Talk:Anywhere (Rita Ora song)

Netherlands certifications
Both Your Song and Anywhere were certified Platinum. See: "https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFe-uTHKpG/?taken-by=ritaora" And: "https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFT-Mgn4VX/?taken-by=ritaora" She even went to say they were double platinum, but I think she meant it as 1+1 x platinum for both songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BUmbrella (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Freek Heinen, brand manager for her label (Warner Music) in the Netherlands also confirmed: platinum for both! &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFlYIaBxsi/ &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It is the same case of Balada (Gusttavo Lima song), the source uses Instagram to confirm the information, so it must be accepted in the same way. &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it does not have to be accepted at all. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not and has never been a valid reason. Other pages may not be monitored as much, so users may have missed it being used as a source there, or the users there are just less discerning. That does not make it okay. (FranklinG, I hope you don't mind but I removed your extra two comments, which appeared to just be trying to correct the link you posted in your first comment. You could have just edited the first comment to begin with.)  Ss  112   16:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, your example does not hold up anyway. The Gusttavo Lima article you linked uses http://musica.terra.com.br/na-holanda-gusttavo-lima-comemora-premio-e-posta-foto,28289ab75766a310VgnCLD200000bbcceb0aRCRD.html as a source for its Dutch certification. That's not a social media account.  Ss  112   16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand your point of view, but in both cases the source would be Twitter. NVPI does not publish updates for a long time, we can not limit information that is true just because it was posted on a social network, even more coming from an official profile. &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability, not truth. A bad source is not better than it not being there. I only use social media as a temporary source, but as you just said, the NVPI doesn't update for quite a while (and I don't think they have a current database anyway). There was also confusion about what Ora even meant in her posts (as highlighted by BUmbrella above). Quite often, artists and labels get presented with certification information or plaques a significant amount of time before the award database updates. Perhaps we just need to wait. Also, I find this attribution quite vague. Ora doesn't even mention the NVPI gave her the award, so we're assuming the NVPI is still the certifying body in the Netherlands and that they gave her the award. How do we know some other organisation didn't give her the award?  Ss  112   18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, looks like you found another source.  Ss  112   18:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If Twitter is a bad source imagine a source that uses Twitter as a source, it is the same thing, there is no difference. Luckily a source was found that meets the guidelines. &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NVPI is the only organization linked to IFPI that certifies the recordings, only the database of them that is no longer updated. The sources are one linked to the others, it is not a work of interpretation, it is simple. &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Radio538 in this instance is verifying that she was presented with an award. They can embed Ora's post all they like; they are an organisation independent of Ora and the NVPI. There is a difference, and that difference comes from it being an independent secondary source and given oversight by an editor. I think you need to read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Also, I didn't say it was a "work of interpretation", it's a matter of attribution. Nobody is even saying in the original social media post that it's an official award. It's an assumption that it was given by NVPI because it's in the Netherlands. Other organisations not recognised by the IFPI could still give out their own awards, you know. It's not illegal for an organisation to make their own gold or platinum awards and give it to an artist. So there is still a degree of assumption that it's the NVPI written on the award she has. Not enough that I would remove it from the article, though, I'm just noting this could be a concern in cases like this.  Ss  112   19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly an artist knows the organization that certifies or mentions it. And if you see well there are VARIOUS articles that simply use a source that references Twitter as confirmation of the information. If Wikipedia had to wait for some source to comment on the truth of the information, we would have only half articles. Things do not work out so right here, we have to ponder and be malleable for things that are in the face. &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That other articles use Twitter as a source does not make it okay. Those articles should have those references removed. Again, you're missing the widely held belief here that badly sourced information is not better than not having that information at all. Wikipedia uses secondary, reliable sources. If we ran on primary sources, we'd have articles on everything—we could then justify having an article on somebody's dog just because somebody set up an Instagram page for it saying that dog is the best in the world. Primary sources don't impartially verify the importance or notability of something, and are frequently unreliable for this reason and others. Please read WP:Primary sources.  Ss  112   19:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I completely understand what you say, I just read it, but we just can not be negligent. Each case is a case, and should be viewed individually based on similar ones. &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should assess pages on a case-by-case basis, but relying on precedence in those cases is not really viewing them individually...  Ss  112   19:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not you find it ambiguous to use a source that evidences Twitter itself as confirmation being seen as a bad source ?! The source is only replicating a Twitter information, there is no nexus to limit this. &#42;Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In this instance, Radio538 is not merely repeating what Ora said in her Instagram posts, as they were the ones who presented her with the award in the first place. So they're reporting on it and then merely embedding her post there, not taking the information from it.  Ss  112   20:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)