User talk:Tiggerjay/Resolutions/1

Greetings Administrators and thank you for your time to evaluate this request.

In an attempt to help resolve a dispute regarding the album sales of Britney Spears discography. I have asked for the interested parties to contribute to a list of sources and below is the compiled list. If you can simply take a moment and vote on each link to let me know which satisfy WP:V. You can view the original talk page here: Talk:Britney_Spears_discography#Album_Sales. I hope that we can weed out the fan sites and other unreliable sources. Also, kindly note any sites which you believe are duplicates, syndicates, etc of one another. Thank you for your assistance with this. Tiggerjay 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8x Million

85 Million [1]
85 Million [2]
85 million[3]
85 million [4]
85 million [5]
85 million [6]
85 million [7]
85 million [8]
85 million [9]

7x Million

76 Million [10]
75 Million [11]

Comments

Copied from: MastCell Talk

I'm not an expert on Britney Spears' album sales, but the only sources on the list that look reliable are Time and Forbes. Those should definitely take precedence over the other sites of more dubious provenance if their numbers don't agree. MastCell ^Talk 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Tiggerjay

A number of the websites are simply a syndicate or copy of the main Wikipedia article, therefore WP cannot be a source for itself (circular source). So those must be discounted. Additionally the remainder of the 85+ appear to come from "...zines, websites, and blogs...which should never be used" [12]. Also, since these sources appear to contradict prevailing numbers from notable sources, WP:REDFLAG seems to apply. From here, it appears that all 85+- sources are not valid, reliable, verifiable sources, and as such, we should revert back to the 75+- figure which comes from unquestionable reliable sources. Tiggerjay 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Sarah

Time and Forbes are obviously better sources in general, but I don't find captions in slide shows all that compelling as sources and I don't understand why proper articles can't be found for this sort of information. Surely there's reliable articles or something other than crap and slide shows? Anyway, I'd prefer it if you used this Forbes article,[13] not that annoying Forbes slide show for the ref. Everything on the 85 mill list looks like rubbish, blogs, mirrors (or early mirrors) of our article and other unreliable sources. Sarah 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Source	TiggerJay	MastCell	Sarah	Comments
1. 85 Million [14]				syndicate of WP
2. 85 Million [15]				Unverifiable sources
3. 85 million[16]				syndicate of WP
4. 85 million [17]				404 Page not found
5. 85 million [18]				syndicate of WP
6. 85 million [19]				Blog
7. 85 million [20]				Game description only, unsourced
8. 85 million [21]				syndicate of WP
9. 85 million [22]				No sales figures on this page
10. 76 Million [23]				Appears reliable
11. 75 Million [24]				Appears reliable
12. 75 Million [25]				Appears reliable