Talk:Hayley Williams/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Hayley Williams. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Proposed merger to Paramore page
As I said in the edit summary, I don't see any reason to have a separate page for this person. She has no notability outside of the band, as far as I can tell, and the band's page has all of this information already. Does she have a solo career? Maybe this should just be a redirect? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- As the article stands she doesn't meet the requirements for her own arrticle. I'd vote for a redirect for now.--TM 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BIO. She clearly fits the standards: there have been multiple independent sources that have talked specifically about her. She's done stuff without the rest of the band, as the article stated. Also, there's information in this article that isn't in the main article. This isn't a matter of opinion, but the following of a guideline. Yes, it needs work. I just started a stub, as she has the notability (according to the guideline) for one. Please add on if you think it may need some work, or possibly add some tags. I am going to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia here, and revert back to the article. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, please discuss on that page. If you have any ideas for changes to better this article, discuss it here. Thanks, нмŵוτнτ 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Addressing hmwith, Hayley has done about 5 guest vocals on songs with other bands if that counts as her own work. Also, there is absolutely no information about her in this article that isn't in the band article. Check it once more. This article is essentially everything about Hayley in the Paramore article, pasted into here - and references as well (save for two: one that is also mentioned on the Paramore article and could have used that source and the other from their official website). Those are the only two sources that purely talk about Hayley. So, there aren't multiple independent sources talking about her. I won't redirect it now, but I think there should be some discussion here. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should remain redirected until notability is proven as was the consensus. As you said i can't see any reason to split the paramore article and merely repeat what happily resides there. --neonwhite user page talk 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are a lot of more sources. I didn't get around to adding them, because I didn't think that anyone would debate it. I was simply being WP:BOLD. Plus, many of these things are mentioned in the article. They're especially about her, however, and deserve mention here. Most should be mentioned here rather than there, actually, and many of those sources are about her individually. нмŵוτнτ 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The test is whether she would be known or notable if she wasnt a member of the band and if there is sufficient encyclopedic information not related to the band that cannot be contained in the paramore article and i think in this case the obvious answer is a definite no, at the current time she has done little or nothing that isn't related to the band and to keep wikipedia easy to use, we can assume that users will be looking for info on her in relation to the band as so far that is all that exists. There is no point in simply repeating stuff that already exists in the encyclopedia. There just aren't any sources about her individually that aren't about her as a member of the band. Therefore she does not fit the basic critera on {{WP:BIO]] --neonwhite user page talk 05:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- That could be said for any member of any band on Wikipedia, basically. Would Brian Littrell be famous without the Backstreet Boys, for example? Haha, she could actually have an article for being a lyricist per WP:MUSIC: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". нмŵוτнτ 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Other pages aren't relevant to this case. There are literally hundreds of pages that aren't up to standard, we don't judge cases by their standards but my the one's set out by policy. Brian Littrell is a solo artist who has released albums under his own name and one several awards, making him notable. That criteria is for composers and lyricists not really for members of bands or singers. It is designed to allow article by prolific song writers and composers. It is simply common sense that a band member that has done little else but be in a band should be included within the bands article. There is little achieved by splitting up the article and repeating the same text.--neonwhite user page talk 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the article needs work. No argument there. It needs to be expanded. What's there now was simply put in place to make a start for the article. My proposal is that some of the information that has nothing to do with the band should be in this article and not in the band article. It makes more sense that way. Also, I just gave Brian as an example of precedent here. As a band becomes more and more notable, the members of the band deserve their own articles. This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but, rather, showing guidelines in action. There have been multiple sources talking just about her (try a WP:GOOGLE search). She's won honors and "awards" just being her. This has nothing to do with personal issue with me being a big fan, as that's not the case at all, actually. The situation is that we all want a consistent encyclopedia. Therefore, we should abide by the guidelines wherever possible and reasonable. нмŵוτнτ 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- What info is there that has nothing to do with the band? i can find no evidence of her having done anything else or articles that talk about her not as a member as paramore (they wouldnt have much to say as paramore appears to be all she has done). This is why she fails to have notability on her own and why it's sensible to have the articles merged. I highly doubt she will be looked up in an encyclopedia for any other reason than being in this band. --neonwhite user page talk 04:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everything in the article is specifically about her. And, well, yeah, of course she first made a name for herself as being a member of this band. That's how it goes, but it doesn't mean she's not notable. Whether or not the band itself made her famous, she's still famous. WP:BIO doesn't say it doesn't matter if one is notable for this reason or that reason, it's the fact that he or she is notable. Period. нмŵוτнτ 09:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing about her individual notabilty in the article and nothing that can't go in the paramore article. The only notability she currently has is as a member of this band, there is no evidence of anything beyond that. No-one has found any articles that are not related to her involvement in the band. Interviews with band members aren't really sources for individual notability. The fact remains that alone, she barely quality under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO and therefore it is nonsensical to have a seperate article that doesn't actually add anything to or improve the encyclopedia in any way. --neonwhite user page talk 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everything in the article is specifically about her. And, well, yeah, of course she first made a name for herself as being a member of this band. That's how it goes, but it doesn't mean she's not notable. Whether or not the band itself made her famous, she's still famous. WP:BIO doesn't say it doesn't matter if one is notable for this reason or that reason, it's the fact that he or she is notable. Period. нмŵוτнτ 09:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What info is there that has nothing to do with the band? i can find no evidence of her having done anything else or articles that talk about her not as a member as paramore (they wouldnt have much to say as paramore appears to be all she has done). This is why she fails to have notability on her own and why it's sensible to have the articles merged. I highly doubt she will be looked up in an encyclopedia for any other reason than being in this band. --neonwhite user page talk 04:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the article needs work. No argument there. It needs to be expanded. What's there now was simply put in place to make a start for the article. My proposal is that some of the information that has nothing to do with the band should be in this article and not in the band article. It makes more sense that way. Also, I just gave Brian as an example of precedent here. As a band becomes more and more notable, the members of the band deserve their own articles. This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but, rather, showing guidelines in action. There have been multiple sources talking just about her (try a WP:GOOGLE search). She's won honors and "awards" just being her. This has nothing to do with personal issue with me being a big fan, as that's not the case at all, actually. The situation is that we all want a consistent encyclopedia. Therefore, we should abide by the guidelines wherever possible and reasonable. нмŵוτнτ 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Other pages aren't relevant to this case. There are literally hundreds of pages that aren't up to standard, we don't judge cases by their standards but my the one's set out by policy. Brian Littrell is a solo artist who has released albums under his own name and one several awards, making him notable. That criteria is for composers and lyricists not really for members of bands or singers. It is designed to allow article by prolific song writers and composers. It is simply common sense that a band member that has done little else but be in a band should be included within the bands article. There is little achieved by splitting up the article and repeating the same text.--neonwhite user page talk 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- That could be said for any member of any band on Wikipedia, basically. Would Brian Littrell be famous without the Backstreet Boys, for example? Haha, she could actually have an article for being a lyricist per WP:MUSIC: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". нмŵוτнτ 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The test is whether she would be known or notable if she wasnt a member of the band and if there is sufficient encyclopedic information not related to the band that cannot be contained in the paramore article and i think in this case the obvious answer is a definite no, at the current time she has done little or nothing that isn't related to the band and to keep wikipedia easy to use, we can assume that users will be looking for info on her in relation to the band as so far that is all that exists. There is no point in simply repeating stuff that already exists in the encyclopedia. There just aren't any sources about her individually that aren't about her as a member of the band. Therefore she does not fit the basic critera on {{WP:BIO]] --neonwhite user page talk 05:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are a lot of more sources. I didn't get around to adding them, because I didn't think that anyone would debate it. I was simply being WP:BOLD. Plus, many of these things are mentioned in the article. They're especially about her, however, and deserve mention here. Most should be mentioned here rather than there, actually, and many of those sources are about her individually. нмŵוτнτ 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BIO. She clearly fits the standards: there have been multiple independent sources that have talked specifically about her. She's done stuff without the rest of the band, as the article stated. Also, there's information in this article that isn't in the main article. This isn't a matter of opinion, but the following of a guideline. Yes, it needs work. I just started a stub, as she has the notability (according to the guideline) for one. Please add on if you think it may need some work, or possibly add some tags. I am going to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia here, and revert back to the article. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, please discuss on that page. If you have any ideas for changes to better this article, discuss it here. Thanks, нмŵוτнτ 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to change the article to a redirect. It's a 2-person discussion, with one person feeling one way, and another feeling a different way. We both appear to be interpreting the policy completely differently. I mean, you said that she "barely qualifies" (assume that's what you meant) for an article... You said right there that she deserves an article (even if she barely does). So why did you delete the content? Please discuss further without making changes. Also, if you want to merge to two articles, please add all of this information into the other article in the future, although, in this case, much of it is not relevant to the band at all (hence the making of this article). нмŵוτнτ 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The consenus is on the paramore talk page. There simply is no information in this article that cannot be included or is currently in the main article. We don't split pages just for the sake of making a pointless new page that contains nothing original. It is a generla guideline that band member do not have individual notability for being the member of a notable group unless they have notability outside of the group. So far i cannot find any evidence of this person having done anything other than being in this band, this makes her a non-notable person in the context of this encyclopedia. It would help if you could outline here any information that is not trivia and is not related to the band and therefore cannot be included in the main article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- She does have notability outside the group, per WP:BIO. Could you please direct me to the page the says the guideline you paraphrased, anyways? нмŵוτнτ 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just checked out the talk page. What? There is no consensus whatsoever. You and one other person held your opinion, and two others held another opinion. It was 50/50. Actually, plus me, now, it makes consensus lean towards her having an article, if anything. The other tiny bit of information in the archives (from before they were hardly notable) is outdated and further obsolete. New consensus must be reached, which is what I'm trying to do, but you are hindering the development of it (the consensus). Please keep an open mind, and don't refuse any changes with which you, personally, do not agree. нмŵוτнτ 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no evidence of any notablility outside the group whatsoever. Two experienced editors made valid points based on policy and one other person made an point not based on an policy, that was the consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is based on making points based on policy. You have failed to show any evidence to back up your claims of notability. Therefore they are being dismissed as personal opinion. You cannot make a personal decision based on your POV that a person is notable, you must provide evidence that asserts that notability. Policy, speficially WP:MUSIC which is the accepted guide for musicians, rather WP:BIO says that band members who's only notability is in being member of a notable band do not usually need or warrent seperate articles unless they have a life outside the band. in this case i cannot see one. Feel free to prove me wrong. --neonwhite user page talk 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't let my opinion bias articles or decisions (I don't even listen to this band). I first realized who she was through the Hayley page, and I looked into her. I simply am a neutral editor, previously uninvolved with edits concerning this band, trying to create a neutral, consistent encyclopedia. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. Good day, нмŵוτнτ 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no evidence of any notablility outside the group whatsoever. Two experienced editors made valid points based on policy and one other person made an point not based on an policy, that was the consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is based on making points based on policy. You have failed to show any evidence to back up your claims of notability. Therefore they are being dismissed as personal opinion. You cannot make a personal decision based on your POV that a person is notable, you must provide evidence that asserts that notability. Policy, speficially WP:MUSIC which is the accepted guide for musicians, rather WP:BIO says that band members who's only notability is in being member of a notable band do not usually need or warrent seperate articles unless they have a life outside the band. in this case i cannot see one. Feel free to prove me wrong. --neonwhite user page talk 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just checked out the talk page. What? There is no consensus whatsoever. You and one other person held your opinion, and two others held another opinion. It was 50/50. Actually, plus me, now, it makes consensus lean towards her having an article, if anything. The other tiny bit of information in the archives (from before they were hardly notable) is outdated and further obsolete. New consensus must be reached, which is what I'm trying to do, but you are hindering the development of it (the consensus). Please keep an open mind, and don't refuse any changes with which you, personally, do not agree. нмŵוτнτ 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- She does have notability outside the group, per WP:BIO. Could you please direct me to the page the says the guideline you paraphrased, anyways? нмŵוτнτ 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lacy Mosely dosen't have any notability outside of Flyleaf and she still has her own page.I think you should make the page about her life growing up, like Lacy's is. Mr. Greenchat 15:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The consenus is on the paramore talk page. There simply is no information in this article that cannot be included or is currently in the main article. We don't split pages just for the sake of making a pointless new page that contains nothing original. It is a generla guideline that band member do not have individual notability for being the member of a notable group unless they have notability outside of the group. So far i cannot find any evidence of this person having done anything other than being in this band, this makes her a non-notable person in the context of this encyclopedia. It would help if you could outline here any information that is not trivia and is not related to the band and therefore cannot be included in the main article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Intent to write article
I as of now am researching this , have found sources for notability, and intend to create this page with when I finish my research. Please direct discussion to my talk page. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Chrislk02/sandbox is a link to where I am working on this article. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- she stills has no notability outside of the band and has done nothing that isnt involved in the band so according to policy she doesnt warrant a seperate article, if you have sourced info add it to Paramore. --neonwhite user page talk 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Im sorry, if i have enough information to meet requirements at WP:NOTE and WP:BIO,(which i intent to show that I do) i am going to write the article. If you object after i create it, you can take it to WP:AFD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have zero sources that demostrate any notability outside of the band. Members of bands do not inherit notability from the band. see WP:MUSIC for more accurate info about notability in music. You have to demonstrate that they have done other unrelated acts that are of note. It doesn't need to go to afd it will just be reverted to the redirect as it has been done countless times before. Until she has individual notability then band related info can easily be included in the Paramore article as most of it already is. --neonwhite user page talk 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that she has received individual coverage (in the form of interviews) from reliable sources (rolling stones). These are interviews of with her (not her and the rest of the band). I am fairly sure she meets notability requirements, IF this is an issue, I will gladly ask for 3rd opinions from peoiple unrelated to this topic to determine a new consensus. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- The interviews are concerning paramore and her part in the group (Rolling Stone introduces her as "Paramore's Hayley Williams"), therefore they aren't individual or independent of the group and her notability is due to the group not to individual acts of note. i.e. she is inheriting it from the paramore subject. So unless the info is too large to be contained there, there's no reason for a split. The previous consensus is not that old and as nothing much has changed since (she is still only a member of a notable group), i see no reason why the consensus would change to one that goes against guidelines. --neonwhite user page talk 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that she has received individual coverage (in the form of interviews) from reliable sources (rolling stones). These are interviews of with her (not her and the rest of the band). I am fairly sure she meets notability requirements, IF this is an issue, I will gladly ask for 3rd opinions from peoiple unrelated to this topic to determine a new consensus. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have zero sources that demostrate any notability outside of the band. Members of bands do not inherit notability from the band. see WP:MUSIC for more accurate info about notability in music. You have to demonstrate that they have done other unrelated acts that are of note. It doesn't need to go to afd it will just be reverted to the redirect as it has been done countless times before. Until she has individual notability then band related info can easily be included in the Paramore article as most of it already is. --neonwhite user page talk 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Im sorry, if i have enough information to meet requirements at WP:NOTE and WP:BIO,(which i intent to show that I do) i am going to write the article. If you object after i create it, you can take it to WP:AFD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- she stills has no notability outside of the band and has done nothing that isnt involved in the band so according to policy she doesnt warrant a seperate article, if you have sourced info add it to Paramore. --neonwhite user page talk 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Hayley Williams
Before you deltete the article shouldn't yoguys disscuss it first?Edit warring isn't allowed and it's going to get you both blocked. Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not being deleted it was merged according to guidelines some time ago on the basis of overlap as the page is largely copied from the main Paramore article (like the entire "Paramore" section is the history of the band taken from the main article, it's not about her at all) and the info being attributed to this individual is actually about the band and not her as an individual. As WP:MUSIC says Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band.. No member of this band has. Notability is not inherited, so a subject doesnt inherit notability from being a member of a notable group. --neonwhite user page talk 17:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mark Arm, Steve Turner, Gary Lee Conner and Van Conner are not notable and have their own pages. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The are many poor and non-notable articles on wikipedia, especially about band members, they are often largely unsourced, full of trivia and written by Wikipedia:Fancruft:fans. We can't use other stuff exists as a reason for a subject to have an article. However in this case it appears Mark Arm has solo projects outside of his band and played with other bands and has an acting career which establishes his notability. The other three are less clear but Van Conner seems to have been involved with enough notable side projects and other bands to establish his notability. Regardless three of those articles are stubs and would probably be better merged to a main article. We need to remember that merging does not remove or change information it simply collects related info in a central place were it is easier to access and in this case removes the duplication of info and also that wikipedia isn't a directory of musicians. It is simply a matter of structure, it shouldn't not be seen as a comment on or an insult to the subject. --neonwhite user page talk 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- As much as I don't want to I'm afraid I have to agree with Neon White in this case.Wikipedia has its rules and in order for wikipedia to be effective we must follow them.Perhaps when Hayley Williams does something for another band or does something that gets her notable we can make this page.Until then we can't do anything. Happy Editing Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The are many poor and non-notable articles on wikipedia, especially about band members, they are often largely unsourced, full of trivia and written by Wikipedia:Fancruft:fans. We can't use other stuff exists as a reason for a subject to have an article. However in this case it appears Mark Arm has solo projects outside of his band and played with other bands and has an acting career which establishes his notability. The other three are less clear but Van Conner seems to have been involved with enough notable side projects and other bands to establish his notability. Regardless three of those articles are stubs and would probably be better merged to a main article. We need to remember that merging does not remove or change information it simply collects related info in a central place were it is easier to access and in this case removes the duplication of info and also that wikipedia isn't a directory of musicians. It is simply a matter of structure, it shouldn't not be seen as a comment on or an insult to the subject. --neonwhite user page talk 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is patently absurd that Hayley Williams redirects to Paramore. I wonder how many readers have come here for basic biographical information and left frustrated. I could cite a million bandmembers on Wikipedia who are less notable and have their own pages. Christ, if Pokemon episodes can have their own pages, a popular musician deserves to as well. ---FoodMarket talk! 07:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Paramore article contains all sourced information available about the band members at the current time. The band might have some notability but there is no evidence that individual members do. --neon white talk 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think Hayley should have her own page. Besides members in other bands have their own page, like the members in Yellowcard and they don't have that much notability.Parajunkie (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about what you think. She is not notable. The only members of yellowcard that have articles are those that have been previously or currently involved with other groups. --neon white talk 22:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think Hayley should have her own page. Besides members in other bands have their own page, like the members in Yellowcard and they don't have that much notability.Parajunkie (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Paramore article contains all sourced information available about the band members at the current time. The band might have some notability but there is no evidence that individual members do. --neon white talk 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There's only one guy who thinks that Hayley has not notability NEON WHITE! why don't you apply the same policy with other bands? i think some members of MCR has not notability besides the band, the same with others, but you seems to hate Paramore... Hayley are a member of a notable band and needs a separate article, same with the other members. Maul day (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus involving multiple editors based on wikipedia policy. The band is notable. She is not. Notability is not inherited. Individuals don't gain individual notability by being involved with notable groups. --neon white talk 23:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Get over it!
Will people please stop recreating the damn page? She is not notable enough for her own article. This is clear from the fact that the article is basically Paramore's history, but written with Hayley as the subject of each sentence rather than the band. Read WP:MUSIC and stop creating unnecessary pages! Nouse4aname (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The lead singer of Paramore (a Grammy nominated band) qualifies for her own page. --NotoriousTF (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, she does not. The band is grammy nominated. She has done nothing notable outside of the band, and hence does not satisfy the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with it, as I said on your talk page, nominate the article for speedy deletion. Stop trying to police the internet.--NotoriousTF (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- This merge has been decided by consensus based on the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Merging has no effect on content other than where it can be found. The redirect to the Paramore article is useful for navigation of the encyclopedia, it is the logical place to direct 'Hayley Williams' searches to as the only current sourced info (and therefore the only assertion of notability) is related to and often reliant upon the parent article. Deleting the page, therefore, would not be helpful. If you have any sourced info on the subject you are welcomed to included it in the main article. --neon white talk 17:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just a thought; the fact that so many Wikipedians want a page for Hayley Williams suggests that there would be more to her article than just talk about her band. I do agree with you that there is no point in creating a page that would be a copy of the Paramore page, minus everything non-Hayley Willaims related. I know I said speedy deletion, but I meant (in my head), speedy decision-on-whether-it-should-be-a-page-or-a-redirect. I still think something like that would be useful, in order to give the creation of said page a chance. I've asked someone else, but could you point me to the exact section at WP:MUSIC which isn't satisfied? Thanks.--NotoriousTF (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- notability is not based on the feelings of editors but the criteria set out in policy. No sources so far have provided anything unrelated to the band. Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles is the criteria applied to musicians. Especially note the line "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." It's related to the concept of notability not being inherited. --neon white talk 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying its anything to do with feelings, but that according to some of the above posts, there is more than her than just her band work. Also while I'm at it, whats the big deal if she has her own page full of info purely relating to her and the band? I could understand if it made people lose out in some way, but by removing the redirect nobody looses out. The whole insistence on the page being a redirect is quite pointless really. Oh well, cheers for the WP:MUSIC pointer.--NotoriousTF (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- There been no sources that show anything seperate from the band or anything added to the main article that doesnt seem to belong. Wikipedia has a policy to limit what subjects are worthy of an article. Whilst there is no practically limit to the amount of pages a digital encyclopedia can have it was decided to limit them as articles concerning lesser known subjects tend to lead to unverifiable and inaccurate articles. A redirect is good for navigation as, considering that there is no info unrelated to the band, it's reasonable to assume that any searches for 'Hayley Williams' will be related to the band, therefore redirecting to the main article, which contains more info than would be contained here, aids the user. Wikipedia contains many such redirects. --neon white talk 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying its anything to do with feelings, but that according to some of the above posts, there is more than her than just her band work. Also while I'm at it, whats the big deal if she has her own page full of info purely relating to her and the band? I could understand if it made people lose out in some way, but by removing the redirect nobody looses out. The whole insistence on the page being a redirect is quite pointless really. Oh well, cheers for the WP:MUSIC pointer.--NotoriousTF (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- notability is not based on the feelings of editors but the criteria set out in policy. No sources so far have provided anything unrelated to the band. Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles is the criteria applied to musicians. Especially note the line "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." It's related to the concept of notability not being inherited. --neon white talk 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just a thought; the fact that so many Wikipedians want a page for Hayley Williams suggests that there would be more to her article than just talk about her band. I do agree with you that there is no point in creating a page that would be a copy of the Paramore page, minus everything non-Hayley Willaims related. I know I said speedy deletion, but I meant (in my head), speedy decision-on-whether-it-should-be-a-page-or-a-redirect. I still think something like that would be useful, in order to give the creation of said page a chance. I've asked someone else, but could you point me to the exact section at WP:MUSIC which isn't satisfied? Thanks.--NotoriousTF (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- This merge has been decided by consensus based on the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Merging has no effect on content other than where it can be found. The redirect to the Paramore article is useful for navigation of the encyclopedia, it is the logical place to direct 'Hayley Williams' searches to as the only current sourced info (and therefore the only assertion of notability) is related to and often reliant upon the parent article. Deleting the page, therefore, would not be helpful. If you have any sourced info on the subject you are welcomed to included it in the main article. --neon white talk 17:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with it, as I said on your talk page, nominate the article for speedy deletion. Stop trying to police the internet.--NotoriousTF (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, she does not. The band is grammy nominated. She has done nothing notable outside of the band, and hence does not satisfy the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Missing templates from page
{{editprotected}}
{{Guitar Hero series}}
{{Paramore}}
201.116.29.242 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Done added Paramore, don't think Guitar Hero is necessary. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Retored the merge again
As the above issues have not been addressed and the page remains 90% copied from the main article. --neon white talk 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi neon white. I apologize for taking so long to respond; I would prefer to do so after a few days' reflection.
- However, I believe I have addressed the issue in complete at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Hayley Williams and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 15. Please read those comments in full and respond to them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have read the points you made in full but i believe you have missed some key points made on this page. The merge was not done simply on the basis of lack of notability. The key reason was 'overlap' as outlined at Wikipedia:MERGE#Merging. A considerable amount of this page has simply been copied and pasted from the parent article. Everything from Musical style and influences section onwards (and a considerable part of the paramore section) is a direct duplication of info on the parent article and refers specifically to the band not her as an individual, this includes releases, influences and award nominations that are incorrectly attributed to her when they are in fact the bands. The problem with all the sources provided so far is that they are primarily about the band and only mention her as a member. There is very little info available that i can see that is not related to the band. This is why the principle at WP:MUSIC was created - Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Because, as is the case here, it usually ends up with 2 articles primarily covering the same subject (paramore) here as we have here or, to a lesser extent, an article full of trivia, fancruft and unsourced bio info. --neon white talk 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This article does not belong. There is not enough original content about Williams as a person. The majority of it is just about the band. Heck, it looks like a copy+paste job from Paramore. Re-do the article or merge and be done with it. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 08:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, you beat me to it. I just removed all the copy/paste from Paramore, none of which had to do with Ms. Williams. I fundamentally disagree there is not enough subject matter on her; again, if you see my comments above, and follow the links, I have provided them. For example, getting the Ms. Fashionista award or whatever.
- But I agree, the Paramore duplication has to go. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree the duplication should go, unless it is specifically about hayley. I also disagree hayley should not have an article. I tried to break it out a while ago, did a lot of research found MANY reliable sources that interviewed hayley, and covered stuff about her, much mroe than most articles on musical artists. I think neon white has some ownership issues of this article. Hayley is clearly notable and there is a precedence to create articles for priminent band members, even if they are stub articles. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The only reliable sources so far, as i have pointed out, are about the band, none cover her in any detail or suggest anything of note that is unrelated to involvement in the band. Interviews aren't considered good sources for notability. Secondary sources are prefered whereas interviews are primary sources and are not objective. Your accusations of bad faith are uncivil and inappropriate pleae discuss the issues in a civil manner. Subjects need to establish notability according to guidelines and this has not been done as of yet. Stub articles are pointless. I remind you that we do not simply create articles for the sake of it or because we like the subject. Wikipedia is edited for the readers benefit. I think some people are mistaking there own knowledge of the subject with notability. Outside of the band, there is noting to note on this person and is largely unknown. --neon white talk 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and having an erticle for Hayley Williams is for the readers benefit. The article was not created/kept because it was liked, it is because it meets wikipedias notability requirements. In fact, this is one of the best cited stub articles I have ever seen on a musician. This is to the readers benefit because anybody looking for information on Hayley Williams will now be able to get specific information in the article on her, not having to dig through an article on the band. However, this is all backed up with wikipedia policy, cited, and a decent stub, and def to the readers benefit. (oh, and if you look at the deletion review which I followed there is a nice list of sources that meet wikipedias reliable source requirements).Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and about what you just added when you said, "I think some people are mistaking there own knowledge of the subject with notability," is false. THe article stands because of the plethora of citations that assert notability. Also, your argument that she is not ntoable outside of the band is a poor argument. You could argue that no major musician would not be notable outside of there band. In fact, it is true that paramore is what makes her notable but the fact is, she is notable. She is referenced in popular culture, and many very reliable source which, according to wikipedias policies, assert notability. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand core policy, we have guidelines on what is notable, it is those that we use to establish what articles should exist. There was a clear consenus to merge the articles which followed the guidelines. There has been no individual notability established as of yet. Specific information on her is included in the paramore article like it is with countless other articles. Articles use contents and direct links so there is no issue of 'digging' through an article. Please do not misrepresent policies and guidelines or misrepresent the sources provided, the guidelines at WP:MUSIC are clear that members of notable group must establish notability other than belonging to a notable group. Notability is not inherited. A subject cannot claim notability through association with a related notable subject which is exactly what this article currently does. A seperate article requires seperate notability. Simply asserting that sources exist does not establish notability. You will need to do better. Produce evidence of notability outside the band to satisfy guidelines or your position is very poor. --neon white talk 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that she, as a person (not as part of the entire band), performed motion capture to be an unlockable character in a very popular video games of the day (Guitar Hero World Tour).While I am sure this is linked to paramore, it is also evidence of her notablility. Also the fact that she is the one interviewed (by herself, not as part of the band), the fact that there is much reliable coverage of HER ARE all acceptable arguments and your claim that my arguments are weak is predicated on a false assumption that the rules you are following are policies, which they are not they are merely guidelines. You can argue all you want but your entire argument is based off of a guideline, not a policy. While guidelines are a good idea, they do not always need to be followed and most often consensus is important. As evidenced at deletion review, there is a consensus to have this undeleted. I recommend you work on trying to enhance the article instead of putting all this work into fighting it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you want to get into the precedent set by other comparable bands such as Three Doors Down, who all of there members have an article Matt Roberts, Todd Harrell, Chris Henderson (musician), Greg Upchurch, Richard Liles, Brad Arnold. Or, lesser known band such as Killswitch Engage, who all members also have there own page. I think you are mis-interpreting the spirit of the guideline, to prevent every person who thinks there band is notable from also creating articles on themselves. However, bands such as paramore, Three Doors Down and many others are popular. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Other stuff exists" is irrelevant, bad articles exist and will likely go in the future (thank you for pointing some out, they will be dealt with in time) we don't base decisions on that. Unless you can provide significant reliable sources documenting notability not inherited from the band, the claims simply represent a personal desire for an article paying reverance to the subject. WP:MUSIC represents a community wide consensus that made the decision that fancrufty articles such as these were unecessary. I have been involved in the development of the guidelines and am well aware of the reasoning behind their existance and i believe this article is a very good example of the articles the guidelines were developed to remove (short, considerable overlap, lots of unsourced stuff, nothing that is unrelated to the parent article etc.). A wide consensus of this type is more relevant than any smaller consensus, that is why the drv is essentially void. It wasnt open, advertised and essential points were missed or ignored. The consensus on this page was far more important as it was based on the guidelines at WP:MUSIC and involved the editors working on both pages. The bottom line is that nobody has yet to come up with a good reason why this article, which consists mainly of info copied from the parent is necessary and why the info already in the parent article is not sufficient. It's good practice to ask those questions when considering a merge rather than rather than asking whether you want the page. --neon white talk 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you want to get into the precedent set by other comparable bands such as Three Doors Down, who all of there members have an article Matt Roberts, Todd Harrell, Chris Henderson (musician), Greg Upchurch, Richard Liles, Brad Arnold. Or, lesser known band such as Killswitch Engage, who all members also have there own page. I think you are mis-interpreting the spirit of the guideline, to prevent every person who thinks there band is notable from also creating articles on themselves. However, bands such as paramore, Three Doors Down and many others are popular. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that she, as a person (not as part of the entire band), performed motion capture to be an unlockable character in a very popular video games of the day (Guitar Hero World Tour).While I am sure this is linked to paramore, it is also evidence of her notablility. Also the fact that she is the one interviewed (by herself, not as part of the band), the fact that there is much reliable coverage of HER ARE all acceptable arguments and your claim that my arguments are weak is predicated on a false assumption that the rules you are following are policies, which they are not they are merely guidelines. You can argue all you want but your entire argument is based off of a guideline, not a policy. While guidelines are a good idea, they do not always need to be followed and most often consensus is important. As evidenced at deletion review, there is a consensus to have this undeleted. I recommend you work on trying to enhance the article instead of putting all this work into fighting it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand core policy, we have guidelines on what is notable, it is those that we use to establish what articles should exist. There was a clear consenus to merge the articles which followed the guidelines. There has been no individual notability established as of yet. Specific information on her is included in the paramore article like it is with countless other articles. Articles use contents and direct links so there is no issue of 'digging' through an article. Please do not misrepresent policies and guidelines or misrepresent the sources provided, the guidelines at WP:MUSIC are clear that members of notable group must establish notability other than belonging to a notable group. Notability is not inherited. A subject cannot claim notability through association with a related notable subject which is exactly what this article currently does. A seperate article requires seperate notability. Simply asserting that sources exist does not establish notability. You will need to do better. Produce evidence of notability outside the band to satisfy guidelines or your position is very poor. --neon white talk 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
←The DRV clearly stands. Anything receiving direct attention to form a consensus is clearly more valuable than a consensus formed over a broad set of concepts (such as guidelines). I am well aware of what the guidelines state. I will even go as far as to say I think the 3 doors down musicisans articles could pretty easily be merged. I however think this is a case where hayley williams is much more notable than you are agreeing. Even with the most recent addition of other bands projects she has been featured in further strengthens the argument of notability as the guidelines WP:MUSIC even makes a distinction that being involved in other musical projects is often a sign of notability. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The DRV is void, it was done without notification of anyone involved. The deletion review was about a 2 and a half year old article that is long gone and ignored the consensus already established on this page. You cannot go somewhere and attempted to gain a seperate consensus behind one that is already established or being discussed. That's why it is worthless and obviously in dispute. See WP:CONSENSUS for a better understanding of what is required for a proper consensus. Wikipedia is not a legal system. A consensus is simply the last agreement made by parties involved, there is nothing binding and noting official. By definition you cannot have a consensus without involvement of all the parties in dispute. You have get to provide anything that asserts the notability of this person. Only if she is a member of other bands etc, this is actually not a sign of notability but simply means that a person who has been involved with several groups cannot be merged to multiple pages so therefore a seperate page is the only way to do it. However this is not the case here there is no question that this person would be merged to any other article based on some other vocal performances which is not a criteria for notability. Maybe if any of the songs were major hits and she was attributed in the title but non-notable guest vocals arent really that significant. --neon white talk 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. Hayley Williams is not notable enough to warrant her own article. There are no reliable sources that feature her individually, and that are not just talking about Paramore. She has failed to establish any individual notability. As Neon White states above, no one was informed of this other discussion, and the fact that we are still not in agreement should indicate that what you think is a consensus is nothing of the sort. The article should be restored to a redirect, and wait until she actually does something of note. Any interview etc in which she features on her own (eg, there are a few from Rolling Stone), think about this? Why is she being interviewed? Because she is individually notable? No, because she is the front person of Paramore. These features are based solely on her featuring in a notable band, and have nothing to do with her own individual notability. Think of it this way, if she wasn't in Paramore, would she be interviewed in the first place? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the question to be asking now is, if you mention the name hayley williams will people know who you are talking about? Yes her notability is linked to paramore but my interpretation of WP:MUSIC is to prevent articles on every member of every band (especially for bands where you do not recognize the bands members names). Her notability (while somewhat linked to paramore), is shown by the interviews of just her (not the entire band) and her appeares in GHWT (not the entire band). I agree some articles need to go (see the entire band of 3 doors down but Hayley Williams is actually an example of an article we should have. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- My problem with most of the sources is that they are not about her but are interviews with HW about paramore and the primary subject of discussion is the band not her as an individual. I just cannot see how a person can be said to be notable because they have been interviewed about a notable subject. The decision that band members shouldn't inherit notability was decided, with good reasons, by the guidelines at WP:MUSIC and we cannot really change that here. --neon white talk 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. Lets take a look at WP:MUSIC and see exactly which criteria she meets:
- My problem with most of the sources is that they are not about her but are interviews with HW about paramore and the primary subject of discussion is the band not her as an individual. I just cannot see how a person can be said to be notable because they have been interviewed about a notable subject. The decision that band members shouldn't inherit notability was decided, with good reasons, by the guidelines at WP:MUSIC and we cannot really change that here. --neon white talk 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The DRV is void, it was done without notification of anyone involved. The deletion review was about a 2 and a half year old article that is long gone and ignored the consensus already established on this page. You cannot go somewhere and attempted to gain a seperate consensus behind one that is already established or being discussed. That's why it is worthless and obviously in dispute. See WP:CONSENSUS for a better understanding of what is required for a proper consensus. Wikipedia is not a legal system. A consensus is simply the last agreement made by parties involved, there is nothing binding and noting official. By definition you cannot have a consensus without involvement of all the parties in dispute. You have get to provide anything that asserts the notability of this person. Only if she is a member of other bands etc, this is actually not a sign of notability but simply means that a person who has been involved with several groups cannot be merged to multiple pages so therefore a seperate page is the only way to do it. However this is not the case here there is no question that this person would be merged to any other article based on some other vocal performances which is not a criteria for notability. Maybe if any of the songs were major hits and she was attributed in the title but non-notable guest vocals arent really that significant. --neon white talk 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" - No. She has been interviewed, but as Neon White points out, the subject matter is generally Paramore, and not Hayley Williams.
- Chart hits. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
- Gold records. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
- Non trivial coverage regarding concert tour. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
- Two or more albums on major label. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
- Contains a notable musician. Well this is the arguement, she is not notable, but Paramore is.
- Most prominent act in region or style. Paramore - probably not, HW - Definitely not
- Won an award. Paramore - Yes; HW - No
- Won a music competition. Paramore - Yes. HW - No.
- Performed a notable piece of music. Paramore - Questionable; HW - No.
- Rotation on major radio. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
- Subject of 30 minute TV program. Paramore - Probably, not sure. HW - No.
And let's not forget the important note at the end:
Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.
So, please, let's see some evidence of activity independent of the band. That means solo releases, interviews that don't mention Paramore more than in passing, some major campaigning or advertising or modeling work, anything that shows notability irrespective of the band. As yet there is nothing. Do we really think that a handful of short interviews that mainly talk about Paramore are sufficient to give the required notability for an article? I think not. Whether people "recognise a band member's name" is a rather subjective way of defining notability, and certainly not one of the established criteria above. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ive said many times that performing motion capture for a large/popular game series (Guitar Hero World Tour) as herself. She is a character herself (note, they did not motion capture the entire band and have them as unlockable characters). While she is singing a song by paramore, she is the one that in the game, not the entire band. I believe that this is activity she has done, independnat of the band. and Guitar Hero World Tour is a pretty notable game. I would not make this argument if it was aniche game, or some small unheard of online game or something. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- So that is your only assertion of notability? That she features in a game? She is there as the lead singer of Paramore, not as a solo artist, and as you state, she is singing a Paramore song. This is hardly a compelling argument of notability independent of the band. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's approach this another way, aside from information regarding Paramore, what other assertions of notability are there in the current article? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Btw, she came 2nd in kerrangs sexiest vocalist, might wanna add that, and it adds 2 things shes notable for... ~ Dboy05
- Oooh, second. You mean first loser?! Nouse4aname (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to reitterate again. Hayley is featured in Guitar Hero World Tour, not the entire band of paramore. This is def a reason to be notable. If it was the whole band that might be a different story however being she is the ONLY one featured out of the band really adds to HER notability. I am not for the inclusion of ALL artists, and wont make an argument for that but this is an example where she IS notable. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously? That is the only other thing that you can come up with that gives her notability? It is hardly independent of the band, is it? She is included because she is the vocalist. She is singing a Paramore song. She is there because of the notability of Paramore, not herself. This "information" isn't even included in the article, nor is any other claim of significance. The only thing currently in the article that asserts any notability is her being a member of Paramore, something that we know can, and should, be dealt with in the main Paramore article. Is there anything else that would make her notable? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to reitterate again. Hayley is featured in Guitar Hero World Tour, not the entire band of paramore. This is def a reason to be notable. If it was the whole band that might be a different story however being she is the ONLY one featured out of the band really adds to HER notability. I am not for the inclusion of ALL artists, and wont make an argument for that but this is an example where she IS notable. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oooh, second. You mean first loser?! Nouse4aname (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
yeah, because your able to beat her arent you8-) theres that, premio fashonista and guitar hero(which she was given motion capture for, along with travis barker, sting, ozzy osbourne and only a few others). Also, paramore wouldnt be known if it wasnt for HER.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty much a personal opinion and as others have pointed, she featured in the video game as a member of a notable act not as an individual. --neon white talk 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, first of all, it's "you're" or "you are" not "your". Secondly, please explain why motion capture for a video game makes her notable, and please prove that she is there based on her own notability, not that of Paramore? Thirdly, please prove that Paramore's success is entirely due to Hayley Williams - I am sure the rest of the band would have a lot to say about that. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)