Talk:Vatnik soup

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... RationalWiki uses the same copyright as Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA. Plus I actually wrote the original page. 159753 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Per their copyrights page, the situation is not at all clear "RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA", I would get in touch with the WP:VRT if you own the copyright just for avoidance of doubt.
 * Additionally the page currently has only one secondary source at present so it's WP:NOTABILITY is in question. That is not its own reason for WP:CSD, but the lack of a WP:CCS makes this a possible WP:A7 candidate. If you can prove ownership of the copyright I would suggest working on this in draftspace, per WP:DRAFTIFY, until you have three independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage, see WP:GNG. And remember interviews are WP:PRIMARY. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The copyright page says that original material under the CC-BY-SA. Is there any proof that the material actually doesn't originate from RationalWiki? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 20:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An admin has removed the CSD tag. If there are notability concerns, G12 is not the way to go. There's tagging the article with WP:A7 if applicable as mentioned, PRODding, or draftifying, but I would recommend opening an AfD discussion to let discussion determine whether it is notable. (Since you are unregistered, you can request such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.) ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:ObserveOwl I don't like jumping immediately to AFD, even if it is allowed, as that only provides seven days to address any issues. The lack of WP:CCS means it could be A7d at present, but it doesn't have to be, and there is one secondary source provided, so the subject might plausibly meet GNG even if it doesn't for now. I'm inclined to tag the page to attract the attention of sourcing specialists and see if someone can't fix it. If that doesn't happen after a month or two then an AFD listing will be needed. An alternative option, already suggested above, is to draftify which allows for theoretically unlimited time to fix before submitting. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:287D:BFB4:5CC3:6570 (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Yes, there is no rush to delete articles (WP:RAPID), but deletion nominations don't always last for seven days; they can be relisted again sometimes. I would say that deletion nominations of new articles about recent events are the ones that are the most difficult to get consensus. It is common for new, probably non-notable articles about the Internet (and Internet culture) to get nominated, so chances are someone will nominate it within a month or two anyways. If sources arrive after deletion, we can always WP:DRV. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But I guess draftification wouldn't be too bad of an idea. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Current Notability issues
Just to be clear: The rest of the current references are all WP:ABOUTSELF links to various internal pages.
 * this is a database entry not even about the subject of the article and so obviously does not count for WP:GNG.
 * this looks good
 * this is an interview, hence WP:PRIMARY and does not count for notability.

Three independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage are needed for a page to clearly satisfy GNG. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:287D:BFB4:5CC3:6570 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

---

I have done a quick google search, and founded some more references;

159753 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick finds.
 * This we can use in the article with care as WP:MREL, but it doesn't count for GNG, see WP:NEWSWEEK.
 * This is a mixture of primary and secondary with some interview portions but I would say this will probably be accepted though some of the more strict types might not like it.
 * This looks good to me
 * This is an interview and hence WP:PRIMARY we can use it but it won't count for WP:GNG.
 * Once incorporated into the article there should be a strong case for keeping, though AFD might still go either way, would be nice to have one more unambiguous GNG source to be on the safe side. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDD8:5E1C:3E77:A8E6 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)