Talk:Phrase (rapper)

Untitled
Um .. this page is blatant non NPOV and advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) maybe people should stop putting up tags and actually edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Chart positions
There's no listing for Phrase at australian-charts.com; can anyone dig up a verifiable reference from a reliable source?


 * All the chart positions are taken from the ARIA report archive at pandora.nla.gov.au. Australian-charts.com only lists things that reached the top 50 of the main charts; that's why he has no listing there. Nathan86 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How's about adding the references then? Precious Roy (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I really can't be bothered going through the entire years archives to find them again. Nathan86 (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced content can be removed—keep that in mind. It's one thing to say the refs are there but without them, it's not verifiable. Precious Roy (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've told you where they are; if they're that important you can always go and look for them yourself. Nathan86 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was clever. According to the guidelines, unsourced material should only be removed when both doubtful and harmful. 1. This material is not unsourced. I have provided a link to the ARIA report archives on the page; and had previously mentioned it on here. Again, if you need to find the actual reports containing chart positions for the individual songs you can look them up yourself. 2. If it WAS unsourced (which, again, it wasn't); I don't see how it's doubtful that someone's songs happened to chart. Nathan86 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clever has nothing to do with it. The chart claims have been tagged as unsourced for some time now. Any unsourced material can be removed. You declined to provide the sources that you claim exist. A link to seven years' worth of reports does not make for a verifiable reference. Without a verifiable reference, the unsourced content can be removed. Precious Roy (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I have provided the source. How is it not verifiable? Nathan86 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you need a link to the specific citation. You can't just say "it was in Time magazine"; it has to be "Time magazine, January 7, 2008, page 32". Find the specific reports for each chart claim and THEN the content is sourced. A vague link is not a source. Precious Roy (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "Time Magazine" argument holds no weight since I have provided a link to where the data is from. Besides which, seeing as the information is not doubtful it should have just been flagged with a "Citation needed" (if it was unsourced, which it was not). But instead you've chosen the childish option of just deleting the information. And again, since you're the one who wants the specific citation so badly, why don't you look it up yourself? Nathan86 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia that wants the citation. You really don't see the difference between providing a link to 7 years of reports and a link to the specific report the information is in? You were warned that unsourced content could be removed and I gave you ample time to provide the proper references but you "can't be bothered". Well if you "so badly" want the chart position claims included in the article you should look them up. Precious Roy (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)