Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 March 25
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 24 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 26 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
March 25
[edit]
I posted a page for submission however it was declined. I do understand that some of the sources may not have been seen as reliable, and I am in the process of finding more trustworthy sources however among the sources that were flagged as "not reliable" was an itunes reference to one of the artist's album. My query is why is this not a trustworthy source even though the iTunes.com page is a well audited page?
Blackdeath3101 (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Blackdeath3101:, iTunes is not considered a WP:Reliable source because all it does is show that the track exists, not that it matters. Same for generic listings like Discogs, etc. Broadly, any place which just takes in content from users (Facebook, Twitter) etc. is not accepted because nobody is necessarily vetting the accuracy of the material, and any place that just lists information with no expert analysis (Discogs, Amazon, Better Business Bureau) isn't accepted because it doesn't have analysis. For a musician, we'd like to see citations to news articles, music industry journals, business journals, etc. that discuss the musician's career, interesting features, distinctive accomplishments, etc. If you haven't yet, definitely read WP:Notability (music) to get some ideas. You're on the right track, you just need sourcing to meet the benchmarks of the Notability guideline for musicians. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
18:23:38, 25 March 2016 review of submission by GranbyPatrick
[edit]
I have received the foloowing review and rejection of my proposed page on Spiling(boatbuilding)
"Imaginably notable and acceptable but this still needs any further available in-depth sources and information."
As I have provided two very specific sources, and an adequate desicriptin, I am not clear what the reviewer is looking for. I am finding the communication methods to be clunky. If contributions are not wanted then I wont try to contribute.
Confused tentative contributor.
GranbyPatrick (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
19:33:48, 25 March 2016 review of submission by Eiman.fm
[edit]