asked "shouldn't the fact that reputable media outlets choose to interview a person (in depth, about themselves, as opposed to on a topic they are an expert in) be evidence of their notability?" but there wasn't a reply so I'm not sure what the consensus is about that.

As for some of the sources being passing mentions it's true that a few of them are just passing, but I thought they were useful just to confirm a fact stated in the Wikipedia entry even if the online source doesn't expand on the topic in question. Should those kinds of corroborations not be included in articles? If not, is it better to simply remove those aspects of the Wikipedia article?

Thanks for any advice you can offer. [[User:ModalNode|ModalNode]] ([[User talk:ModalNode|talk]]) 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)