Draft talk:Tanner James

This draft includes multiple independent, reliable, and published sources that provide significant coverage of the subject:

• Exclaim! feature on James’s “Great North Tour”
• Interview feature in the Taber Times
• Earshot and CITR/Discorder reviews of The Nix Dicksons
• Coverage of James’s film project in Lethbridge Campus Media

These sources are trusted Canadian publications. CanadianLit (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

[The following posts are from my Talk page and I'm copying them here for greater visibility and convenience--Cabrils]

Hi Cabrils,

Thanks again for your previous feedback on Draft:Tanner James. I’ve recently made substantial changes based on your and other reviewers’ comments:

• Rewritten content for a more neutral tone
• Properly restored all previous AFC decline templates
• Removed unreliable sources (e.g., YouTube)
• Replaced with stronger independent, reliable sources with significant coverage including:
  • Beatroute Magazine (Oct 2017 feature on his book I Am The Lizard King)
  • WestWord (Writers' Guild of Alberta, 2018 profile)
  • Taber Times (Feb & Mar 2024 film and performance features)

I believe the article now meets the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO standards.

Would you be willing to take another look?

Thanks so much for your time and guidance.

User:CanadianLit CanadianLit (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the draft's Talk page, where any further discussion should occur please. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils,

Thank you again for your previous review and detailed feedback on [[Draft:Tanner James]]. I wanted to let you know that I’ve now:

• Added a formal conflict of interest declaration on my User Talk page,
• Updated the draft with stronger independent, reliable sources (including Beatroute Magazine, WestWord, Taber Times),
• Preserved all AFC templates and decline notices per your guidance,
• Removed low-quality or promotional sources, and
• Focused the tone toward a more encyclopedic and neutral presentation.

If you're willing to take another look, I would really appreciate your feedback or reconsideration for acceptance.

Thanks again for your time and support.

— User:CanadianLit CanadianLit (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@CanadianLit,

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, and declaring your COI on your Talk page. Given the conflict, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of conflict of interest. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).

I note the substantive amendments you have made to the draft.

However, the sources cited do not demonstrate notability as defined in the relevant criteria. In fact some citations do not qualify as reliable sources (as defined): for example the Red Fox review is effectively a blog in a local community forum, and does not mention the subject (only the band). The Exclaim article is nothing more than WP:ROTM. None of the sources meet the relevant criteria for notability including WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ANYBIO. In short, Tanner is not notable.

And to reiterate, a higher bar is set for pages produced in circumstances of conflict of interest.

In my view the draft is WP:PROMO and at the very very best WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)