Talk:InCryptid

Notability, and reliable sources[edit]

Um, it's a bit concerning to see an article without any sort of claim to WP:Notability and no Reliable Sources at all. These are core policies on this encyclopedia. Most of the text was created very recently by MikoAlanna, a new editor: welcome to Wikipedia, but please pay attention to the following:

Source 1: the book's author's website. Confirms that the author claims to have released the song; goes nowhere towards notability.
Source 2: the book's author's blog. As above. Does not contribute to notability.
Source 3: YouTube video of the book's author singing. If such sources are admissible at all, I guess it shows that the author did sing the song, and that therefore the song exists. No contribution to notability.
Source 4: The book's author's journal, aka a blog. As above, no contribution to notability.

So, all the sources are WP:Primary (the author). There is no independent source. Notability is not asserted, and no evidence of notability is provided. I see Danbloch has removed the "Overview" as a copyvio. Obviously an overview / synopsis would be a good thing, if a non-copyvio text can be written. (Obviously that wouldn't establish notability either.) I see that Qualiesin has made some improvements; maybe they would be able to help with the article's notability.

Clearly some Reliable Sources need to be found, or the article needs to be deleted. The normal thing to do would be to write a "Reception" section and to describe what scholars and critics have written about the books in suitable sources such as major newspapers and literary journals, citing those sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Reception section with several varied sources. Qualiesin (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dire Straits[edit]

I’m sure I wasn’t the first to notice that three of these titles are calques from the lyrics of “Money for nothing”:

Magic for Nothing ← money for nothing
Tricks for Free ← chicks for free
That Ain't Witchcraft ← that ain’t workin’

Any sourced analysis, or at least report, of this? Tuvalkin (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]