This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reverted twice by User: Walter Görlitz, the most recent time without any edit summary. Care to offer a more detailed explanation for the persistence of the tag? Chubbles ( talk) 07:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Chubbles, what you're missing is that NMUSIC also states that passing one or more of its criteria does not constitute a guarantee that an article about the artist must be kept. Subject-specific inclusion rules exist to clarify what we accept as a valid claim of notability for a Wikipedia article — they do not constitute any sort of exemption from Wikipedia's referencing requirements. No matter what criterion you're claiming that the band meets, they do still have to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to qualify for an article on here — nominally meeting an NMUSIC criterion does not grant a band an unconditional right to keep a permanent Wikipedia article regardless of how poorly sourced it is.
The only criterion in NMUSIC that you're even attempting to assert here is #2 ("has had a single or album on any country's national music chart") — but that criterion (a) doesn't include "Heatseekers", (b) doesn't include peaking below 100 on the Billboard "Hot 200" either, and (c) isn't sourced to any substantive coverage in which the band is the subject, but merely to directory listings. And the only other source you've added here is a 164-word blurb in Allmusic — but (a) a short blurb is not substantive coverage, and (b) Allmusic aspires to have profiles on every single musician or band that has ever released music at all. So for both of those reasons, the mere existence of a profile on Allmusic is not, in and of itself, sufficient to serve as the only source for a Wikipedia article. It would be acceptable as one source within a diversity of quality sources — but the profile itself is not substantive enough, and Allmusic is not selective enough in its inclusion criteria, to cover off the basic notability question if it's the article's only real source.
The claim to passing NMUSIC is not, in and of itself, what gets a band over NMUSIC — the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim is what gets a band over the inclusion bar. NMUSIC could stand to be rewritten a bit more clearly, I grant you — but it most certainly does not mean that if a band nominally meets one item on the checklist, then they're automatically entitled to keep an article that's this poorly sourced. The sourcing, not the mere claim itself, is what satisfies NMUSIC.
As written, the article is making enough of a claim of notability to not be immediately eligible for speedy deletion — but it is not making (or, more importantly, adequately sourcing) a claim of notability that's strong enough to escape being flagged with the notability template and/or listed for AFD if the sourcing doesn't improve within a reasonable "grace period". So Walter Görlitz acted correctly here: you should by all means be granted the opportunity to improve the sourcing, but the lack of reliable source referencing means that in its current form the article is not satisfying NMUSIC just because it claims to. Bearcat ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz, @ Bearcat & @ Chubbles, I removed the notability tag because I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt this band is in fact 100 percent notable. Move on! The Cross Bearer ( talk) 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reverted twice by User: Walter Görlitz, the most recent time without any edit summary. Care to offer a more detailed explanation for the persistence of the tag? Chubbles ( talk) 07:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Chubbles, what you're missing is that NMUSIC also states that passing one or more of its criteria does not constitute a guarantee that an article about the artist must be kept. Subject-specific inclusion rules exist to clarify what we accept as a valid claim of notability for a Wikipedia article — they do not constitute any sort of exemption from Wikipedia's referencing requirements. No matter what criterion you're claiming that the band meets, they do still have to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to qualify for an article on here — nominally meeting an NMUSIC criterion does not grant a band an unconditional right to keep a permanent Wikipedia article regardless of how poorly sourced it is.
The only criterion in NMUSIC that you're even attempting to assert here is #2 ("has had a single or album on any country's national music chart") — but that criterion (a) doesn't include "Heatseekers", (b) doesn't include peaking below 100 on the Billboard "Hot 200" either, and (c) isn't sourced to any substantive coverage in which the band is the subject, but merely to directory listings. And the only other source you've added here is a 164-word blurb in Allmusic — but (a) a short blurb is not substantive coverage, and (b) Allmusic aspires to have profiles on every single musician or band that has ever released music at all. So for both of those reasons, the mere existence of a profile on Allmusic is not, in and of itself, sufficient to serve as the only source for a Wikipedia article. It would be acceptable as one source within a diversity of quality sources — but the profile itself is not substantive enough, and Allmusic is not selective enough in its inclusion criteria, to cover off the basic notability question if it's the article's only real source.
The claim to passing NMUSIC is not, in and of itself, what gets a band over NMUSIC — the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim is what gets a band over the inclusion bar. NMUSIC could stand to be rewritten a bit more clearly, I grant you — but it most certainly does not mean that if a band nominally meets one item on the checklist, then they're automatically entitled to keep an article that's this poorly sourced. The sourcing, not the mere claim itself, is what satisfies NMUSIC.
As written, the article is making enough of a claim of notability to not be immediately eligible for speedy deletion — but it is not making (or, more importantly, adequately sourcing) a claim of notability that's strong enough to escape being flagged with the notability template and/or listed for AFD if the sourcing doesn't improve within a reasonable "grace period". So Walter Görlitz acted correctly here: you should by all means be granted the opportunity to improve the sourcing, but the lack of reliable source referencing means that in its current form the article is not satisfying NMUSIC just because it claims to. Bearcat ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz, @ Bearcat & @ Chubbles, I removed the notability tag because I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt this band is in fact 100 percent notable. Move on! The Cross Bearer ( talk) 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)