Help desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 29

03:06:45, 29 January 2023 review of submission by Dcdan4

Dcdan4 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I could use some help with how to establish the Notability for the subject band. I recognize that it may be a challenge in this case meeting the high bar Wikipedia has. Nevertheless I'd like to get advice on how best to incorporate the necessary citations and article content to reach the bar.

First: can anyone point me to an accepted music band/artist article that only just (barely?) met notability criteria? I'd like to see how the article author incorporated the needed references into the body of the article.

Second: If the band garnered a feature profile by a reporter and was published in the regional newspaper (such as The Everett Herald), would that be legitimate to use as a secondary reference supporting notability?

Third: Arguably the *most* notable accomplishment of the band that has national/international ramifications is the single "Cheeks" which has over 6 million listens on Spotify. Such a level of airplay would be highly desirable by any artist, aspiring or otherwise. So my question: Is it even possible to add a reference or citation to a major streaming service play count as supporting the notoriety of a band?

Dcdan4 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@dcdan4: these are the notability criteria for bands. if their most notable accomplishment really is a single with over 6 million listens on spotify, this band is simply not notable for wikipedia to include. lettherebedarklight 晚安 08:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the response. But I hope someone else will actually take the time to provide answers to the questions in the OP. Dcdan4 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dcdan4, you have no sources. We can't even begin to evaluate without some reliable sources discussing the subject.

To your questions, any reliable source is going to validate some or all of the facts in the article. Incorporation itself should not be difficult. Notability is about independent reliable sources verifying the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability, in this case WP:NBAND. For specific examples of what has and hasn't made the cut, you can dive down the rabbit hole of AfD music discussions. If the Everett Hearald is independent, in-depth coverage (ie not an interview), it would contribute to notability. Though two more sources would be best to go with it. As to mention of streaming, if reliable sources discuss a fact it's more likely to be due.Slywriter (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcdan4 What published source did all that information come from? Such as the date the band formed -- that needs a published reference.

What music reviewer published a review that says the band has a "seasoned ambient sound and elegant music storytelling"? That info can't be included if it's someone's unpublished opinion -- it can't be stated in "Wikipedia's voice" as if this were a known fact.

What published source can verify that the "four members would meet for jam sessions at a house on the shore of Lake Shoecraft..."?

And so on through all parts of the draft. (One published source can be used to verify several assertions.) All information in an article must be verifiable (click here) so that any reader could consult the references to verify what the article says.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but trying to mimic another article on a barely-notable band is not really the right idea. Wikipedia documents what published sources say, rather than "telling the world" about someone or something David10244 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:40, 29 January 2023 review of submission by ClareNoI

ClareNoI (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

I added another source, which is a website created by Wordpress (but is independent from my subject) and I got a warning about using sources that are "self-published" or something along those lines. Many businesses' websites are created by Wordpress.com, so should I be worried about getting a rejection because of that? Thanks.

ClareNoI (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ClareNoI A Wordpress web site may be independent of the subject, but it will be a blog written by someone on the internet, giving their opinions. I am sure the site doesn't have an editorial staff, with a reputation for fact-checking, and publishing corrections when necessary. All of that makes a publication reliable (click here). The New York Times and other large, well-respected newspapers have all of those things. And, whether a business's own website was created using Wordpress or not, wouldn't matter in an article about the business, because the business's own website is not independent, and you are very limited in what you can use from there. A business's own website is not a source for information that would go into a Wikipedia article. I hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ClareNoI And just to be clear, unfortunately, the reference you added almost certainly can't be used. David10244 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:23:37, 29 January 2023 review of submission by AkashLakhotia

AkashLakhotia (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Polago Clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings,

Based on your description, it is not clear what needs to be done next. I have added 3 articles on them as refrence. Please provide additional context and information so that I may be able to write this article appropriately.

Thank you Akash Lakhotia

It would also be helpful if you could clarify the desired tone and format for your response. Thank you. AkashLakhotia (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AkashLakhotia There is nothing that you can do; rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

creating artiste biography?

21:16:08, 29 January 2023 review of draft by Stnts256

Stnts256 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:King Saha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need the artiste biography to be updated early so as to enhance visibility and credibility of his online presenceStnts256 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stnts256 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stnts256 Wikipedia has no interest in his online presence. Our only interest is in if he meets the definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read the message left by the reviewer.

If you work for or represent this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. Declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]