Talk:Joe Bird (singer)

Notability

@Bearcat and Chickymomo28: This appears to be a recreation of the article Joe Bird (musician) which was changed to a redirect last December with the edit summary "restore redirect; no reliable sourcing has been provided to support standalone notability separate from the troupe". Have sufficient references from reliable sources been added to establish this person's independent notability? Nick Number (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you just delete the Joe Bird (musician)? I'm not even sure why it redirects but I couldn't edit it so I fixed the page only under a new name (Joe Bird (singer)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickymomo28 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It redirects to the band because you completely failed to show or reliably source that he has any independent notability under the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. He is not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists, but gets to have a standalone article only if he can be properly sourced as independently notable in his own right — but exactly zero of the sources present in either of your attempts to create an article about him are showing that. YouTube videos do not support notability; the band's own self-published website about itself does not support notability; circular references to other Wikipedia articles do not support notability. Notability is supported by media coverage, and only by media coverage — and if GigCity is the best you can do for media coverage, then that doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are tons of articles on wikipedia about people who are far less "notable"... All the information on the page is accurate, I spent hours on it, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you left it be. You can constructively criticize it, but please don't take the *entire* page down. Thank you.

Notability on Wikipedia is a factor of the degree to which the person is or is not the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to support an article. There is no such thing as a person who does not have media coverage but is still somehow notable anyway; the media coverage or lack thereof is the notability test. And nobody on here is under any obligation to "leave it be" just because you worked hard on it, nor do you have the right to demand (as you did on my talk page) that anybody "leave you alone". That is not how Wikipedia works. Once posted here the article belongs to the Wikipedia community, not to you personally — and it needs to follow the community's rules, not your own, and you get no special control over who is or isn't allowed to do anything to the article.

If you want to keep trying to make the article compliant with our rules, you can do so in "sandbox" mode — i.e. as an WP:AFC draft or in your own userspace — so that you can work on it at your leisure. But to be in articlespace now, it must properly comply with our rules now, which it doesn't.

And kindly also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there are "tons of articles on Wikipedia about people who are far less notable", then name them — because if you're right, they can be deleted or redirected somewhere else too, and if you're misreading their notability (which is far more likely) then it can be explained to you why the situations aren't equivalent. (Just as an example, people have tried to argue that articles about unsuccessful candidates in city council elections had to be kept because Hillary Clinton has an article even though she didn't win the presidency either. Didn't work, obviously.)

As well, note that Wikipedia's rules do not allow you to erase other people's comments from the talk page. You may add comments to this discussion, but you may not erase the prior discussion entirely. Try that again and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a 24-hour editblock.

But again, "I worked hard on it" is not in and of itself a reason why an inadequately and improperly sourced article would have to be kept. It can be recreated if you can show much better reliable sourcing than this, but it does not get an exemption from having to be well-sourced just because he existed. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)