Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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 sourcedmust 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
Notable
This subject satisfies WP:GNG and WP:SINGER "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." -
(1) Louder Than War,(interview with Baillie about the Poussez Posse and her backing vocals for Adam Ant)
This is noted in the opening paragraph. Further details on all three published works are included in the article, for which all three are used as references.
The prime focus of all three sources is Baillie's music - the Ross/Brand incident is only dealt with either tangentially or not at all, therefore WP:ONEEVENT does not apply. Romomusicfan (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
"She received coverage in some random newspapers". Who cares, why is this important, how on earth is it encyclopaedic? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
As I've said in the edit summaries, it's an assertion of notability. The subject matter passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN for receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Without it the article is prone to deletion attempts. Several past versions of the article were deleted or merged due to no assertion of notability - and quite properly too as such sources did not yet exist at the time these earlier versions were created.20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I know about that policy. But it appears you're arguing that (one of) the main reason(s) she is famous is simply because she has "received coverage"? I'm not sure she is actually notable in that case, and it appears you're using the lead to demonstrate notability, not explain her notability. Notability is through things they have done in their own life/career, not what others have done/said. She should be notable based on the fact she is a singer or whatever, not because the Tampa Bay Times covered her. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It clearly means Misplaced Pages Notability and the wikilink on the word Notable in the article makes that clear. WikiNotability is subject to strict definitions laid down in policies such as WP:GNG.Romomusicfan (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for or against notability here. But the lead is a summary of the person and their life, not for demonstrating notability. "Received coverage" appears to be a demonstration of notability, which completely flies in the face of what the lead is supposed to do. Notability should stand on it's own merit, not because somebody "received coverage". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Can you imagine the lead for JFK saying "Kennedy received coverage in the Boston Globe and the Irish Times", or the lead for Paul McCartney saying "McCartney received coverage in the NME and the Guardian". No, because that isn't why somebody is notable. Kennedy wasn't famous because the Irish Times reported on him, McCartney isn't famous because The Guardian covered a concert or an album. Baillie isn't/shouldn't be famous simply because The Tampa Bay Times wrote a review or whatever All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing about the words: "has received coverage" that is promotional or self-promotional (an odd accusation), or unencylopedic. WP verifiability is grounded in what reliable sources say in the coverage a person has received in published sources. Verifiability is a key policy of the encyclopedia. With all due respect, ItsKesha, your argument that Baillie isn't/shouldn't be famous simply because The Tampa Bay Times wrote a review or whatever does not have merit. BTW, according to the MOS, it's perfectly OK to have citations in the lead. MOS:LEAD states: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Not sure why you keep removing sourced content and the associated references other than you don't seem to like the wording. The content is also found in the body of the article. Please refrain from continuing to remove this content, as it's becoming a bit of a slow edit war. This is unnecessary. Consensus is to leave it as it was in the stable version before your bold change. If you simply do not like the words, "has received coverage", I can easily change it to "her work has been written about" in TKTKTKKT, among others publications. Romomusicfan is 100% correct that the MOS also states that that the lede should "explain why the topic is notable". Thank you and best wishes to you as well. Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
If "verifiability is grounded in what reliable sources say in the coverage a person has received in published sources", where is the source that says she has received coverage in the Tampa Bay Times? Hmm. Is the statement "has received coverage in bla bla bla" likely to be challenged? No, because it would already be sourced within the article, and thus makes mentioning it in the lead entirely superfluous. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Btw, I've just checked the Paul McCartney article and yes, the lede DOES include his grounds for passing WP:SINGER - membership of two or more notable ensembles (the Beatles and Wings) and various awards/certifications won.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Is the text used in the lead of this article - "has received coverage", followed by a list of media outlets - acceptable / encyclopaedic / necessary. It reads to me like absolute nonsense and a way of promoting the subject, and appears to argue that (one of) the main reason(s) she is famous is simply because she has "received coverage"? My view is that notability shouldn't need to be asserted by writing "has received coverage". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:LEDE clearly states that the lede of an article should explain why the subject is WikiNotable (it wikilinks the word notability to the relevant policy page). In the case of Georgina Baillie the WikiNotability is a simple pass of WP:GNG and SNG WP:SINGER under point one of the latter "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". This is a matter of MOS as well as a defence against deletion.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly deleted the line: "As a musician, Baillie has received coverage in Louder Than War, the London Evening Standard and the Tampa Bay Times."
This does not serve the generic WP:LEAD guideline "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," because it does not explain anything. It is an unnecessary digression for LEAD to explicitly name a few publishers from the end of the Music section. Any question about notability for a musician would be judged by WP:ENTERTAINER and that would be behind the scenes a TALK page, it does not go into article space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
You've quoted it yourself there "explain why the topic is notable.". It DOES - subject passes WP:GNG as has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sorces. Assertion of notability states this correctly. Have reverted your deletion Romomusicfan (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
So based on your wording here, I'll ask you again - is she notable simply because she received coverage in these publications? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
User:ItsKesha - I think not -- coverage is shown in the cites list and whether it is notable is by whether the cited items are 'significant' coverage rather than some trivial sidenote. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - We have a full interview with the subject in an in itself wikinotable website (and former print publication) and two reviews of Adam Ant concerts that focus heavily on the subject's contribution to the performance (in one case to the point of the headline focussing specifically on the subject) in a pair of - both themselves wikinotable - daily newspapers of major cities.Romomusicfan (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
First, the LEAD content guideline recommending "explain why the topic is notable" says *explain* -- as in what they did or had happen to them that makes them notable. Just naming the last three newspapers of the Music section does nothing for explaining. It is about what was said about them, not about what paper mentioned their name.
Second, yes the GNG does ask for "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", which would be by having cites listed with "significant" content. And the number three is 'multiple', but naming just the last three of the Music section seems kind of random.
For what help it may be, the specific notability guidance for musicians is at WP:ENTERTAINER
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
WP:ENTERTAINER contains, right at the top of it, a specific redirect for musicians for Misplaced Pages:Notability (music) of which criterion #1 is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" WP:ENTERTAINER is also a subsection of Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) whose basic criteria WP:NBASIC is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Most SNGs contain a clause like these restating WP:GNG somewhere near the top.)
If that is the basis on which a subject is Wikinotable (and since the word "notable" is wikilinked to Misplaced Pages:NOTABILITY it clearly means WikiNotability and not just notability in a wider social sense) then that much needs to be indicated in the lede. Without it, not only is the article not complying with MOS, it is also vulnerable to deletion attempts for "not being notable".Romomusicfan (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The coverage makes her Wikinotable, but that's an internal rule for deciding if we're go going to have an article, not something to report to the reader. We're not going to be like "Baillie is Wikinotable because..." or "Baillie has an article here because...". Use the sources to build the article. The reader can note the number and names of the sources and decide how notable Baillie is on her own, if she cares to. Don't lead the reader. Herostratus (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The requirement in WP:LEDE for an Assertion of Notability is not to for "Baillie is Wikinotable because X" but rather "Baillie is X" and Editors to recognise X as being something that passes criteria for notability and so NOT trigger deletion procedures. The actual phrase "is Notable because" does not itself have to appear, but the qualification should be directly referenced.Romomusicfan (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Obviously if an artist or band has something better from WP:MUSICBIO than baseline multiple reliable sources - eg national chart hits, certain awards, two albums on a major or big indie label - then that should be substituted. (In the case of Paul McCartney as cited higher up the talk page, we have two notable bands (Beatles/Wings) and various awards in the lede of his article.)Romomusicfan (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
SUGGESTION - The Assertion of Notability could be rephrased in this case to reflect the specifics described above - eg "Baillie has been the subject of a full length interview in LTW and has received specific in depth focus in reviews of her performances with Ant's band by the ES and the TBT" rather than simply a list of the three publications. Romomusicfan (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I think this suggestion is a fine solution, but perhaps could be shortened to: "Baillie's work as a musician has received critical attention in the press." It's not so important to include the names of the publications in the lede, since they are mentioned in the music section. Netherzone (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Netherzone I think that blurb is factually misleading and still think that this line should be simply deleted as misguided over what to show and where to show it for notability and LEAD. Doing some assertion or evidence "Baillie is Wikinotable because X" in the lead is doing nothing but hurt LEAD and diminishing belief in notabilty. Her notability is stated by the lines summarizing the "what" of things that she is known for. Vaguely saying she is noted or explicitly stating the "where" a tiny fraction of cites are simply looks like grasping at straws, it is not showing anything for notability plus failing the LEAD call to *explain*. Naming external coverage seems only suitable for some pundit or web personality without any "what" of note that made them famous and name-dropping the venues as showing them famous for being famous. Like Paris Hilton, that would still need LEAD to be the *explanation* and for GNG to be *substantial* coverage at those cites, not just a list naming a few cites and trivial mentions. The selections here seemed just randomly grabbing the last three cites at the end of the Music section because they seem poor choices to show public notability. One leads to the nothing of a newspaper paywall, another gives a single paragraph sidebar to an Adam Ant article, and the third goes to the small web pub Louder Than War doing an interview.
More accurately, she came to widespread public notice because of Sachsgate, which has cites to the bigger WP:WEIGHT publications (lead should *NOT* list them!) of The London Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Mirror among others in the Sachsgate section. Sachsgate is what made her known outside the small niche of the horror burlesque troupe the Satanic Sluts, and the friendly support by Adam Ant afterwards partly led to her music stint. The Sun, Daily Mail, Mirror, Express and so on would really be better places, but Misplaced Pages has an issue with those. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Women_in_Red_logo.svg){kind=link}