Talk:Brabant Center for Music Traditions

unusal tagging for notability
The article was tagged today because someone wants independent sources, when there have been placed independent and very reliable sources for it only. It's also completely sourced. Next to that it's a museum with extra functions, institutions that must always be estimated as reliable. (museums alway atrract people from a broader area, in this case certainly of international importance since Belgium is small) What does one need to see? Press coverage, like Gazet van Antwerpen? (Antwerp is not Brabant), national coverage in Het Laatste Nieuws? People with knowlege of sources know that the current sources are trusted more, because specialists wrote them. The tagger needs to found his grounds, because this way of tagging is not reliable. Ymnes (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The sources currently provided in the article are a database entry (not significant coverage) and an article about the museum opening published by the Resonant Centrum voor Muzikaal Erfgoed, which is possibly a reliable source but I was unable to verify. There is no special notability guideline for museums, and certainly not one that establishes that they are always reliable. The nearest relevant guideline is the one for organizations, a bar which the article is nowhere near meeting as written. The two news articles provided above are a WP:ROUTINE stub about an event held at the center and a mere-mention in the context of government funding for museums in Brabant, neither of which can be considered significant coverage. If you are aware of more in-depth coverage in newspapers, I would encourage you to provide it as that may be enough to establish notability. signed,Rosguill talk 23:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are another two national newspapers: The Standaard and Het Nieuwsblad, and another two specialized articles: in the Folk Magazine and Canard Folk (French language, so not regional at all). Sources are meant to write a good article, in stead of that an article is a display for sources. Please remove the tag. Ymnes (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you read through WP:NORG, because these articles don't appear to make the cut (with the possible exception of the Standaard, as I was blocked by a paywall. I can review relevant quotes from the article if you can provide them). The Nieuwsblad piece is one paragraph long and is a mere-mention of the subject, the Folkmagazine article is another mere-mention, and the Canardfolk website is of unclear reliability as I was unable to find any information about its editorial policies. You're right that sources are meant to write a good article, but articles are also expected to meet notability guidelines before they are approved from the new pages queue, which is where I came across this article. Right now this article is borderline, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are in fact reliable sources providing in depth coverage of it somewhere...but I haven't seen them yet and was unable to find them by myself. If you can provide sources that actually meet WP:ORGCRITE I'd be happy to approve the article, otherwise I'd like to wait for another new page patroller to take a look at it. signed,Rosguill talk 23:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NORG indeed, read it yourself and be honest: "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Isn't it just that you don't understand Dutch and have no knowledge of "reliable, independent secondary sources" in Belgium?
 * You write: "otherwise I'd like to wait for another new page patroller to take a look at it." That's indeed the best thing to do. Please don't canvass. I'll remove the banner and wait on a patroller that knows the language or knows that this is a notable museum. Ymnes (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)