Talk:Biomusicology

Notability
I'm not familiar with the term. The only reference in the wkp article at the moment is named "an introduction to evolutionary musicology" - doesn't seem to be standing up for "biomusicology" in its own right? Can anyone support this as something that needs a wkp article all of its own? --mcld (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are not familiar with the term, I assume likewise not with the topic. And how could it possibly be notable to someone who has not taken any interest in the topic? A short gaze into the mentioned literature, even if just one article, gives an overview. In short, the term is notable. Since it comprises at least three more specific subjects, readers not familiar with terms, fields, and scientific articles might be confused. For some more preliminary clarity, as the article can only grow, I have added three pieces of literature, Darwin theorising from a biological and evolutionary perspective, Hauser/McDermott discussing the concept of 'music faculty' which has been assumed analogously to 'language faculty' in biolinguistics, and finally Zatorre/Peretz which might persuade anyone who focusses on the mention of a specific word in a book title. Also have I referenced the 1991 Wallin article referred to in the lede, and I will shortly restore the mention of Wallin/Merker/Brown - even if one article form the book is referenced this does not mean that a mention of the whole book would be redundant. Morton Shumway  —  talk  16:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Btw, under which circumstance would you agree to take the notability sticker down, mcld? Morton Shumway  —  talk  18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Hi, thanks for your response. You seem to be saying I haven't read around before applying the notability tag. But the issue isn't whether I consider it a notable topic; the issue is whether this article establishes that its topic is notable. The usual guidelines would suggest the article should have multiple, secondary sources on the topic, hooked in to the text. You've added a citation to the coining of the term which is great, very useful, but to my mind we don't yet have the secondary sources established. I would recommend removing the notability tag when there are some decent secondary sources linked in as citations from the text, preferably secondary sources which support assertions such as that of what biomusicologists are "expected to have" - this to me sounds quite formal and suggests it should be no problem to add secondary citations that provide evidence. --mcld (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed you made notability the issue, however from your first comment it seems that you are not sure whether to consider the reference acceptable, so you might check yourself whether you see the reference WMB, 1999, "An Introduction to Evolutionary Musicology" fit to "stand up for 'biomusicology'" - my impression was that you ask the question because you simply have not read the article. I was thinking that my positive response as to coverage by that article would answer your request for support. What is more, I think that this article constitutes a secondary source, and that notability in principle is given by now, but I admit that it is a veritable border case. Anyway, more sources are needed, content must be added etc., but that was clear in the first place. You must know that musicology is not that big a field, even more so when it comes to science/a naturalised approach, so it might take some time until what biomusicologists are "expected to have" is established. Best, Morton Shumway  —  talk  15:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
 * While I am no expert on biomusicology (tag added to article), a quick Wikipedia search gives several related articles: Evolutionary musicology, Entrainment (biomusicology), Zoomusicology, Music therapy, Systematic musicology, Biogenetic structuralism, and Biomusic. The subject of the article seems notable to me. Recommend Keep or Merge. All is One (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those articles are not explicitly relevant for notability, and fortunately this is no AfD discussion (yet?). Even though I am an 'expert' on the subject, it's more a question of encyclopedism (read the literature, follow WP consensus etc.) So, for there to be several more sources referenced in the text, there must first be some relevant literature collected, which I have started to relate via the 'Further reading' section. Only then can new references be made, and in that process the lede will most likely have to be rewritten. At the moment I don't have that time. Anyway, I think there are more accurate stickers that can go up on this one than WP:N. Morton Shumway  —  talk  20:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Removed tags to give article development the benefit of the doubt. All is One (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to re-open this discussion. I'm having trouble distinguishing this topic from better known fields, such as cognitive neuroscience of music. The lead must contrast biomusicology from cognitive neuroscience of music, otherwise, we should merge. Is this a case where a field goes under this in a particular region or for a particular researcher? If so, we need to say that. CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)