Talk:Vox Maris (musical instrument)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vox Maris (musical instrument) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 12 December 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).
	This article was accepted from this draft on 12 December 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Musical Instruments Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments 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.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

9 sources?[edit]

this was sent back to Draft as underfootnoted even though it has 9 references, two additioanl sources and a link to the page on german wikipedia. What gives? Legacypac (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sources don't matter, the number of reliable sources matter. The German Wikipedia article is only important so far as it might suggest reliable sources that could be used here. I would suggest instead that the Korea JoongAng Daily and Guinness combined with the passing mentions in what appear to be reliable sources (korea.net, KBS) help it over the GNG threshold. Several of the other sources are NOT RS, or should not be used to establish notability (e.g. the instrument's manufacturer). I'm marking reviewed for those reasons, but if I were treating this to the stricter scrutiny of NCORP, and I can understand why Onel5969 might have done that I might have reached a different conclusion. And yes I understand that technically NCORP is not stricter than GNG, but the reality is that the community does treat companies/organizations/products more tightly than many other subjects (e.g. teeny tiny Sports teams) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What gives is that it never should have been moved from draftspace until it was ready for the mainspace. It should have been declined at AfC for not having enough inline references, not for notability. Although Barkeep49 is correct it has borderline notability, that's not the reason I returned it to draftspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a company or a product - it is an art installation, originally for a large public fair Expo 2012. German Wikipedia has very strict, even stricter than English, inclusion standards, so that is a good indication of notability. Declining for lack of inline refs would be against the guidelines for AfC, and the refs were inline anyway. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]