Talk:List of Avril Lavigne concert tours

Avril Lavigne tours
Pulling information from fansites and blogs are not reliable sources. I know information, especially international news in English appear on those sites first but there needs to be multiple connections. Regardless of how you view it, the source is obtained from reliable sources or it's unsourced, there is no grey area. Otherwise, 100% of information found in tabloids and gossips sites can be deemed as a "source". Furthermore, the concert you speak of is not mentioned by Avril, her management team, a concert promotion company or the venue itself (the website is currently down so this could change), thus the concert is non-existent per WP:CRYSTAL. I assume whatever source for this concert is not in English and cannot be obtained until with a simple English search. Until the concert date is available via multiple sources or a primary source connected to Avril, it's not going to be included. Furthermore, your "reference" edits WP:OTHERSTUFF thus it is not necessary, it's just how you prefer to style the article. Itsbydesign (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A source in any other language is still a valid source. I did find all of these sources with an English google search. But you cannot just ignore a source because you can't read that language.  There are now four sources (plenty more available) confirming her appearance here, including an Entertainment magazine (similar to the US's Entertainment Weekly), the venue's website, and a place you can actually buy the tickets.  Stop "assuming" and WP:OWNing the article ("it's not going to be included".. so we have to have YOUR permission on what YOU think is a WP:RS or not?).  Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFF is in reference to deletion discussions, not the formatting of an article.  Either way, the basis for my reference edit is not solely "because that's how they do it elsewhere".  But that is a completely separate topic that I don't have any problem discussing with you if you so wish.
 * The bottom line is that this is not your article any more than it is mine. You seem to be the only person fighting either the Manila show (that is accurately sourced multiple times) or a formatting edit.  The way to consensus is not to constantly revert, but to discuss the issue at hand.  So let's discuss.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  21:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Nowhere in my response did I mentioned a non-English source is not valid. There are over 20 sources in the article that are not in English. My comment was doing a simple English search, the only websites that pointed to information of the concert were blogs. In fact, 95% were blogs and a few message boards. If you do not count the information from 2008. Your argument is if it appears online, then it's a source. The guidelines of Wikipedia disagree with you. The sources you continue to ad (that you assume are reliable) are "Philippine Entertainment Portal" and "Philippine Concerts". These are both BLOGS. Take five minutes and actually research your sources before you begin to claim what they are not. Neither of these are "an Entertainment magazine (similar to the US's Entertainment Weekly)" as you pointed out. Last time I checked, magazines don't used WordPress or Blogger for a website. And you claim to be an internet programmer? Ticketing agents cannot be used as information is quickly changed or deleted. The only site that is deemed reliable by guidelines was the venue website (which was added this week, since it was not there when I checked on the 27th). If the source is not reliable, it gets removed. It happens in every article. I was not debating you on whether the concert was happening, the sources YOU (and a few IP users) added did not adhere to guidelines. Simple. Every edits I explained they were not reliable sources. If you were so concerned with having a discussion, then common sense tells me you would have tried to explain why the sources you choose were reliable, which you failed to do for 3 weeks. The bottom line is you failed to adhere to the rules and you got upset by it. Itsbydesign (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been upset by anything here. I simply asked for you to explain why these are not reliable sources (even though you simply described them as not being sources at all) and you never did, so they remained.  Now that you've actually decided to engage in proper discussion and explain your reasons without just blindly throwing WP:RS around like it's magical glitter, it appears you're willing to finally stop WP:OWNing the article and approving every single edit, so I will stop trying to force the conversion to  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~ ''' 00:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)