User talk:Michig/Notability is bunk

I agree completely!

Glad I'm not the only one!

I used to think that I was a rare exception when it came to notability about musicians. I'm a relatively new editor and the first article I ever created was about a musician. It was deleted (moved to draftpace but basically gone honestly) soon after because of "lack of notability" and using "unreliable sources". You get it. Many musicians/artists involved in a more niche subgenre aren't going to get huge coverage anywhere compared to say The Strokes or Arcade Fire. My article was about a musician that's rising in popularity within the Indie/Lo-Fi/Alt-rock/Folk-pop worlds and their music is now being played in national music stations (like SiriusXMU).

I think I cited around 11 sources. I'll admit that some of the sources weren't top notch but the article was much better sourced than many other pages I've seen in mainspace. I was stunned that interviews, brief bios from some music sites (I didn't get any info from Last.Fm, social media pages,local newspaper etc. just to be clear) and words directly from the person themselves don't pass as good sources. I'm still bummed from that as the musician seriously is getting big and one of their tracks alone has been viewed/listened to over 3 million times across their artist pages. This isn't even including the radio time the song is getting nationally. Some editors just don't get the niche music world and the few sources we do find is better than none or almost none. Thanks for making sense dude.--SlackingViceroy (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)