User talk:Jharris6

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Jharris6}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Jharris6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icon for Hire (the album)

I notice that you added material related to an album that isn't yet notable. Take a minute to read WP:NALBUMS and the article for deletion discussion related to the article (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icon for Hire (album)). It might help you to understand what's needed before we can add an article for the album. I'm personally looking forward to the album, but just now, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. When reviews come in over the weekend and next week, it will be a simple change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I was able to put correct information about the album into a page is that all fans who purchased the album during their summer concert tour received it on Friday, October 10, 2013. All information from the album came directly from the album contents.

As per WP:NALBUMS, I can provide verifiable proof of accuracy by uploading images of the album content which is where all source information came from.

Additionally, the band themselves verified the information. The only proof of this however, is the response of a tweet, which I understand is not the same as an article from a noted source. https://twitter.com/iconforhire/statuses/388752511517356032

Jharris6 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the information is verifiable doesn't make the album notable. The fact that the information is correct doesn't make the album notable.

NALBUMS states:

All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

significant coverage
in reliable sources
independent of the subject

That's it. The two references that were there were just trivial coverage.

Take a look to see if the album has received reviews in any of these reliable sources that cover Christian music: Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. Discussion about the release might add some coverage, but not significant coverage.

Alternately, when the album is released next week, if it charts on the Billboard charts it would be notable.

For now, there's nothing notable about the album, at least not from the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The third source you added, a twitpic, is not only not significant coverage, it's from the subject's creator. Find a review or significant coverage of the album. I reverted again. I suspect that if more edit warring goes on, the article could be locked or one of us could be blocked for bad behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, After further research with Wikipeida goals, I understand where you are coming from. That said, NALBUMS under the unreleased albums section states Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release..

With some searching, I have found the following, all of which are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources

Most of the information I posted about the album iscorroborated by these sources. If they are cited, do you agree that the article would no longer violate WP:BALL?

Jharris6 (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. None of these were used as references and none of them count as significant coverage.

These were your references:

https://twitter.com/iconforhire/statuses/387713939141693440

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/icon_for_hire_release_new_song_cynics_critics

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/icon_for_hire_tease_new_song_sugar_spice

I'm not sure you understand what significant coverage is. Here are [1] [2] [3] examples from JFH. NRT has some reviews, but they're harder to find there. CMZ has fewer reviews like this but they are generally always good, RSes. Please look at Help:Referencing for beginners if you're unsure of how to reference (you had a few problems with yours, but they could be easily fixed) and take a look at the WikiProject Christian music sources page listed above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the postings you listed, I understand where you are going with "significant". I understand and support your interpretation of notability, however disagree with the guideline itself. Personally, I find that when long listings are included in an overall topic, it is messy (see Firefly_(TV_series)), but that is not a discussion for here. Thank you for reviewing my work and helping me learn the Wikipedia way more.

You're welcome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]