User talk:Loonieguy

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jon Stancer (May 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jon Stancer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jon Stancer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jon_Stancer Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiDan61&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jon_Stancer reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jon Stancer (May 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jon Stancer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jon Stancer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jon_Stancer Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bearcat&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jon_Stancer reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * To answer your questions:
 * Notability, for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, is not defined by what an article says, it's defined by the extent to which the person has or has not received media coverage for doing what the article says. We've had a lot of articles attempted on here over the years which made notability claims that were either hype-inflated public relations bumf that wasn't really true when we went looking for better verification of the claim (e.g. musicians claiming Billboard chart hits they never actually had, actors claiming major roles in films where they really just had a non-speaking extra role eating a slice of pizza in the background, etc.), or actual outright hoaxes (believe it or not, we have had articles created about fake Members of Parliament in both Canada and the UK who never really existed at all). So our notability tests aren't passed or failed by what the article says, they're passed or failed by how well or poorly the article reliably sources the things it says to media coverage. For example, please note that the touring criterion in NMUSIC explicitly states that the notability test is not touring in and of itself, but receiving media coverage (actual concert reviews, etc.) about the tour.
 * Yes, I'll admit that John Southworth's article isn't living up to what I'm telling you about our referencing requirements. That's not because it's okay — note the "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification." template at the top of it, which means its referencing also needs to be improved — but because it was created in 2005, when our standards for how well an article had to be referenced weren't as strict as they are now. We've learned a lot of hard lessons over the years about what can happen if our referencing standards aren't tight enough — fake MPs, self-promoting musicians and writers and actors lying about notability achievements they don't really have, etc. — so we've had to tighten up those standards an awful lot from where they used to be. It may not seem fair, but a new article getting created today does have to meet stricter standards of referencing than an article that was created in 2005 had to meet at that time. The old articles like Southworth's still need to be upgraded to meet the current standards, and are actually still vulnerable to getting deleted if that doesn't happen — so I'm going to take a stab at upgrading Southworth's referencing in the next couple of days, because where the referencing is right now isn't good enough — but fair or not, to get accepted today a new article does have to be referenced quite a bit better than Southworth's currently is.
 * The difference between the Waterloo Region Record and Canadian Beats is that the Record is a long-established real newspaper (and Michael Barclay is a well-established music writer who's published books), while Beats is a WordPress blog whose content tag cloud includes keywords that plainly reveal that they accept submissions from public relations agencies. To be a reliable source for the purposes of helping to establish notability, a source needs to be a well-established media outlet (newspapers, magazines, radio/TV, published books, etc.) whose content is created by paid professional staff rather than volunteers or PR agents, which has an identifiable chain of editorial command, and a record of acknowledging and correcting their errors if and when they slip through. It has to be independent of the subject, which is why you can't use his own PR or his record label as the source for anything that impacts the question of getting him over a notability criterion — you are allowed to his own PR materials for basic biographical facts like his age or where he went to high school that have no bearing either way on notability, but the facts that are actually notability claims have to be referenced to real media coverage because we've had many examples of musicians using their own PR materials to lie about notability criteria they didn't really meet.
 * For some examples of sources that are acceptable, the top tier for musicians would be other daily newspapers, the news divisions of the television networks, CBC Music, and music magazines like Exclaim! or Chart Attack or BeatRoute Magazine. The second tier, acceptable as long as there's some evidence of the top-tier sources present as well (which there already is, per Waterloo Region Record) would be the alt-weeklies like Now or Vancouver's The Georgia Straight or Halifax's The Coast. The third tier, acceptable for some additional verification of facts if notability has already been properly covered off by sources in the first or second tiers but not bringers of notability in and of themselves, would be community papers like the Metroland weeklies. Blogs and university or college student newspapers, however, are a no-go, and his own self-published content about himself on his own website or the record label can be used only for stray biographical facts that have no bearing on notability either way.
 * Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It most definitely does. I truly appreciate you taking the time to provide this explanation. I will continue working on it. Kind regards.