This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndustrialWikipedia:WikiProject IndustrialTemplate:WikiProject IndustrialIndustrial music articles
Fabrykanina has posted approximately 150 links to reviews on her website for industrial music albums. I'm using this talk page because it's one of the ones on my watchlist, but this discussion is about all the related articles. See her contributions for a full list, as I believe almost every edit has been adding a review link. My question is whether or not this is appropriate. Since this is a personal site, and the person posting the links is the owner of the site, it seems like WP:LINKSPAM and self-promotion to me. Here is my original posting at the reliable sources noticeboard, and here is her request for my reasoning. Comments from uninvolved editors who are familiar with this type of situation would be helpful. —Torchiesttalk/edits13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user is posting links to their own website, which can come off as being WP:LINKSPAM. WP:EL#ADV suggests: "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines."
WP:ALBUMS says: "Formerly, a Reviews field was included in this template. Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section.", meaning that adding these links to the infobox is inappropriate anyway.
Can some sort of credibility be given to the "professional" claim of their site? Most "professional" sites don't have Paypal donation buttons, because they are "professional", as in they make money from their site, or their site is the promotional arm of a company. WP:Albums#Reception says: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." I don't think this is a professional site, owned as a business with an actual staff, but rather a fan-site, with a few people (2, according to the owner) writing some personal reviews. Based on this, I would say that this site is not a reliable source, which violates WP:Albums#Reception, which again states that "A section should be dedicated to an overview of the critical reception of the album, as documented by reliable secondary sources such as reviews, books, or reputable articles that discuss the album."
Since there seems to be strong policy based reasons for not including these links, I've removed them from more articles. I'm not sure how many remain, however. —Torchiesttalk/edits17:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain sincerly then why do you leave Allmusic.com review links all over Wikipedia while they run a website filled with advertisement and commercial related stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrykanina (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
