Talk:April Meservy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on April Meservy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090211171046/http://pearlawards.org:80/pearl_awards.htm to http://www.pearlawards.org/pearl_awards.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 20:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant News Articles

Here's a dump of recent news articles that feature or mention April Meservy, and may be useful in improving the article:

• Focus on the Olympics:
  • Reno Gazette-Journal
  • [1] (KUTV news broadcast)
  • KTVN
  • KSL
  • Sagebrush Magazine
  • Deseret News
  • Herald Extra
  • LDS Living
• Focus on Canadian National Championships:
  • CTV News
  • Timmins Today

There's a lot of redundancy here, but I figured I'd just dump everything here on the talk page and people can grab what they like. A couple of the articles (in particular the Reno-centric ones) talk about her childhood a bit, and they pretty much all mention her cover being used in the 2018 Olympics. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I expect we'll see a lot more coverage over the next week or two, especially if the Canadians medal. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• Salt Lake Tribune
• Utah Stories
• Mormon Music

I'm sure we'll continue to see more—possibly even some of the big national news organizations interviewing her when she gets to Korea. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Update 2/18 Here are some more:

• Chronicle Herald
• Washington Post
• NBC
• The Star
• Macleans (It's worth noting that Macleans calls her an "indie singer")

May be more I've missed. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Should be plenty of material in all of this to flesh out the article a bit. Adding her hometown and place of birth might be a good start for anyone interested in improving the article. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards

Two different single-purpose accounts have been adding Pearl Awards. There is a continuum for awards, stretching from well-known notable awards (e.g., the Grammys) to the Tom's Independent Music Blog's Artist of the Day Award. As a shortcut for deciding where on this continuum an award falls, I use blue-link, non-redirect notability.

When the nominations for Grammys are drawing near, reliable sources speculate on who might be nominated. Nominations then become news articles. Then speculation on who will win. The awards show up in the New York Times. Even the losers update their resumes to reflect that they are "Grammy-nominated artist"s.

Minor awards generally receive little to no attention, except from artists and publicists working to build resumes.

The Pearl Awards are not notable. Currently, the most we have is Mormon music with a brief section at "Faith-centered Music Association" which says, "Over its final few years the FCMA, which was run by senior management at Deseret Book, had been viewed as a way to 'pat themselves on the back.' Many if not all projects that were nominated and receive awards, are published by Deseret Book." (Jeff Simpson, principal of the Faith Centered Music Association[2] is the president of Deseret Book Company.[3]) - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally mentioned the Pearl Awards in this article. Are you suggesting that mine is a single-purpose account? Given the hundreds (thousands?) of topics I've edited, I find the suggestion slightly offensive. Is there a Wikipedia guideline on what should or should not be included in an article? I didn't know that we shouldn't include stuff that can be properly sourced if it can't be blue-linked. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not say (and did not mean to imply) that everyone who added the Pearl Awards is a SPA. I said two SPA accounts: Dgrandpre and AprilMeservy.

As for what we do and do not include, merely being verifiable is a very low bar for inclusion. I can verifiably source the species of trees at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, the name of the company that paved the walking paths, the names of park rangers there and how much hotdogs cost at the snack bar.

One issue is certainly WP:WEIGHT. I have a hard time imagining listing awards that had a fairly short lifespan and were apparently of questionable integrity along with, the Grammys.

Imagine for a moment that the CEO of Ford ran another company that issued awards for cars and -- surprise! -- a lot of those awards go to Ford models.

The Pearl Awards were from a non-notable organization run by a guy who is also the president of the publisher of most of the winners.

This artist's notability is marginal at best. Non-notable awards don't help, see WP:NBAND. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, but I won't alter your redactions as things currently stand. I will say that, Pearl Awards aside, I feel that you've expurgated some relevant, useful, non-controversial (and easily sourced) material from this article, and that the article is the worse for some of these changes. (Though, don't get me wrong, you've made a number of improvements, as well.) But I mean, how is the article improved by removing where Meservy is from, or where she was educated? The Jade Knight (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Because of this, I'm going to gently suggest that you propose additional deletions on the talk page to weigh consensus before expunging further material in this particular article. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This article, despite the presence of some COI editors and possible autobiographical work, is a biography of a living person. If you wish to include biographical information about a living person, you will need to cite reliable sources for the information. Wikipedia's policy on BLPs is quite emphatic.

The article certainly needs some cited basic biographical info. It also needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you being facetious? BLP policy is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately..." You think where Meservy was born or where she went to school is contentious? If you care that much about sources (over noncontroversial material!), why don't you consider bothering actually looking at a couple? If you've been paying attention, I listed a number of relevant, independent sources above (including no less than 6 different major local/regional news sources), many of which include information like where Meservy is from or where she went to school. All of the recent ones also include that her song is being used in the Olympics. Furthermore, your fv tag on her inclusion in the Olympics is particularly silly, since it would have been trivial for you to fix the citation instead of just tagging it fv, given the fact that this information is readily available in tons of independent, reliable sources. It's even mentioned at billboard.com and at the Wall Street Journal. So, you know, please WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE. The Jade Knight (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when I see problems I fix, tag or remove them as I see fit. If you are unhappy with the choices I make, but my choices are consistent with policy, you can fix, remove or tag it yourself. If finding and adding the reliable source is indeed trivial, that would be a great option for you to choose. If it is silly that I didn't do it, feel free to have a good laugh about it.

As for BLP, yes, BLP. I categorize living subjects into two categories: in-your-face-notable (i.e., they have engaged a publicity team to make sure that every living, breathing person in the country hears their name and sees their face as often as possible and are trying to get an MTV reality show focused on their life) and everyone else. For those in the second category, I assume it is possible they might not want everyone to know everything about them. We've had oversight requests from some fairly notable people disputing very reliably sourced basic info: birth dates, middle names, place of birth, etc. If the editor adding the info has a source, they should cite it. Otherwise we're assuming that User:IRightStuffGood is the ultimate judge of reliable sources, never makes mistakes and clearly cannot be a vandal. If they don't have a source, they shouldn't be adding it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Touring" section

This section seemed to be intended to establish Meservy's notability through others she has worked with. Essentially, it is trying for reflected glory: "Meservy has performed alongside platinum-selling singer-songwriter Matt Nathanson, CAKE, Lindsey Stirling, David Archuleta, among other notable musicians across the country from Los Angeles to Boston and has been a featured artist at venues such as Seattle's Jewelbox Theater and The Bluebird Cafe in Nashville. Meservy has also had the opportunity to perform extensively alongside Russian tour-mate and MTV-Duets Winner, Nikki Forova."

My film credits include touring alongside... and I've been published with... (Translation: I was an extra in two films and several well-known authors' works were included in anthologies that included some of my articles as well. Incidentally, I'm allso trying to say that everyone in those films and anthologies are notable because others connected with the projects are notable.

In the present case, we're dropping names, citing their accomplishments and where they are from as somehow indicative of Meservy. Whether or not that is an effective marketing tool, it is not encyclopedic information about Meservy.

As for the overly-friendly source, compare its writing with a random bio at Allmusic. One is written to indicate who the artist is: the style of music they play, what they are best known for major events in their careers, notable controversies and failures, etc. -- it strives to be objective. The other is written to promote the artist: people they've played with who might impress you, albums you can buy (and where) -- it strives to build up the artist. While Meservy doen't have a bio at Allmusic, it's interesting to compare the first religious musician I thought of: Amy Grant: "'inspirational' (i.e., white) gospel music", "often aped the styles, of pop/rock", "lyrics that often were ambiguous in their meaning, sounding to Christian music fans like appeals to God and to more general pop fans like love songs", "videos, which emphasized her photogenic appearance", "came to be viewed as something of a traitor", etc.[4] These bits of analysis, possibly unfavorable in the eyes of some of Grant's fans, are exactly the types of things that would never show up in that source. Sources that are entirely positive erode the boundary between promotional materials and independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you are removing sourced material that I would have thought was fairly noncontroversial. Because I don't consider touring particularly important in general, I'm not going to revert, but I still think you're wrong to remove the material wholesale. BTW, I know that Meservy and Forova co-wrote a song at one point, so it's not exactly like Meservy just happened to be hanging out with Forova. I do think that the section should be rephrased to read more neutrally. The Jade Knight (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not everything I'm removing is "controversial". Some of it is pointless, promotional, trivial, etc. A while back, someone wanted to add a list of every free toy that came with kids' meals at a smallish buger chain covering several decades. It was reliably sourced and in no way controversial, but was not encyclopedic in the least. We can likely reliably source Hollywood star X's favorite flavor of ice cream, which football team they "support", their inspiring words about how we should defeat cancer and a thousand other things that belong in blogs, fansites, press packets and other such places.

Yes, "controversial" information must be handled appropriately. That doesn't mean we necessarily include trivia, puffery and a thousand other things. That I have co-authored an article with a Pulitzer prize winner does not say anything about me, it says something about her. Name-dropping doesn't say who someone is, it's a way of them trying to tell you who they want you to think they are. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

References

"unsigned"

All indications are that Forêt d'Musique has one employee and one artist: founder April Meservy. If she is signed with Forêt d'Musique, it's a contract she signed with herself. I'm betting that if a label showed up with a contract offering studio access, promotion, distribution and tours, no one would contest her breaking the contract. (In the United States, a contract is a legally binding quid pro quo between multiple parties. You cannot legally bind yourself to provide yourself something in exchange for something else.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So what's the different between "unsigned" and "independent"? I would have considered her independent, not unsigned. Would you consider Cake "unsigned" simply because they own their own label? The Jade Knight (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"Independent" is a bit of a generic term used in a few ways. "Indie music" is a style. An "Indie artist" might play that style of music or might be an "independent artist" who is signed to a label that is not tied to one of the major labels. If you are releasing music on a label you started to release your music and no one else is signed to it or has any say over anything you do -- the label is a fiction. It might have legal existence (for tax reasons or whatever), but you aren't "signed" as there's no contract. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, since you're so insistent on reliable sources, go find a reliable source that calls her an "unsigned" musician and I won't contest it. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of amazed that you think her hometown and alma mater are contentious, but calling her "unsigned" (something she has never called herself) isn't? The Jade Knight (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't find her hometown birth place or alma mater "contentious". I found them unsourced. Articles, especially lesser known BLPs, tend to build up a lot of unsourced crud, if not regularly cleaned. Someone hears somewhere that a performer is "from" their home town or "went to" their school and they add it to the article. If it's a major political figure or A-list star, it's usually gone pretty quickly, but the lesser known singer songwriter who currently lives in Whateverville and preformed at University of Stateia ends up listed as having been born and attended.

As for being insistent on reliable sources, yes, I am. Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Without it, this might as well be a blog where people gush and rant about whatever crosses their minds. Blogs are fine, but this is not a blog.

Or maybe it's part of my super-secret agenda of hiding out for a decade as a regular editor, waiting for my chance to get Meservy. #5, 6 and 7 at the top of my talk page apply. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

May I remind you that Wikipedia policies are quite clear that there should be no original research. Please find a reliable source calling her an unsigned musician if you insist on putting it in the article. It should be obvious by now that your insertion of that term is contested, unverified, and dubious. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You may remind me of whatever you'd like. Meservy is unsigned. She prefers to say she is an "independent" artist (one who not signed to a major label). Whatever. You contested it. I explained. I missed your response to my response. It is not, however, "dubious". "Independent" vs. "unsigned", in this case, is not potato/potAHto, it's potato/medium-russett-potato. Or, again, maybe I'm just out to "get" Meservy.- SummerPhD^v2.0 20:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Let's be clear about this: Meservy is notable. WP:NBAND has a list of 12 criteria, and satisfying even one of which may indicate notability. Meservy satisfies a few of these, and her cover of With or Without you satisfies no less than 4/7 notability guidelines for recordings. So her recording of "With or Without You" is unquestionably notable, and probably deserves its own article, though I think it's appropriate to add material here until there's enough to justify a separate article.

I should also add that Meservy has been covered by the press in the past (the oldest mention that I can think of off the top of my head was in the Reno News & Review years ago), but I wasn't paying as much attention back then. But she's been covered pretty regularly—her being featured in local news, in particular, is not a new thing. FWIW, here's the RN&R article from 17 years ago: [5] The Jade Knight (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's be clear.

When I added the tag, the article had one secondary source. It needed reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention.

WP:NBAND lists:

1) "(T)he subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..." - At the time, the article had one independent source. It was of the "local kid makes good" variety; hardly the cornerstone of notability.

2) "single or album on ... national music chart." - Clearly not.

3) "a record certified gold or higher" - Clearly not.

4) "non-trivial coverage ... of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour" - Clearly not.

5) "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" - Clearly not.

6) "(in) an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians" - Clearly not.

7) "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" - No indication of this.

8) "won or been nominated for a major music award" - Clearly not.

9) "won first, second or third place in a major music competition" - Clearly not.

10) "performed music for a work of media that is notable" - Clearly not.

11) "placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" - No indication of this.

12) "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" - No indication of this.

Rather than satisfying "a few" of these, we're working on shoring up #1.

Her recording of "With or Without You" is not subject to the criteria under WP:NALBUM, which lists the criteria you seem to be looking at. Instead, the article for "With or Without You" is subject to WP:NSONG. The song (not her recording) is clearly notable. It needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources (which it has) and would likely be notable if it hits any of the three other criteria (it charted).

Meservy's cover would not have its own article, without regard to criteria simply because we don't handle it that way. The article is about the song, not U2's version of it. The U2 version charted, has the coverage, etc. It is the basis of the article. Per WP:COVERSONG, we generally include cover versions only if the cover would be notable independent of the original version. So, for example, "A Hazy Shade of Winter" is about the song and discusses both the Simon and Garfunkle and Bangles versions.

WP:COVERSONG essentially offers two ways to meet it. The first is a bit confusing. We'd be looking for coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the song that also discuss the particular version. The Bangles version (above) probably does not meet this: We would need sources focused on the song (not about either version, S&G or the Bangles) which give meaningful coverage of the Bangles version. This is kinda rare. I think of it as primarily being about, for example, a folk song where Guthrey, Leadbelly or someone recorded a version that was significant to the history of the song. We're looking for the coverage to be about the song because a source about, for example, the Foo Fighters might discuss them covering "If I Had a Hammer", but their version is clearly not notable. No one (or very few people anyway) hear "If I Had a Hammer" and say, "Oh, yeah, that's that Foo Fighters song."

The second way is for the version to meet WP:NSONG independent of the better known version. Here we're looking for either significant coverage about her version or one of the three criteria. Again, we have articles about Foo Fighters discussing their "If I..." cover, but not articles about their cover. I'm not aware of independent reliable sources about her version. I see sources about her that discuss it (and we should use that here) and I see articles about her Olympics connection discussing it (again, we should use it here).

This leaves the criteria under NSONG:

1) "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" The Bangles cover passes this, The Foo Fighters and Meservy covers do not.

2) "won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award" - Clearly not, for all three.

3) "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" - Not relevant.

At the moment, I do not see Meservy's cover getting a section in the song's article. It is clearly relevant here, as it is key to her notability.

In general, this article plucks several concerns.

Home town news - My uncle was a great guy. He was named "Senior of the year" or some such by the local Lions/Jaycees/Kiwanis/whatever club and there was a nice article about him in a major Philadelphia paper. (No one in Florida was reading about him, of course.) There were likely other articles interviewing him or discussing various projects he was involved with. He was notable to me and people he came into contact with, but he was not "notable".

One event - WP:BLP1E doesn't seem to quite hit the mark, but the idea is similar. If I wrote an article about a person but it focused almost entirely on one thing, is the person notable or is the event. This article isn't really about one event, but it focuses extensively on Meservy's cover of one song and that song's use by skaters for one performance. I get that it's a big deal for her, but it's not about her. WP:NOTNEWS is almost relevant as well. She's popping up now because of the Olympics. If the article were frozen in its current state, would someone reading it 10 years from now see her as being notable? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)