Draft:Reaching a valid consensus for the validity of this best selling listing directory:
![]() | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Wikishovel (talk | contribs) 32 days ago. (Update) |
Dear Editors and Respectable Contributors: We need a formal consensus in order to establish this best-selling Wikipedia listing directory as a valid point of reference. Presently this best-selling listing directory is lacking fundamental credibility. I have done research through all other websites coupled with news organizations and have noticed that this list/article has very little credibility, if any. What can we do to change this? what modifications can we establish to make this best-selling listing directory acceptable as comparable to the RIAA best-selling listing directory. Case in point: The "Guinness Book of World Records" utilizes the RIAA as a point of reference in all its tabulation and computation endeavors. Moreover, the Prestigious "World Almanac" which represents global references in all its points of listing directories, uses the RIAA as it's point of reference source for all music data, even though, the RIAA only computes and certifies music sales data in the United States. The RIAA also uses a faulty computation method that leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to the accurate measurements established for all best-selling artists. In other words, they only compute and count certified levels and not the totalities of artist's overall sales. And to reiterate, they only represent the figures in the United States and not globally. This is problematic; and yet, regardless of the RIAA methodology, the World Almanac does not even consider our best listing directory as a valid point of reference. This dilemma, and with all due respect to the fine Wikipedia editors; state a lot about the credibility factor of this article and Page listing directory. More and into the point, some contributors and editors have engaged in a non-conformist "tug of war" conflict which hurts the morale of this article by engaging in disparaging attacks against one another in disputing the validity of this best-selling Wikipedia listing directory. I am hoping all this can somehow change and we can somehow restore decency, respect and courtesy toward all opinions regardless as to how contrarian they may be to the factions in dispute. In closing, let us somehow reach a valid formal consensus by engaging in a constructive dialogue for the improvements that this best listing directory needs in order to be used as a valid point of reference by all reputed and respectable arts and media organizations. We need to accomplish endeavoring through modifications and proper adjustments if we are to ever supplant the RIAA as a point of reference and thus created validity and credibility to this, our Best-selling listing directory. I am hoping for a response in how we can improve "our" best listing Wikipedia directory. Thank you for your time and courtesy.