Talk:Natasha Owens

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... It passes GNG, for she has been written about by [{CCM Magazine]] and DFW.com, and her latest extended play has been reviewed by CCM Magazine and New Release Today, and those are CCM Sources.--The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This passes MUSICBIO for its two reviews and the DFW.com story.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Add recent discography
Should her release of Trump Won not be included? It got to number 1 on itunes chart 2A00:23C7:C603:6A01:8518:60A0:324E:FF66 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * https://natashaowensmusic.com/collections/trump-won/products/trump-won-cd-personally-autographed-by-natasha-owens 2A00:23C7:C603:6A01:8518:60A0:324E:FF66 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Incredible, that is actually a real song. Never heard of that and it sounded quite implausible. Sorry to have marked your edits as vandalism, they appeared very similar to a lot of political vandalism on here.
 * In principle, yes, it should be included. However, a reliable source will be needed for this. That means it cannot be a self-published source (WP:SPS), and it should ideally be a secondary source. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Secondary sources are only required to establish notability the of the subject. Once notability has been established, primary sources are all that needed for verification of the details in the article. I offer no opinion on this latest release and nor do I have to. The fact we remains that it is verifiable and relevant information and should be in the article. A suitable primary source has been supplied. Please restore the information you reverted. gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I argued in favour of a secondary source because the song attributes a potentially contentious opinion to the artist even by virtue of its name, but you're right that a primary source is sufficient to support its mere existence. Feel free to go ahead and add the song with a suitable primary source. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does it say promotes the false claim that Trump won? Isn’t that being controversial for the sake of it. I believe it should read promotes the claim Trump won. Helpful24 (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a patently false claim, though, and that is relevant information for readers. It’s not controversial for the sake of controversy; the fact that it promotes false claims in the context of the 2020 election is an important piece of encyclopedic information, particularly considering the widespread and ongoing effects of that election. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel it’s a bit unnecessary. Can I edit it to see how it looks? Helpful24 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on your reasoning a little? I‘d like to get a better understanding of your thought process, and it‘s always possible that I‘m missing something.
 * In general, test edits should be done in your sandbox, not on articles. Independently of that, I think changing it now when an objection has already been raised might be a bit… suboptimal. But it’s up to you and your editorial judgement.
 * I‘d strongly suggest we discuss a bit further to see if we can come to a consensus, and if not, we‘ll see from there. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 12:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just feel reading it, it doesn’t seem very politically neutral. I’m not sure it’s that relevant. I don’t know that might just be me. Helpful24 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Facts are distinctly non-political. However, the decision to mention or omit a fact can be very political; some would argue that every decision we make is informed by ideology. We can't really say that mentioning that a claim is factually incorrect is apolitical, but I don't think it lends disproportionate support to any particular position here.
 * More importantly, Wikipedia is not intended to be "politically neutral" in the way that I think you mean it. WP:NPOV is a core policy, but it does not mean that Wikipedia should not contain statements that may be interpreted as political. Content on Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources have reported, and that does not always mean that Wikipedia represents all points of view or opinions with equal weight and validity; see for example WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE.
 * I think a helpful way to think about this is what might be helpful to a reader here. Given that the song primarily contains false claims about an election, a reader who is interested in the song would probably want to know that. It's also plausible to think that a reader might want to read more about those claims, and there's a link to the relevant article in that sentence. Our primary goal is to write a useful encyclopedia, and I think an accurate representation of a song's contents is both useful to readers and encyclopedic. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)