This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
I started this article, but in the "Critical reception" section we could really use some more reviews from serious music journalists. The album has only been out for two weeks as I write this, so if more reviews come in, please add prose to that section. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Doomsdayer520 I'm reversing your edit [1] which removed the COI inline template I'd placed alongside the Prelude Press review.
Your edit summary assertion that the AfD discussion consensus showed the source as reliable is a clear misrepresentation.
User User:VersaceSpace, AfD nominator User:QuietHere and myself each casted doubt on the reliabilty of this source.
I spent time evaluating Prelude Press and my opinion as to its reliablity/independence hasn't changed.
I politely request that you do not revert my edit. Either, leave the inline note or, preferably, remove the associated COI promotional claptrap altogether. Rupples (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Rupples - Speaking of misrepresentation, you did the same with my edit summary, which said "Prelude Press argued to be reliable in recent deletion attempt". Note that argued does not mean decided. I also did not use the term "consensus" which you inaccurately interpret me as saying above. Your assessment that the source is unreliable contradicts someone else in the AfD, and your "opinion" (your term above) is not any more solid than theirs. And in less time than it took the two of us to write and read these comments, you could have just removed the troublesome text yourself. I have never been opposed to this article being a stub. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples @Doomsdayer520 I should note that I never specifically ruled on Prelude Press, and haven't been convinced either way on its reliability. All I said was that it wasn't notable itself -- not a significant publication, so to say -- and that relying on a couple small publications such as that to pass an article is a stretch for notability in my opinion. Whether it is reliable individually in an otherwise notability-clearing article is another question to which I do not have an answer either way. Though I don't think calling it a CoI is appropriate when the worst it has done, according to your comment, is write reviews that you find overly positive. {{Unreliable source?}} would do the job much better here methinks. And even then, you should bring your complaints to WT:ALBUMS or WP:RSN for a proper assessment, assuming you haven't yet (if/when you have, please link it here). QuietHere (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere I did try the WP:RSN search box but nothing relevant came up so spent time browsing the PP website looking at a number of album reviews and its contact page, to form an opinion. Yes, it's my opinion which others may view differently. I did similar with Review Geek, and changed my mind.
Sources determine notability, but as I was unable to find any guidance for these on Wikipedia, the only alternative was to review them myself and form an opinion. And rather than just stating "the website looks OK" or such like, I put an explanation as to why I reached my opinion. I also carefully considered what inline template to place by reading the definitions on the template's article pages. It was a close call but I chose COI because the PP website invited artists to contact them to work together and I found no negative criticism anywhere. My interpretation from that evidence is that they are paid for reviews. Of course, I don't know for certain unless I contact PP pretending to require their services. Rupples (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples if you can't find anyone else discussing a source already and you aren't certain about its issues, you can't just assume your suspicions are correct. If there is no discussion, then you start a new one. And that contact page says "For features and submissions, contact Prelude Press here". That doesn't say anything about paid reviews, and you can't just jump to conclusions and say that's what it means just because the selection of reviews you read came off as positive. Did you even check if the site wrote features for any of those reviews? This whole thing smells of giant leaps to conclusions. QuietHere (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere Fair enough, but the AfD itself is a discussion and there was no rebuttal of my opinion by User:Doomsdayer520 who presumably put in the quote. If there had been, I'd have reconsidered. Rupples (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}