Talk:Reiko Nakano

Nakano Credit
Hi wikipedians, I have verified Reiko Nakano has name credit and actual appearance in the references added. Thanks, SWP13 (talk)`

Notability
The article was tagged the topic needed to pass the subject-specific guideline Music. However, a subject need only pass GNG or a subject-specific guideline. (per policy in GNG). I believe the subject now meets GNG so I removed the notability template. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain that again? Which requirement did the subject pass?


 * Per Notability the core guideline, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:


 * It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
 * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."


 * Seems pretty clear to me that it is one or the other. Either the GNG or a subject-specific guideline.

–Vmavanti (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to to have clarity, I'll see if I can't add any more 2nd or 3rd party sources though. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, if it did pass one or the other, which one did it pass and why? Thanks.


 * Ok, I have provided clarity as to what policy I based my decision as in the second sentence I said GNG. Based on your contribs, you have participated in many AfDs, so you are familiar with notability. I really doubt you need more clarification on these policies. Do what you have to do. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarity? Not quite. My understanding is that musicians must pass one of the criteria at Notability (Music). Can you tell me which of the following is satisfied by this article?

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.
 * 1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
 * 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
 * 3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
 * 4) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]
 * 5) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
 * 6) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
 * 7) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
 * 8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
 * 9) Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
 * 10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
 * 11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
 * 12) Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

–Vmavanti (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the majority of the SNGs mention that a subject should meet either the GNG or the SNG. For example, if you look at the beginning of the SNG Notability (sports), it is mentioned clearly in Bold emphasis after the introductory boxes. Regarding the guideline Notability (music) SNG, they buried this information near the end, but that does not make it any less true. It's WP:SUBNOT where it says "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject." Again, also the core guideline GNG is not overridden by an SNG except in specific cases. Most of the SNGs are there to provide extended ways to gain notability, not to negate the GNG. Even this guideline says at the beginning that Notability (people) should be consulted in the case of biographies (this is also near the top). dawnleelynn(talk) 21:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked the same question three times. Why did you refuse to answer it?
 * I haven't heard anyone use notability in the way that you have stated, choosing something (I don't know what) in the general notability guideline over Notability (music). The sentence from the documentation you have quoted is so poorly written, I don't blame anyone for misunderstanding it. Perhaps we can get someone to rewrite it in plain English. I'm not convinced you are using it correctly. I would like to see all my exchanges with people on Wikipedia improve, keeping the following in mind: A less combative tone; less irony and sarcasm, greater honesty, sincerity, literal rather than figurative language; a greater willingness to answer simple, direct questions; a greater use of plain, concrete English (American English, because Wikipedia was created by Americans) over the pretzel logic of acronym-laded bureaucratese; a greater sense of co-operation rooted in the placing of the public interest of Wikipedia readers and Wikipedia first over the special interests of editors (I like this subject, I created these articles, I got these barnstars, I fight for these causes, I want I want I want, me me me me me). I'm also aware that these are the very things that some people on Wikipedia don't want to hear. But that itself is part of the problem.
 * Wow, I am sure that I have been civil though I would not claim I have been friendly. I am not sure what is the implication is regarding all the behaviorial language. You started this conversation, and I have honestly been trying to answer your query, even though I thought I was clear in my first statement. If anything came across less than civil, it was not intentional but due to the inability to provide nuance in electronic communcation.


 * Regarding your statement about you don't what I was choosing in the GNG, please see:


 * Notability or WP:N


 * "General notability guideline" WP:GNG


 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."


 * This is followed by bullet list of requirements.


 * I also found these discussions which add clarity to how SNG and GNG should work together. and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 28 the first two discussions.


 * Okay, let me give a short bit of where I am coming from. I often work with WP:NRODEO. It is by no means inclusive of all the ways a rodeo performer can be notable. One of the largest organizations in rodeo, the Professional Bull Riders (PBR), is not listed in that SNG. This is a major entity. So, there is NO way this entity is not notable and its world champions and hall of famers are not notable. Additionally, if I choose to write about, let's say a ProRodeo champion, for example a barrel racer who won the National Finals Rodeo world champion title one year, the article is not going to be complete on the strength of that one citation (note this is covered by NRODEO). I also have to look for other sources. That's where GNG comes in.


 * So, because of the examples of the other SNGs, I think it's unlikely that a list of 12 items can cover all scenarios of music notability ni the world. And reading though those archived discussions made me realize that even if someone did qualify for one of the Music SNG criteria you pointed out, GNG type sources are needed, and it actually says so in that SNG. From the music SNG "the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed." And, I now see that meeting one of the criteria still requires the sources that the GNG speaks of as well. They work together. And yet, the subject can still qualify on just the GNG requirements that are listed in the WP:N.


 * I am sorry this is not providing clarity for you on what I am doing, but, for me, just trying to explain, has been teaching me more on notability. But I have not been getting a lot of time on Wikipedia lately. I can't keep spending the majority of my time trying to explain. I wish you the best though. Sorry I was not friendlier. You do what you feel is best here. I was only helping here because I am acquainted with the editor. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. I always try to Assume Good Faith. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I recently participated in a AfD where all of these terms regarding notability were understood and discussed by myself and two other editors; I'd like it known that this is not uncommon at all. See Articles for deletion/A Cowgirl's Story thanks...note that Atlantic306 actually states that "that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:NFILM. If a film meets one or more of the above quoted list of criteria it is very likely to be notable and pass WP:GNG but it can pass GNG without meeting any of the criteria" in regard to an attempt to have SNG criteria negate GNG. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You might want to check out this article written earlier this month, which talks about notability, the GNG, and subject-specific guidelines. "Most Wikipedia articles must justify their inclusion by meeting the General Notability Guideline, or GNG." and "Critically, there are also several subject-specific notability guidelines, which serve as a kind of back door to grant inclusion to subjects that may not pass the GNG." dawnleelynn(talk) 16:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)