Talk:George Johnson (musician)

Notability comment
"Appearing in a single source" - the source listed is an encyclopedia, in fact, probably the most comprehensive and well-respected encylopedia in music (The New Grove). This is an encyclopedia. Why would we not want an entry on a subject another encyclopedia had already deemed encyclopedic? This is not to mention the fact that any major published encyclopedia is already distilled from preexisting secondary source material. The notability tag suggests an unwarranted skepticism and should be removed. Chubbles (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then, if the subject is notable, it should not be difficult to cite some additional reliable and independent references demonstrating that. Depending on the depth of coverage in "The New Grove", that might count as one reliable source, but notability takes more than one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Think about what you just said there. Give it some time to sink in. Are you claiming merely appearing in an encyclopedia is insufficient to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia? Chubbles (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct. That is not the notability standard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By way of example: There is an encyclopedia of Pokemon. We do not, and should not, have an article on each subject covered in that encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Righto, well, we'll keep that nice big monument to putting the cart before the horse where it is for someone else to evaluate. Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a difference, though. If it's something like Britannica or Grove, it's notable. It's guaranteed to have coverage elsewhere.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There's an AllMusic entry for him as well. He's notable.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)