User talk:Kfarrell070

Speedy deletion nomination of Fire rocks

Hello Kfarrell070,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Fire rocks for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Lithopsian (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the fate of the article is uncertain. The speedy delete tag was removed by a brand new single-edit user which I see as highly dodgy. For now, I'm marking the article as unassessed to see if another new article patroller wants to take a position on it, and I'll come back to it in a day or two. It is not horribly promotional, but it lacks strong proof of notability and appeared to me to be primarily promoting a product. The only references that clearly mentioned "fire rocks" as opposed to related terms such as "fire lava rocks", etc. were links to a single online retailer. Including a plain link to their home page. Normally an experienced editor would look at my recommendation and take a decision on whether to can the article or if it was actually OK. A possible sockpuppet or shill user interrupting that process makes things messy.

You could work on the article to better show WP:NOTABILITY although personally I don't really think it will pass that hurdle. Think about secondary sources to demonstrate that this is a notable subject as opposed to just a product for sale. Or wait for other editors to pick up the ball, which would be a good sign of a healthy subject. Or look for related articles that already address "fire rocks", or could easily be expanded to address "fire rocks", and make a redirect to that content. Or just walk away if you don't want to spend too much effort on an article that could just be deleted anyway. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lithopsian (talk)

Hi, I see what you're saying. Like I said, I'm very new to this and trying to get the hang of all of Wiki's ins and outs (there are a lot, and it is all very confusing--note my confusion with talkback tags above). I will take a look at checking into some secondary source material and see what I come up with, but am wondering if a stub would be a better route for this article?

Kfarrell070 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC) kfarrell070[reply]

A stub doesn't really change any of the issues involved. A stub is simply an article that is currently very short and not much more than a definition. It should be treated as a placeholder for the creation of a meaningful article, not as an end in itself. If the subject is notable then it should get an article that describes it (ideally now, but sometimes just stub until it can be expanded), otherwise it should get at most a redirect. I'm not a big fan of stubs :) Still, the article has been approved by another reviewer so you should be good to go. Look for relevant categories to add, and also other articles that should link here, for example search for articles containing "fire rocks". Otherwise your article may be essentially orphaned meaning few people will find it. Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]