Talk:Not That Far Away

9513 is a blog site not a music review site like allmusic.com or billboard.com.Wikipedia is a untrust worthy source for academic articles (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been long determined to be notable. The reviews are professional and they've had contact with artists and other notable people in the music industry. The site's link has been featured on CMT, GAC, and AOL's The Boot websites. This link has 411 hits for The 9513 and most are related to the site. User:TenPoundHammer might have more on why's it notable if you need more info. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To me it's a blog site. Clearly, by putting that as the only music review paints the artilce in a negative light and indicates a POV.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. There's just no positive reviews of the song from reputable sources that have been added. If you can find one that's worthy of inclusion, please feel free to add it. But the inclusion of a negative review is not inappropriate if there is a lack of positive feedback. That's just how it goes. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to 9513, the site/blog or whatever is no longer active.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So? That has no bearing on whether the review should be included on Wikipedia or not. It is perfectly fine for inclusion. End of story. CloversMallRat (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not the end. It's a blog review.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Its been determined a reputable source for Wikipedia. Sorry you disagree with the review, but its not going anywhere. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Who dems it reputable? I wish to see a strong argument.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Read: Wikipedia:Sources#Reliable_source CloversMallRat (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Weeks on chart

It spent two weeks on chart if I remember correctly. However, the source that say so is only Billboard subscriber viewable.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? Even if it did spend 2 weeks, it reached its peak in its first week anyway. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It didnt. SDtop being so condescending.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it did. If a song debuts at #58 in its first week and then doesn't move up to a new peak, then it peaked in its first week. It doesn't matter how many weeks it spent on the chart at that point; its trivial. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

your source?