Talk:Black Note

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jazz

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool based on the length of the article. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled[edit]

Removed unnecessary notability tag. The article has two inline citations to a reputable third party source fully accepted by Wikipedia editors, albeit one which, in my opinion, is overrated. It doesn't have more inline citations becuase there is not much content to cite - but that doesn't mean the subject ain't notable.--Technopat (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus at Wikipedia is that if notability of an article is discussed but no consensus has been reached and no one bothered to put up the article for deletion, remove the tag. Tagging editor, when pressed for rationale on talk page, cited irrelevant guidelines. Being bold: redundant notability tag goes.--Technopat (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technopat: I read that discussion (I keep Bongomatic on a tight leash). The guideline he cited was not irrelevant. Your reading of it was not correct, in my opinion. That guideline easily suggests what Bongomatic said it suggested--that "directories and databases" (such as allmusic) may "not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." How you interpret that guideline (WP:N, footnote 6) as possibly excluding allmusic, or as irrelevant in the context of your discussion, is a mystery to me. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Drmies. Thanks for your input. Not really sure how to classify allmusic, but it's not what I'd call a database or directory. That description goes more for Discogs - which is a debatable source here at Wikipedia, even though it is more often factually correct than allmusic. On the other hand, while allmusic bases its reputation on its contributions by Scott Yanow, an established music critic, much of the stuff there is plain wrong, but as far as I can tell it is accepted by most music articles at Wikipedia - not only jazz - as being the be all and end all. However, as Wikipedia prefers notability above truth, if an artist makes it to allmusic, s/he's notable. Sigh!--Technopat (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing / expansion[edit]

See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. There are sufficient sources to demonstrate notability and probably to expand the article into something more useful than its current state. ^Bongo_matic 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its current state is perfectly useful and sourced - if you think anything is missing, feel free to add to this and other Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, not all articles can enjoy the notability and featured article status of Michael Jackson and if that were indeed the criteria, Wikipedia would be limited to approxiamately the same number of articles as Encyclopedia Britannica.--Technopat (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Black Note. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]