Talk:Bryn Haworth

[Untitled]
Bryn Haworth has been widely acclaimed as a great musician, a talented song-writer and a pioneer in the Gospel genre of UK rock music.


 * In that case, there should be many sources to back up that claim. For what it's worth, all music guide has no bio on this guy. Friday (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, Friday. Maybe I'll just forget it then. For what it's worth, it looks like too much hassle. Thanks for all the support. Good luck with "all music guide", must be better than wiki! Martinevans123 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He has in fact released 12 albums. "In February 2002 Kingsway Music released a double CD consisting of "More Than A Singer" and "The Bryn Haworth Band Live", making these 2 exceptional albums available in one package. Bryn's CD "Water From The Rock", is a compilation of faith tracks, and is the first release on Bryn's own new label, Bella Music Ltd." (- TradMusic.com). I would say his notbility is beyond doubt, not just in terms of music but also in terms of Christian outreach, certainly in UK, and he well deserves his own article, He's already mentioned in the wiki Greenbelt article. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks anon, but I think you mean Greenbelt festival. Despite the hassle, maybe it's worth trying to keep this article, after all. Just because Bryn never broke through in USA/ sold out commerially, does not mean he's a great singer/songwriter. Any contributons gratefully received. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

sources for notability
I removed some puffery of his own writing. There are exactly zero external references. If he appeared on Peel's show, or at Greenbelt, there should be some reviews. This isnt my subject, so i must leave it to others to find themDGG (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Puffery"? Hmmm, could you please provide the proof that the artists listed at Tradmusic.com write their own bio details? Why is this not an "external" ref? And how do you regard the status of the other refs provided? There is no doubt that he appeared both on Peel's show (twice), at Greenbelt (twice) and on OGWT (twice), so there's no "if" involved. But why does every media or concert appearance have to have a review? Surely the fact of appearanace is notable in itself? Eighteen albums must count for something? If it's "not your subject" why did you leave a tag? Regards Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction - he appeared at Greenbelt three times - in 1978, 1979 and 1982. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bryn Haworth" on Google currently produces 23,100 hits. Not a water-tight test admittedly, but some kind of fair indication of notability I would suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the mid-1970s, Bryn Haworth was championed by respected UK DJ Bob Harris on his Radio 1 programme. He also appeared on BBC2's The Old Grey Whistle Test - the UK's most important TV music programme of this period - again presented by Bob Harris. In my view this makes him notable. ,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Strange (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paul Strange. Those are useful links and might be used to correct/ improve the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think also having your first two albums released by Island and your third and fourth albums released by A&M (even if you do not consider any of the subsequent Christian record labels as 'notable') constitutes some level of notability. If one mistrusts the discography on the artist's own website, one could link to eg Amazon pages for the individual recordings (a quick look just now shows 3 out of 4 of those are currently on Amazon), but that seems rather over the top, surely? Iaineditor (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have followed Bryn's career since his first appearance on OGWT, and I can think of no musical artists whose website I would trust more. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bryn Haworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704113647/http://parish.ashtead.org/harv04/haworth.htm to http://parish.ashtead.org/harv04/haworth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CRYSTAL
Can you explain why you think that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to article content? I see no reason to think that from the language of the page. In any case, please justify why, per WP:V, you are restoring unreferenced content that has been challenged? Wham2001 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because CRYSTAL starts with "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." (emphasis mine). CRYSTAL is not about content inside an article, but about an article about a future even that is not verifiable. The music extension of this is WP:HAMMER. The appropriate thing to do about a future release like this is to tag it as requiring a source. There are other guidelines, such as WP:NOTADVERTISING in which we don't simply want to advertise for an upcoming album. Admittedly, it was written as an advert, but I removed the copy related to sales of the album, etc. WP:NCONCERT and WP:NTOUR apply to discussion of future concerts and tours, and believe they apply to whole articles and content within articles. WP:NOTNEWS might even apply if the SPA had written about Haworth announcing a return to the studio but no album names, etc. Not everything that a notable subject does is notable, but the release of an album certainly is notable. A hopefully secondary source should support its release. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Walter. WP:CRYSTAL actually starts with: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." In the second paragraph, after "In particular:" the first point starts "1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Your interpretation may be correct. But I have always assumed that WP:CRYSTAL applies to all claims, not just to entire articles. Over the years I have also had good reason to suppose that other editors have had the same interpretation as me. Perhaps we ought to get clarity on this fundamental point before we progress any further with this particular discussion about Bryn Haworth's possibly forthcoming album releases? Also HAMMER says: If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia., which I think is a slightly different situation to this one. As a side note, I suspect we're not going to see any secondary source for Peace & Understanding until that album is actually released. At which point is could be added, depending on the reliability of that secondary source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both are about articles, not content within existing articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you kinda said that already, Walter. Maybe we ought to ask about WP:CRYSTAL, as our interpretations differ. Let's see what Wham2001 has to say? I'm sure we all want to do a good job here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you select that editor? A neutral request at a project might be better placed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's interpretation. If the argument is one on substance, then I don't see how saying "CRYSTAL only applies to articles" is different from saying "It's fine to have unverifiable speculative content in articles, as long as there's also plenty of verifiable content to water it down".  The latter statement is, to my mind, patently absurd, and in direct contradiction to WP:V (All material in Wikipedia mainspace... must be verifiable.)  If it's one of semantics then the argument strikes me as somewhat pointless. I see CRYSTAL as being "V interpreted as it applies to speculative content about the future" and I don't see the advantage to not using that shorthand to apply to content as well as articles.  Looking at it another way, if my original edit summary had read "Rm unsourced speculative content per WP:V", would you have still reverted?  If not, why are we having this discussion?  Wham2001 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what WP:V and WP:RS is about, yes. CRYSTAL is not, and I don't accept your position as you were canvassed and likely have the same opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how I can have been canvassed to a discussion that I started myself less than 36 hours ago. However, that aside, I think you are in agreement that the content is not immune from the sourcing requirements of V, regardless of the discussion about CRYSTAL?  In that case I guess we can go on to discuss whether a mostly-promotional page on the artist's own website is a good enough reference to support the name and predicted release date of his next album, if anybody has the enthusiasm left for that discussion. Wham2001 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It's late. You're right that you can't have been canvased since you started the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While I'm eagerly getting my levels of enthusiasm raring to go, I've taken the liberty of asking a very tedious and mundane question here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)