Talk:Clozee

Sourcing

All the sources are independent and again she has a wikipedia in french. clozee Artedm (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Artedm asked for a third opinion on this dispute, which I declined as this has not been "thoroughly discussed" to the point that it has "come to a standstill. Artedm, could you be more specific about which notability guideline is passed here? MurielMary, do you dispute that the sources are independent? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi see Notability_(music) all the sources are independent and this same musician has a wiki in french where she is from. Artedm (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Artedm, of the independent sources, which three do you think are the most reliable and contain the most non-trivial coverage of CloZee? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

source 1. westword 4. grammy 15. dancing astronaut 16. edm.com 17. dj mag. The french wiki has 19 sources but different language. Artedm (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, my assessment on the sources is below. @MurielMary: care to weigh in, or have you about hit your limit on this draft? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I marked this as a stub also see Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Artedm (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sources provided show sufficient significant coverage of the subject to publish this draft in mainspace. MurielMary (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, MM. Artedm, you can wait on a new AfC reviewer to weigh in, or you can move the article to mainspace yourself, expecting that it might then be nominated for deletion. For what it's worth, I'd vote to Keep based on the sources in the table + the Billboard feature you just added to the draft. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Artedm (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The djmag article beyond the cover is detailed at [1], so this looks to be significant coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Reassessed back to Stub, since it's about as much as a dictionary definition at this point. Can be filled out a little more to make it Start-class. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Artedm, please let AFC reviewers review drafts and handle the moving to mainspace. When the originating draft editor does this despite being pushed back to draft twice, it looks really bad and is much more likely to be deleted with create-protection. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi AngusW🐶🐶F Thank you for the feedback Artedm (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Westword			Part interview but definitely has significant secondary coverage	✔ Yes
Grammy			The non-interview coverage amounts to a slim paragraph	✘ No
Dancing Astronaut			Part interview but definitely has significant secondary coverage	✔ Yes
EDM.com		? Site doesn't give us much to work with at its About page and it's not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music#Reliable	Part interview but definitely has significant secondary coverage	? Unknown
DJ Mag		? DJ Mag is great, but this is just a teaser for the cover story in the magazine. If someone has access to the actualy story (or can spare the $5 to buy the digital version of the mag), I assume it's a solid source.	~ Fairly brief (but this is just the teaser)	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.