User talk:Cactusdillinger

Welcome!
Hi Cactusdillinger! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Establishing notability
I wanted to expand on what I put at Deletion Review. Right now you need to establish how Draft:Austin Powell meets notability guidelines. Keep the following in mind:


 * You will need to show how Powell is notable outside of his one role in the film. The movie does give him some notability, but not enough to establish notability on this basis alone. This can be done by showing where he's been the focus of independent and reliable sources, like newspaper articles focusing on him or reviews of his music in places like Pitchfork.
 * The Film and Music WikiProjects both have resource pages that cover generally what should or shouldn't be used as a reliable source. It's not all encompassing, but they're a good place to start. The pages for those are here and here.


 * Being part of a YouTube channel does not automatically extend notability. For it to count akin to a film you'd have to show where there's coverage discussing his role on the channel. Sources that only mention him in passing don't really count towards this, nor do self-published or primary sources. The channel would also pretty much need to be notable in its own right, meaning that it would have to have enough coverage to justify a Wikipedia article.
 * The reason for this is that there are a LOT of people who are YouTube or social media famous but lack any coverage in places Wikipedia would see as reliable. There was a large influx of people coming in to create pages for various social media personalities and as a result, the guidelines for notability got far stricter. Online followings in and of themselves (ie, subscriber counts) don't give notability, they just make it more likely that there will be coverage.
 * For an example of how difficult it can be to establish notability, I have to hold up PewDiePie. Articles on him were repeatedly challenged and deleted, right up until the point where he became the most subscribed person on YouTube and well after he was pretty much a household name for many younger and internet savvy people. It wasn't until after he became the most subscribed person that there was enough coverage out there to satisfy notability guidelines. Another example would be Dan Avidan. His article was brought up for deletion even though he was well known as part of Game Grumps and to be honest, the article was really only kept on the strength of coverage for the bands he's been a part of - and the coverage of him being in said bands. It was just that difficult to establish notability.


 * The Google knowledge panel and basic Google results do not establish notability in and of itself. It's the coverage that counts.


 * IMDb cannot and should not be used as a source in an article. Happy Mag is likely usable as long as they don't do sponsored articles. Their Happy Media kit page implies that they are willing to work with at least businesses to promote them via articles and the like, which isn't a great sign. Sora Music looks like they do promotional posts and such. This, paired with the brevity of the Lover post, makes them look to be unusable. At the very least it would be a fairly weak source to use to argue for notability. I wouldn't recommend using it unless you can run it through the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RS/N) and get told that it's usable. I'd do the same for Happy Mag.


 * I strongly recommend running this through the Articles for Creation process. (WP:AFC) The reason for this is that if it passes there, it stands a stronger chance of survival since it will be reviewed by another editor.

I hope that this all helps. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)