Fail. I have checked 75% of the references and found, so far, only TechCrunch as a useful source. All the others are product launch material, product launch marketing puffery reviews. The text is advertorial and I suspect UPE. While UPE does not disqualify acceptance it makes me look very much more closely at the welter of faux-references I see. I would have declined as failing
WP:NCORP, and as an advert, referenced in
WP:BOMBARD with a helping of
WP:CITEKILLFiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 18:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Fail. This is an unfortunate accident, but I don't believe that a lawsuit years later is enough to show
WP:PERSISTENCE.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Fail: doesn't seem like a good decline reason as splits don't always need discussion and the IP couldn't just create the article directly, so why not use AFC for an uncontroversial split? The content wasn't verbatim from
The Fault in Our Stars (film), but had substantial original material. I would have added a {{Copied}} template on the draft talk page per
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (and have done so now), but at least noting the article it was copied from in a comment probably satisfies the absolute minimum. I would have accepted; a decline could possibly be reasonable if the rationale was strong. —
Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass potentially notable, but article is in very poor shape. some links at bottom but not clear that they support much, if any of the content in the article.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass I would have failed as npov/ad myself without bothering to assess the sources, but I agree with the outcome.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass Not ideal to have the freeform text for the decline rather than using the standard notability message, but still the right outcome.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fail. I have checked 75% of the references and found, so far, only TechCrunch as a useful source. All the others are product launch material, product launch marketing puffery reviews. The text is advertorial and I suspect UPE. While UPE does not disqualify acceptance it makes me look very much more closely at the welter of faux-references I see. I would have declined as failing
WP:NCORP, and as an advert, referenced in
WP:BOMBARD with a helping of
WP:CITEKILLFiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 18:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Fail. This is an unfortunate accident, but I don't believe that a lawsuit years later is enough to show
WP:PERSISTENCE.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Fail: doesn't seem like a good decline reason as splits don't always need discussion and the IP couldn't just create the article directly, so why not use AFC for an uncontroversial split? The content wasn't verbatim from
The Fault in Our Stars (film), but had substantial original material. I would have added a {{Copied}} template on the draft talk page per
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (and have done so now), but at least noting the article it was copied from in a comment probably satisfies the absolute minimum. I would have accepted; a decline could possibly be reasonable if the rationale was strong. —
Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass potentially notable, but article is in very poor shape. some links at bottom but not clear that they support much, if any of the content in the article.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass I would have failed as npov/ad myself without bothering to assess the sources, but I agree with the outcome.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass Not ideal to have the freeform text for the decline rather than using the standard notability message, but still the right outcome.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply