Talk:Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets

See also: Talk page of the article about the first part, Yeti: A Love Story, that now redirects to this article

Notability

Another user had the kindness to direct me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources– to confirm that both PopHorror and Horror Society, where the film was reviewed and that were then and are still now used as sources for the page, are considered RELIABLE. Thank you to various other editors who commented on this, for their wise and humble input. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC) PS+

left on my talk page

Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and for such an article (low budget horror film), we need to see specific reviews or discussions from these sites that we consider acceptable for sourcing [1]. What's used in the reviews section doesn't appear in that list. Otherwise, there is a good chance this could get deleted for lack of coverage in "reliable sources" (as given in the link). . Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello to you too.

next time please ask before doing such a move and please in such a case don’t use preformated messages on my talk page, thank you. I find them inappropriate and it’s written in red above.

The list you mention is not exhaustive and a tiny tiny look at my contributions may have helped you understand that maybe just maybe I am probably aware of its existence.So thank you for your concern because I believe your intention was good but again, -because I already mentioned that to you in an Afd- not all good sources are listed in the reliable sources lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

On top of this, at least 2 reviews I used and were on the page come from sites that ARE LISTED IN THE LIST YOU PRESENTED.......Next time, please make sure YOU read the links to which you direct other people who happen to know them. To be honest, i find your move and message quite disruptive.... i’m moving the page back to the Main. I suggest you go to the article talk page if you feel the need to discuss this any further. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets

Hello, Mushy Yank, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Oaktree b, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Oaktree b}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at another venue

Draft tag removed with no improvement made to article

• Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I'd moved the article "Another Yeti Love Story" to draft after the New page review [2], mainly because I didn't think the sources used were valid, but others could possibly exist. I found one that might have worked, based on the list here [3]. The page creator(?, not sure) has removed the tags for draft and put the article back in mainspace without improvement... What do I do now? I didn't want to PROD it, as it seems borderline between deletion and draft. Do I add the draft tags again, or do we go to AfD? Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTOBJECT means that draftspace is optional. Since an editor has objected, next step would probably be AFD.

Is your concern that the sources are not GNG quality, or that the sources are unreliable? Upon quick inspection, most of the sources look reliable to me, except #3 and maybe #1. Others should feel free to chime in in case I'm wrong. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:DRAFTOBJECT, an article can only be draftified once, and if, during this time, the page creator disagrees with this draftification, they can move it back to the mainspace. If you still believe it fails to meet WP:N criteria and don't wish to PROD, then you have only two options: first, send it to AfD or leave it for another reviewer. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. I'll think a bit before my next steps; my concern was that the reviews in particular were on non-RS websites, but I'll probably leave it for another reviewer. Oaktree b (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's borderline, and gnarly, but would likely survive AfD. I took the liberty of tagging it as a mess and marking it reviewed. I would personally dearly love us to have an alternative way of dealing with new articles of this poor quality, but believe I have followed the rules such as they are. I agree draftification was the best call - but we have WP:DRAFTOBJECT and I think I have followed the only course left us now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Oaktree b, I would also suggest AFD if you still believe it's non-notable and do not PROD or draft or blank-and-redirect again because that will certainly be reverted. I also agree with you that the sourcing are questionable.

Extended content

This book is reliable but a textbook trivial mention, whereas this is an obvious Wordpress blog per the bottom of the page that notes "Multipurpose News WordPress Theme 2023". The article also inaccurately claims that this is a "review" despite it being an announcement column, with statements including we have reason to believe our new film is poised to be a viral cult phenomenon across the world and, more questionably, Available on iTunes, Amazon On Demand, Google Play, Youtube, Vudu, Microsoft, Playstation, which causes me to question if it is independent. This only leaves one actual SIGCOV-meeting review from a source that Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources declares as reliable, despite it lacking basic editorial policies or indication of staff expertise. Unlike WP:A/S and WP:VG/RS, the horror sourcing list is almost entirely added by one editor without any clear discussion elsewhere that I can locate. {{Collapse bottom}} That said, I abstain from reviewing borderline cases and do not want to get into a long contentious discussion with this editor if I file an AfD, so will sit this one out. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Thanks everyone, I appreciate the input. Still getting my NPP feet wet, don't want to do it incorrectly. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)