Archives

no archives yet ( create)

Hi, I am planning to remove the PROD shortly, if no-one else does, but I was curious about your nomination reason of "Fails GNG. No reliable sources on google." When I Google for this model, I these bylined reviews in reliable sources: Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 at DPReview; Pentax K-S1 Review and Pentax K-S1 Is a Quirky-Looking D-SLR at PCMag; PENTAX SWINGS FOR THE FENCES, BUT ONLY HITS A SINGLE. at USA Today; Pentax K-S1 review ( TechRadar so a bit iffier but still bylined); Pentax K-S1 sheds light on your dSLR options at CNet. And then a mini review in Selfie craze something to smile about in The Straits Times (edited to add: actually about the K-S2 but mentions the K-S1). I don't mean to drop a bunch of links here but I'm curious if I'm misunderstanding what you meant by "no reliable sources on google" when there apears to be quiet a few. Thanks and happy editing! Skynxnex ( talk) 21:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Key word:Review, a review might be reliable but does it help the article? Also all of these reviews sound promotional and only talk about the features and quality stats on this camera. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Reviews are valid sources toward notability, I believe, under WP:NPRODUCT and using the criteria in WP:PRODUCTREV. I believe all of the ones I included meet all three requirements: Be significant, Be independent, and Be reliable. The reviews are published in sections and most/all of them claim to be independent and non-sponsored reviews. I'd say given the majority of the Pentax line currently has articles, if you want to delete this particular one it should be AFD'd but my sense is it'd be kept. (I tried to find past AFDs and found a few similar: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon EOS M100, keep September 2017. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentax MV 1, redirect November 2010 (fewer RS sources seem to exist for this than the K-S1); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentax K-7 delete as too soon, May 2009, it now has an article; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon EOS R2 delete, March 2020, also less exists on internet it seems.) Happy editing. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The sources are highly promotional, most of show you where to buy it, and all of them are stat and quality articles, they only talk about how great the camera is and why you should buy it.Even if the source is reliable, its not what we are looking for. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 17:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Can you provide link to policy or an essay that would support excluding positive reviews? something that a positive review isn't suitable for being used in a source? I'd say the reviews are mostly mixed (quirky-looking, 3.5 out of 5, and The camera definitely looks like it's a polished effort, but it's unfortunately overpriced and under-specced for the competitive waters it's wading into. and fairly in-depth, as reviews go. Skynxnex ( talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Most of the sources your provided show where to buy it such as this, all of them only talk about the stats of the camera, its quality and how you use it. The sources talk about how great the camera and some downsides. I dont see a point of adding these sources, when they arent sourcing the article. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 17:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I've added some of the sources (and a couple of additional one) and removed the PROD. Thanks for responding but I believe that reviews such as the ones included, along with winning a minor magazine award, is sufficient to show it's not PROD-eligible and would probably be kept at AFD. Happy editing. Skynxnex ( talk) 19:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I still belive that its notable, and the sources you added dont pass GNG, but sure do it your way. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 19:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Bandon State Airport, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RecycledPixels ( talk) 15:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

As an additional comment, I would suggest taking a look at WP:RUSHDELETE. Your edit summary that re-added the PROD tag suggested that it was my responsibility to add sources to the article because you don't personally have access to them. That is not appropriate. RecycledPixels ( talk) 16:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ RecycledPixelsPeople will eventually run into this article, and see that this article has no sources. Maybe newspaper.com has sources, but many people cant access paid subscriptions, so we rely on you to do it.

The point that I was trying to make is that the fact that you can't access sources for the article is a poor reason to nominate the subject for deletion. RecycledPixels ( talk) 17:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Milk Tea (Ua song), which you proposed for deletion. The subject of the article meets the notability guidelines under WP:NALBUM criteria #2 because it was listed on national charts.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RecycledPixels ( talk) 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ RecycledPixels, Not only did you fail to add anything that proves its notability, your removing the prods I put on articles that have had a notability issue for the past 10 years. You also said "newspaper.com has a lot of sources about this airport", clearly most people dont want to pay for a newspaper subscription. For the record, there is 0 sources that prove this songs notability, even if it was on a top 100 list in japan. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 17:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Also the source you added does not tell us how many records were sold.