User talk:ReaderofthePack

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I'm in the process of creating articles for every Johnny Mathis single that meets the notability requirements. One of them is titled "Take the Time", so I'd like to use that title since there's no other article that's using it. A page had been created for that title many years ago but became an AfD that you handled in 2016 according to the Talk page. Would you be able to remove the protection so that I can post what I've written? Thanks for your attention to this. Danaphile (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Danaphile: You may want to run it through WP:AFC, since it was nominated twice for AfD. The second was closed early, but was going the same was as the first AfD that had similar arguments. I didn't see a draft or userspace entry in your edits, so I can't give any opinion on whether or not it could overturn the prior AfD's concerns. I'll also ping Cunard here for some feedback on the draft, once it's available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I have submitted my final draft at AfC. I look forward to working together on this. Danaphile (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hmm... offhand it's certainly a good sight better than the prior versions. The arguments against notability there were that the article lacked coverage to establish notability and that the specific Billboard charts weren't major enough to quality for NSONG. That's usually limited to the main/biggest Billboard charts. I do see where it's charted with Cash Box and Music Vendor, but they likely aren't major enough to qualify it on that alone. For the reviews, the Cash Box link doesn't appear to mention this song - is it possible that you mixed it up with one for one of the other singles? I only see the one for "No Man Can Stand Alone" and "Every Step of the Way" under "Pick of the Week". In any case, if the review is of a similar length then I'm concerned that they may be seen as too brief to be seen as in-depth enough to count towards notability. This feels a bit on the too light side offhand for my comfort. I've asked for input at the pop music WikiProject to see what they think, as well as to see if there's any additional coverage out there. In the meantime, there was no demand/rush to create the article so I don't think the page protection is necessary anymore. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. I've corrected the URL so that it links to the "Take the Time" review. Danaphile (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, ReaderofthePack. Danaphile (talk · contribs), although I agree with ReaderofthePack that the reviews are on the short side, I think the article is well-written and has good content. I've added another source (that is a brief mention of the song) that I found to the article. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Nice! Thank you Cunard! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi, I've been trying to clear out notability-tagged novels for a while and recently stumbled upon The Pacific Between (and its author, Raymond K. Wong). This situation sort of reminds me of the Escapist Dream/Louis Bulaong thing, so I wanted to ask for your advice before I take the article(s) to AfD.

Both articles were made by an SPA (Maestrowork) in 2007 (Pacific Between, Wong), who had also uploaded an apparently public domain by-author photo as well, so I would have to suspect COI/UPE. His page is incredibly undersourced, and refers to him as "award winning", apparently due to the IPPY Awards, which are tagged for notability, promo content, and apparently are listed on Writer Beware (by you): Independent Publisher Book Awards § Criticism. Another SPA removed mentions of fees the awards charged in 2020: diff.

The only review I found for Pacific Between was a Kirkus Indie review from a 2017 re-release, over a decade after this article was made. I typically deal with just WP:NBOOK not WP:NAUTHOR, but I think the author & even potentially the award articles are dealing with some promo/COI/UPE issues and I'm not sure what the best way to address them is. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Kirkus Indie is the outlet's pay to play model, so a review from them won't establish notability. The only barrier to that is the person's wallet and willingness to shell out cash. And you're right in that the IPPY award cannot establish notability either, as it's a vanity award. Basically, they have a ton of categories (per their website, over 100), not all of which appear to be available at the same time. Participants shell out between $80-99 per award submission and if they want to apply to more than one, they are paying per category. The "winners" don't receive any sort of physical award or certificate - if they want to receive anything physical they have to pay for it. Even downloading the digital art for the award for your book cover requires payment. I know you weren't considering it as usable, but they're one of the vanity awards that really just irks me because they take advantage of the people they're supposed to celebrate.

Nothing substantial came up in a Newspapers.com search. All I saw were a few papers mentioning the IPPY award, but it was more of an offhand "local person does good" type of deal. Nothing that could establish notability.

With Google I found a little bit. There's a Publisher's Weekly review. I did find one with January Magazine, however they are heavily pay to play. Just to get a database listing you have to pay, which is quite telling. FWIW I don't think the PW review is paid for, but the site threw up a paywall when I tried to access so I can't be 100% on that. Still, no article is going to be kept solely by a PW review.

I would say that the book article could be nominated for deletion. I'll look into the author. He's definitely puffing up his roles in TV, as his role in SATC was an uncredited role as "shopper". That's usually a sure sign that someone is probably non-notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and nominate him as well. Totally non-notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I will absolutely support you in the deletion discussion. The guy's main claim to fame is the "most beautiful people" list, however it isn't something that would give notability in my opinion. The one for 2010 shows that it's more something they do as a local "attaboy/attagirl" for people they want to give support to. One of the people they named is a cancer survivor who runs a local chapter of a cancer support group. Now, the people on the list do sound amazing but it's not really something Wikipedia would see as noteworthy. The articles were likely done by a marketing company, as there's one out there with the same name. It's quite telling that they called his role in SATC a "featured" role instead of saying that he was a nameless extra. I would wager that most of his characters are probably extremely minor walk-ons or extras.

He has just enough to where I wouldn't say that he's a clean speedy candidate, so AfD is the best avenue for this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't verify any of his stage roles. The only one that might be him is the King and I one, as there was a Raymond Wong who performed as an extra as "Royal Child" for a 1997 cast. I can't guarantee that is the same guy. There are also false positives for the composer of the same name. I have to assume that his roles were all in small, likely non-notable productions. For all we know, they were college productions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for helping me look into this. I'll open the AfDs later today. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Since you have thoughts on the subject, thought I'd ask you. They are obviously unusable for notability, but I recall a case where there was an author who had written several notable and reputably published nonfiction books, and then self-published a novel, which was only reviewed in Kirkus and PW's paid programs. I wanted to include a sentence about it in the article, but the only sources that mentioned it were the paid review outlets. I wonder if that would be an issue - do you think these paid reviews are unreliable, or just lack independence? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I would bring this up at RS/N. They might be OK to use, but I suppose a better question is why use them to back up claims of existence when we can just use the book itself for that? Or if the author has an official website and a bibliography page, you could use that instead. As long as you have the basic info such as author's name, title, date, publisher, and ISBN, you can just use the book itself as a citation. I've done that for things like the publication section of a book article before. The ideal would be that we'd have tons of (non-paid for) RS, but for really basic claims like this a primary source is fine. The exception of course, would be for books where there's some level of controversy about its existence, however that's going to be a relatively rare event.

Anywho, this would be a question for RS/N. My fear is that it would muddy the waters over time. You'd have some arguing that the source is usable for establishing notability because it's in other articles or, probably more likely, people using them to puff up reception sections as paid reviews are typically favorable. Not always, but often enough that this is part of the reason they're often not usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)