Talk:Ali-A/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ali-A. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Help with notability verification/citations?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could I please have assistance with this article and help improving its sources to prove notability? 4 Guinness World Records, over 8 million subscribers on YouTube and over 2 billion views on main channel and over 4 million subscribers and 700 million views should help towards proving notability but am told this article needs more in order to be approved (see reviewer comments). Thanks! TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, other than the Guinness Record page, there is no significant coverage about Ali-A. Essentially, there are three main types of reference:

Unreliable sources: these are things like blogs, forums, Facebook, IMDb, etc., that are either user-generated or of questionable reliability. If some guy with an opinion writes something on the internet, it's generally not acceptable.

PRIMARY sources: these are sources that are directly connected to the subject. Often this is the subject's own website, but interviews also fall into this category. They are discouraged, mainly because it is the subject talking about themselves and they could be lying (so it's easier to just not use the information).
Independent reliable sources. These are articles from newspapers, magazines, and reputable websites (such as Mixmag). These references are what Wikipedia is built on - good sources of information and a place where someone can potentially learn more about a subject. There are two types of reliable source

Name drops/passing mentions: these are sources that do little more than mention the subject or give their name in a list (such as the Top 100 Widget Makers). Since they are reliable sources, they can be used to verify the facts on the page, but don't actually demonstrate notability.
In-depth sources: references that talk about the subject from a reliable source show that someone has "taken note" of the subject. If there is no in-depth coverage of a subject, they fail the Golden Rule and generally are not given a Wikipedia entry.

You have a lot of primary sources and a lot of name drops, but you have almost no good in-depth sources. You must get some for this draft to be even borderline acceptable.

These days, YouTube numbers matter almost for naught, and to have a relatively obscure Guinness World Record counts similarly (especially when it seems like anyone can gain one for doing just about anything these days). In order for this draft to be acceptable, you will have to add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. To reply directly to me, start your message with {{u|Primefac}}. Primefac (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac Would Forbes be considered a decent/reliable reference source? What about the BBC? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, if you're talking about this BBC and this Forbes article, then no, they aren't particularly useful. While Forbes and BBC are generally considered to be reliable sources, the articles themselves are just interviews with Ali-A. Interviews are PRIMARY sources, and thus discouraged (and they do not demonstrate notability). Primefac (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)