Talk:Tropolis

Notability
Two references, albeit from the Dail Mail and the WSJ, do not make this a notable product. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And whoever was collating them seems to think, a bit hilariously, that the paper is called the Daily Mail Reporter, rather than the Daily Mail. (They've obviously read the byline 'Daily Mail Reporter' and assumed that's the name of the paper, when it means 'A reporter from the Daily Mail'.) To me that suggests someone who was just looking for two external references to allow the article to survive an AFD. If you're writing an article properly then you wouldn't base it on an article in a paper you don't even know the name of, but if you're just paying lip-service to WP:V, then hey, here's an article about our drink in some limey paper called the Daily Mail Reporter, thanks Google, that'll do. --86.147.251.177 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I restored the tag; it was removed by the article creator with an argument that, since the article passed through DYK, it must be notable. This isn't an indication of notability; notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources, not by Wikipedia-internal processes that the article passed through. Although DYK does sometimes reject articles for notability issues (i.e., AfDing nominations that are not notable), it doesn't always do so, and there is no explicit requirement that articles must uncontroversially meet the notability requirements to pass through DYK; thus, the fact that this article was on DYK doesn't preclude having a discussion about notability. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Tone
I restored the tag, which was removed in this edit (with a summary saying, essentially, "of course it reads like a press release, because that's all that's available now"). That doesn't change the fact that parts of the article are written in a promotional tone; we generally don't remove tags just because we're currently unable to correct the issues. (For comparison, no one would remove from a non-free image and say "of course it's non-free, because there's no free alternative available!") r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Discontinued?
A decade later, and I cannot find reliable, nay, *any* sources to confirm or deny either the continued existence, or discontinuation of this product. DarkAudit (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)