Talk:Robert Deeble

Latest comment: 11 months ago by Chubbles in topic Reversion

Restarted talk page

edit

Talk page has been previously deleted:

  • 00:32, 14 October 2009 Juliancolton (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Robert Deeble" (Deleted talk page of a page because expired WP:PROD. using TW)

Article now up and running again, so talk page restarted.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reversion

edit

What's the justification for restoring the notability tag and removing RSes? I have no objection to their being integrated into the prose, but it's inappropriate for you to demand that I do so; please see WP:GENREF - it is not necessary for references to be inline citations, and furthermore, they establish that the tag you've reinstated is no longer necessary. Chubbles (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chubbles:, I believe it's ill advised for something like this. Why did you just restore it as is? It doesn't appear that you even visited them before declaring them as reliable sources, because no archive link was originally provided for the Ink19 one and it was dead. I'm looking at the sources already in prose and so far they're terrible. I am finding notability lacking. Graywalls (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ink19 was, once upon a time, a generally decent independent review site, and the fact that links go dead does not cancel out the fact that substantial coverage of an artist happened in that link. WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies, and so I never remove deadlinks that helped establish notability. Chubbles (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
But the fact you restored it without bothering to put in the archived version is quite suggestive of claiming it's WP:RS without actually having inspected the link you claim to be RS. Graywalls (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's fine, you can quibble with my methods. Shrug. Chubbles (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this interesting. . . Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the COI tag is certainly well-founded, and I had no plans to remove that from the current version of the article. Chubbles (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply