Talk:Hayley Williams/Archive 1

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)

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)

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. Green^chat 15:55, 29 April 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)

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. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 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. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 16:12, 27 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)

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)

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)

←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:

1. "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.
2. Chart hits. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
3. Gold records. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
4. Non trivial coverage regarding concert tour. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
5. Two or more albums on major label. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
6. Contains a notable musician. Well this is the arguement, she is not notable, but Paramore is.
7. Most prominent act in region or style. Paramore - probably not, HW - Definitely not
8. Won an award. Paramore - Yes; HW - No
9. Won a music competition. Paramore - Yes. HW - No.
10. Performed a notable piece of music. Paramore - Questionable; HW - No.
11. Rotation on major radio. Paramore - Yes; HW - No.
12. 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)

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)

Better image

A better image is free. --Efe (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hayley Williams from Paramore.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why this one? the old one was better than this, but theres also File:Hayleyw5.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dboy05, did you really take that image as the license says? It looks very professional? Vints (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

These are the imo best images at Commons.[1] Which should we have in this article? Vints (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

erm no i didnt, theres jus loads on google images and i love that one. but erm i like the 2nd one and the 3rd. ~ Dboy05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OH SOMEONE PLEAAAAAAAAASE, change the iamge, and quickly... Dboy05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed For

• "She performed backup vocals for the Say Anything songs "The Church Channel" and "Plea". She has also performed on the songs "Keep Dreaming Upside Down" by October Fall, "Then Came To Kill" by The Chariot, and "Fallen" by the band Death In The Park." I am on my way out the door but google searches confirm these, just gotta find the best ones to use as a source! cheers. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Hayley william's grew up in cyrus and develpoed a love of music from a young age Her first childhood sweet heart was a body builder called Eden.mclovin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Now05ster (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chad Gilbert

To whomever continues to add the information that she is dating Chad Gilbert of New Found Glory: please provide a reliable citation with the claim, or it will have to be removed per WP:BLP and WP:Reliable Sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Personality section

Another person on a dynamic connection has been removing the "personal life" section. At the moment, this only contains the information that Williams is a personal family friend with the "Cyrus clan". I do not believe this is unencyclopedic; could you please explain your removal of the section? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe expanding it might help. --neon white talk 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it even relevent information she has only stated in a couple of interviews because she defended Miley Cyrus on her photo scandal and there's really nothing else in the personal life section and people need to stop adding that shes dating chad gilbert because they have not officaly confirmed it. 222.154.97.118 (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think I generally agree about the Chad Gilbert thing (see above). However, the source says that Williams is a "family friend" of the group - it certainly gives the impression that the relationship goes beyond a bathing suit photo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok i'll stop taking it out but i don't really agree with it and i reckon if hayley gets to have her own page the other members of paramore should have their own page too because there is so much attention on hayley and not the whole band and paramore is a band not just hayley (don't get me wrong i think hayley's amazing and has an awsome voice and i LOVE her hair) and i know the members of paramore get annyoned with just the attention on hayley even hayley does and i know she has done a little work outside the band like singing in other bands songs and stuff but i reckon josh, zac, jermey and taylor should get their own pages too or just keep everything under 1 page on paramores page.222.154.119.169 (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:N for the basic principles of notability, this is how we decide what subjects need a page rather than personal opinions. This page itself is still in dispute above. Please remember that not every subject needs a page especially if they can be easily contained in a parent subject. You can add info about the band members to the section in the paramore article. --neon white talk 15:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree they may be notable as well. That being said, it was a fairly steep uphill fight for Hayley to have her own page (see the top of this page). I would suggest trying to get consensus on this here and on the Paramore talk page. If you think you have a fairly decent consensus, try Wikipedia:DRV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New Section

Chad Gilbert shouldn't it be included that she is infact dating Chad Gilbert of New Found Glory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardknocklife4you (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a false internet rumour. Hayley has confirmed she is dating chad gilbert, and chad has confirmed he is dating her too. Plenty of times. http://musicblogr.com/chad-gilbert-interview-hayley-is-my-best-friend.html Iwearconverse (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia does not repeat false internet rumours. --neon white talk 06:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hayley Williams & Chad Gilbert's Relationship

Okay, I know everyone has heard enough of this. But someone on the Paramore talk page has brought a source about it. I think it should be added to her "Personal Relationship's" section. The source they brought has Chad Gilbert stating that he is in a relationship with Haylay Williams. Here is the source, please take a look at it and let me know what you guys think about adding it. SOURCE: Emo777 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, in case the source won't bring up the website, he's the address: http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/chad-gilbert-hits-out-at-critics. Thanks in advance! Emo777 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

personal life section?

i mean seriously do we even need that? like people care that she spoke up for miley...you may as well add that shes good friends with katy perry or rihanna...at least add something else (like her relationship with chad for example) or just merge it with the biography section xx

edit: oh and ermm can you change the main picture as well? (dno what to call it) because that pictures at least a year old, and her hair colours changed (it's all orangey-red now)theres alot of newer ones out there check her twitter :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.160.39 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't just put whatever picture we want in this article. While there are many pictures of her out there, they have to be compatible with Wikipedia's licenses (Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL). Most pictures on the internet are not. →javért ^stargaze 00:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer's Body Soundtrack

Maybe we should mention her song "Teenagers" being featured in the "Jennifer's Body" Soundtrack. Agree? Source:http://store.fueledbyramen.com/albumview.asp?idproduct=75867Bobby9608 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Hayley HERSELF said in an interview that she was of the emo genre. And please don't delete that genre because it is validly sourced Emorocker777 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Has anyone got a newer picture of Hayley to use in this article ? Hayley doesnt look like this anymore and she seems to be squinting in the picture. Parafan (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already changed it guys Parafan (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre

I put a valid source of Hayley stating in an interview that her genre was emo, but it was still deleted then i asked whoever it was not to delete things with valid sources then my section of the talk page was deleted.

Emorocker777 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See Paramore#Musical style and influences where the characterization of Paramore of "emo" is well-sourced. I have restored Emo and it should not be removed. Mike R (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh, Chad, Hayley

Please direct your attention to the October 2009 issue of Alternative Press. In the interview, it confirms that Hayley and josh were dating until 2007 when they decided they didnt want it to interfere with their music. It also states that Hayley is now dating Chad from New Found Glory. Conflict between Hayley and Josh about Hayley dating chad caused them to cancel their remaining shows of their tour in early 2008.

Here is the reliable soruces: (Scans of the actualy article. Number 5 is the one to read)

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WHERE SCANNED DIRECTLY FROM ALTERNATIVE PRESS MAGAZINE


[1] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbK_D_pI/AAAAAAAAIZs/uf_qTVLAATQ/s1600-h/3.jpg
[2] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbjO0_wI/AAAAAAAAIZ0/0e1VNxuxKMA/s1600-h/4.jpg
[3] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZcFWffxI/AAAAAAAAIZ8/IeZljrbK428/s1600-h/5.jpg
[4] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaAwYrT7I/AAAAAAAAIaE/fsepm1YW9i0/s1600-h/6.jpg
[5] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBAdmSQI/AAAAAAAAIaM/w1zcaNqIO5M/s1600-h/7.jpg
[6] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBh-hBOI/AAAAAAAAIaU/GhtpZWTGiJ8/s1600-h/8.jpg
[7] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaCCFpEAI/AAAAAAAAIac/4FCrGA8EOUY/s1600-h/9.jpg
--Dem467 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have provided GOOD SOLID VERIFIED sources that their relationships (chad and hayley 08-now) (josh and hayley 04-07) in the Paramore discussion but these two statements where deleted, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.81.223 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blogspot.com is not a reliable source. Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

well maybe blog spot is not but Alternative Press and Rock Sound magazine are, or am i mistaken?

I looked through the history of the article and didn't see anything referencing that other than the blogspot link. However, it is entirely possible that I just missed it. Do you have the links to the other possible sources that you mentioned? I'd like to look over them. Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 00:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Heres the Interview with Chad Gilbert (Rock Sound magazine): URL(just in case):http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/chad-gilbert-hits-out-at-critics and heres the article found in issue #225 (i think) of Alternative Press magazine (either this month, or last months issue): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.69.134 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Javert - the links are not for a blogspot page, it is scans from a magazine that are simply being hosted there. If you read the magazine article it is an interview given by Hayley, and she does in fact clearly state that she and Josh dated for 3yrs, and that now she is dating Chad Gilbert. Whether this is relevant enough information to be included in the wikipedia page I wouldn't like to say, but if it is this is certainly concrete evidence. Rakie love (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards Section

I'm really glad that we've included the Awards section to document the many super serious and prestigious awards this talented young artist has been nominated for and won and I don't at all think this section needs to go and the whole article would be more informative if blanked than left as is. - Dem467 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards Section

I'm really glad that we've included the Awards section to document the many super serious and prestigious awards this talented young artist has been nominated for and won and I don't at all think this section needs to go and the whole article would be more informative if blanked than left as is. - Dem467 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Usefulness

This page is just a copy/paste off the Paramore page with very little other info included. I've seen better pages on this site deleted by zealous editors on the above basis. How did this survive the cull? 203.217.72.177 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hair color + Icon

I Think something should be included about her hair color, its blonde now. And something should be added about how shes an idol to many people. Could someone add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.226.108 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because her hair color is kind of irrelevant to her career unless that's what shes famous for; and as for her being an icon and hero to many so are basically every other celebrity, dont get me wrong i personally admire her very very much but in reality its not what this page is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.94.150 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Instruments

You might wanna add that she also plays guitar, watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKNWKa4T80E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

She also plays the drums [she said it was the first instrument she ever learned to play], she mentioned it on an interview on The Sauce (aired on Fuse). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.92.50 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre

mazzy star's style is poppunk and gothic rock, not emo (She said it, and Paramore guys too). Listening to her songs and paying attention, you will know it's not emo, it's really far away from it. They sound it's like Green Day, a little bit soft and with romatic lirycs.

No Hayley said (i even have seen it sited on one of the paramore pages) that the band was emo and so was it's music, and so do the reviewers. It is emo and pop punk, as reviewers have said, and what is agreed on... Terminus777 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

new picture?

i think a new picture of Hayley should be posted. new hair, new look, so her wiki picture should be updated as well. simple suggestion(: and i was also wondering why no one has re-posted, the Hayley Williams relationship with Chad of NFG and her former relationship with her band mate Josh. its all ben confirmed in the Sept 2009 issue of Alternative Press magazine.

heres some pictures of Hayley with her new hair: http://hayley.checkered-vans.com/

here are the pages scanned directly from alternative press magazine:
[1] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbK_D_pI/AAAAAAAAIZs/uf_qTVLAATQ/s1600-h/3.jpg
[2] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbjO0_wI/AAAAAAAAIZ0/0e1VNxuxKMA/s1600-h/4.jpg
[3] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZcFWffxI/AAAAAAAAIZ8/IeZljrbK428/s1600-h/5.jpg
[4] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaAwYrT7I/AAAAAAAAIaE/fsepm1YW9i0/s1600-h/6.jpg
[5] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBAdmSQI/AAAAAAAAIaM/w1zcaNqIO5M/s1600-h/7.jpg
[6] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBh-hBOI/AAAAAAAAIaU/GhtpZWTGiJ8/s1600-h/8.jpg
[7] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaCCFpEAI/AAAAAAAAIac/4FCrGA8EOUY/s1600-h/9.jpg

Done, added new pic 122.57.153.243 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Voice

Hayley Williams is classified as a soprano. Her recorded vocal range in her songs became impressive, and is close to 3.4 octaves (D3-A6), and realizes that her voice is in constant evolution. According to her, her real power used to be 4.5 octaves, until you have a blood blister on the vocal cords caused by stressing in August 2006, which reduced its length to 4 octaves, when healthy, we can see that is true, since, during the implementation of the A6 in whistle register she can appear to rise even higher notes.

Lower notes: Teenagers (D3), Another Day (EB3), For a Pessimist I'm Pretty on Optimistc (E3), Emergency (F3), Hallelujah (F3), We Are Broken (F # 3), Misery Business ( G3). High notes: That's What You Get (C # 5), Hallelujah (Eb5), Decode (F5), Turn It Off (F5), Conspiracy (F # 5), All I Wanted (F # 5), My Heart ( Live, from 2007 - G # 5). Longer notes: Decoy (6 seconds), All We Know (7 seconds), Decode (8 seconds) Whistle Register: for vocal exercises before a concert in 2009 (A6). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.63.200 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's lovely. Cite reliable sources and it can go in the article. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Having removed the unreliable blogging citation that was recently placed at the beginning of the article in regards to Williams having a 'Contralto' voice I would appreciate if people could keep an eye on this issue as it left misleading and conflicting information on the page. Whilst personally I agree that Williams is indeed a Soprano I see no evidence of this claim either. I wonder until we have solid evidence either way is it necessary to have her voice type in the article at all? BrotherDarksoul (talk)

New hair, yet again.

Haley Williams who was born in Hebron, Connecticut recently moved to Los Angeles to pursure her music carreer. Now singer in the Grammy Award winning band Paramore --Dem467 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed it again, not sure if any good though. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't change the infobox picture everytime someone gets a new hairstyle. We would have to update Lady Gaga once a week then. Nymf _hideliho! 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's okay so anyone knows it — Mr.sweet lover (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier if you just put the most recent picture of her and be done with it! Coltsfan (Talk to me) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.169.202.226, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please could you change the picture of hayley williams because the one used isnt a very recent picture and she doesnt look like that so could you use this one: http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g314/Rossi69/Hayley_Williams5.jpg 86.169.202.226 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: You'll have to upload that first. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations/Guest vox

{{editsemiprotected}} Would the following link work as a citation for her vocal lessons with Brett Manning? It's her endorsement from his official site.

http://www.singingsuccess.com/endorsement/hayley-williams

ETA: Also, a lot of the citation issues could use links that refer to the same information on the Paramore page.

Also can we put all her guest spot information down in that nice little table?

Meretricious (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DoneSpitfire19 (Talk) 23:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'm not sure if this is a proper citation, but in this youtube video, released on their Final Riot! DVD, Hayley Williams is clearly playing the keyboard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV4i5-GkctA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efitz11 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Playing the piano in one song does not make her the band's keyboardist, unfortunately. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought about going to find her playing keyboard in all of their songs (not many, actually) but then I found this page http://www.roxwel.com/artists/artistpage/Paramore.html that lists her as the keyboardist. Efitz11 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)efitz11

Partly done: I've actually added another source for her being the keyboardist. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.157.75.99, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please feature a paragraph about Hayley Williams being hacked and a pornographic picture of her being released on the internet.

81.157.75.99 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On the 28th May, a topless picture of Hayley William was posted on Twitter. She says it was a hacker, as later she posted on Twitter 'well... my night just changed drastically. got hacked.' It was later deleted, but Perez Hilton, the infamous gossip king and runner of the biggest celebrity gossip website in the world, as still got footage of it. It is thought that she took it for her boyfriend, and someone hacked her account posting it online.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I would also like to stress the fact that the sources must be reliable. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 18:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this above^, and apparently this is not added. Maybe it will at some point if it causes a response from anyone noteworthy, which hasn't yet happened. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I have a comment about the last sentence of the section called Controversy, concerning the actuality of the picture posted on twitter. It is confirmed the picture was posted from her phone, by her. She just doesn't want to admit it. In order to make the article true, the statement must be reworded to where it admits that she was, indeed, not "hacked" as she claims.173.30.247.30 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no proof that she wasn't hacked, she simply stated that her account was hacked. Never acknowledged the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.150.180 (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All signs point to it being impossible she was hacked. It was sent from her phone. Remote hijacking of phones doesn't work like that.173.30.247.30 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the section uses the phrase "images was". I assume it's not open for general editing due to the likely flood, but this grammatical error irks me. Ruricu (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished by the speed with which this article was updated. Anyway, I think it is still pretty early to tell what actually happened--it is possible that she got hacked. Wait for the official press release? 24.0.90.93 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article. Absolutely zero reliable sources to back up these claims, and remember exceptional claims require exceptional sources). Shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. End of discussion 82.44.55.254 (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to this comparison[2] made by a crack team of virgin neckbeards. The EXIF data may be viewed here[3], showing the picture was taken just before the alleged tweet. It's most likely the image was meant for a significant other but was instead tweeted in error. 68.116.80.17 (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to wp:original research 82.44.55.254 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Still not relevant and still has no reliable sources. It's true but nobody here cares I take that back, apparently we do have a reliable source, NME.com. I reverted this one because we can't have anything like "shocked the world" and "boobs" in an encyclopedia. Use neutral and encyclopedic wording and it may even stay up there in the article. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wording is now appropriate, sourced, and its relevance is evidenced by the fact that this conversation is ensuing, hehe. MXVN (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Woman has breasts, Twitter knows it - and this is a controversy? It's barely notable. I've renamed the section (from "Controversy!!!1!!1!one!!!" to "Twitter") and made it a sub-section of "Personal life" to avoid giving undue weight to this one incident. Frankly, I think the whole section is non-notable. TFOWR^propaganda 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is notable, because she is known for her Christian faith, and these topless photos would come as something of a shock to fans who admire her for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhplover (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture was taken on the same day it was uploaded. having saved the pic, and seen the properties, i can say they she most likely was not hacked, and just made a poor attempt at a cover-up, and there have also been pictures made that can prove that it is indeed her. zzz (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you new here? This is a talk page about how to improve the article, not a discussion forum about the article's subject. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

...and this addresses my concern that this incident is as notable as cheese - how, exactly? More importantly, your views - fascinating though they are - aren't really appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. TFOWR^propaganda 12:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Until there's more sources than gossip articles from sites which are notoriously unreliable, it shouldn't be in the article. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadly agree, except in as much I'm not convinced it should be added even then (I don't think the NME is particularly unreliable, it's more that I think the incident is non-notable). The incident is newsworthy, for a certain class of news provider, sure, but not yet notable for an encyclopaedia. TFOWR^propaganda 15:05,GVBVB7VB999999999999999999999999 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it's not notable in so far as I don't think it is a big deal. However, notability can surely be pointed out from the vast number of websites that are covering it? That shows people care, ergo it is deemed notable by a large enough collective to warrant inclusion. It needs to be handled carefully as per WP: BLP, but not just not included. There WILL be conservative parents in some places that stop their kids listening to Paramore, and there will be thousands of us leeches all curious and checking out the picture on the net. It's got enough people that care that we should aim to be the place that documents the incident accurately. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

There IS nothing to document. A picture leaked, woo. Until someone actually says something of substance about it, it shouldn't really be on here. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 15:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's notable because people care about it. It made news. People who hadn't heard of Paramore heard of the incident. It isn't a big *deal* but is more news relevant than who she is dating, by some degree. MXVN (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that I said "not yet notable..." ;-) When reliable sources discuss parents banning their kids from listening to Paramore, etc, then it may be notable.

Fully agree re: WP:BLP. Hayley Williams is a living, breathing human being and like all living subjects we have to treat her sensitively, per WP:BLP.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more sources now, and I think it will inevitably be added to the article eventually as more sources will show up. As BrightBlackHeaven said, the information should be stated in a "neutral and encyclopedic" way. I might do it later if no one else does. Sources if anyone needs them: [4][5][6][7][8][9] CShephard (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that you consider this notable now? What new thing has happened to make the Twitter incident notable? TFOWR^propaganda 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable information/reliable third-party sources are pretty much there. Worthy of notice is a matter of time, maybe one could argue whether or not it's worthy of notice right now, but if not now, then tomorrow or next week. It won't be long before sources like ABC/FOX/MSN report it as well, and for a while, it will probably be re-mentioned on any news article that concerns Hayley. It's almost always the same with such controversies. CShephard (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that wasn't my point. Plenty of stuff can be independently verified, it doesn't necessarily make it notable. We're not a indiscriminating list or a news service. I also take issue with the idea that this can be described as a "controversy" - the only apparent "controversy" is whether or not she initiated the Twitter post. TFOWR^propaganda 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's definitely a healthy amount of 'online debate'. I'm pretty sure it fits the definition of controversy but time will tell. I'm in no rush and we'll see how this plays out, pretty sure it's just the beginning in terms of the 'buzz' it's getting. Also, CBS news just reported it: [10]. I understand that notability is your point (and not reliability), and I think we have everything excluding 'ongoing coverage', since this is something new, and this is where "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future" fits in. So yeah, I guess we'll have to wait a bit. CShephard (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for reliability too! Cool, I agree there's no rush. I'm also not dead set against including this, just mindful we need to be careful with this one. (It's always better to take it slow for WP:BLPs). Cheers! TFOWR^propaganda 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About not being relevant to the article; I feel like if her relationship status is relevant, and CBS News, MTV, Billboard, NME, and several other reliable news sources think it's relevant, it should be mentioned in the article. Heck, Google lists over one-hundred news sources on the subject of Hayley's breasts on Twitter. And I fully understand that you want to "protect" her because she's a living person, but maybe this picture getting out will be good for her. Look at where Paris Hilton is. And Kim Kardashian. She got her own TV show because of her boobs on film. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About not being relevant to the article - at this time. Paris Hilton is a great example: the sex tape became a major hugely notable. Williams' Twitter incident may yet do so too.

The WP:BLP aspect - "wanting to protect her" - is more about wanting to avoid false claims as to whether or not someone or someone else was responsible for the Tweet. Wikipedia isn't censored: we shouldn't be preventing the photo from being discussed in the article because we're prudish or want to protect Williams' honour; rather, we must avoid making un-sourced claims. That's to protect us - or Wikipedia - as much as it to protect Williams.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it might not impact her career in as much of a way as Paris' sex tape impacted hers. However, at least for today, her Twitter is relevant. As I said before, Google News has links to over one-hundred (and counting) properly-cited, reliable news sources. Many of these articles present her Tweet without bias; for example, the NME article that was previously cited here states "Despite some gossip sites claiming that the picture was in fact posted in error, and were meant for an individual rather than the public, Williams insisted she was the victim of a cyber attack. 'Well... my night just changed drastically,' she wrote after the image was deleted, 'got hacked.'" That doesn't sound like gossip, rumors, or slander to me. They quote verbatim Hayley's tweet. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It already has impacted her career. MXVN (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All good, but the key part is "...it might not impact her career in as much of a way as..." When/if it does - i.e. it becomes notable - it should be added. Right now it's just another blip in the blogosphere ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 18:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See, I feel the exact opposite. I keep repeating "over one-hundred articles" because I feel it's an extraordinary number for a "blip in the blogosphere." Every few minutes, there's another news article on the subject popping up on Google by increasingly-reliable sources. Today, she's relevant, and should be mentioned in Wikipedia. If she's not tomorrow, then the section can be removed. But until then, it should be mentioned. Wikipedia isn't forever. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how being "relevant today" makes it notable, at all. At this point in time, it's only claim to notability would be the fact that people are blogging, twittering and filling the forums with it. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, a number of reliable news sources are posting articles about the subject; MTV, NME, Billboard, CBS news, among others, have all published articles on the subject. Google currently lists 116 news articles related to "Hayley Williams' twitpic." I fail to see how that's not notable. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of those "news" articles are not reliable, and the ones that are have little-to-no actual information beyond "she posted a pic". There's been no demonstration of why her posting that pic is notable; it hasn't affected her career, there's been no direct reaction to it from her or anyone associated with her - all it's notable for right now is for being a topic of gossip on the internet. Until there's some other claim to notability it should not be included in the article. See wp:Note "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan"" 82.44.55.254 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) News isn't automatically notable - it's one incident in the subject's life.

Over one hundred articles - I honestly have no idea whether that's notable or not. I'm simply not qualified to judge. Fortunately, that doesn't matter - our policy on secondary sources means I don't need to engage in original research. We simply wait until a reliable source comments on the notability of "over one hundred articles". At that point it's notable, we can cite a reliable source, we're golden.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so get this. In the entire "Personal Life" section for Hayley Williams, only one claim about her relationship status is cited, and the citation leads to a two-sentence "blip" (not even a full article, but a mention of her in passing in a full article about Lady Gaga) from some New Zealand-based radio station website. A tabloid-esque article from overseas talking about her relationship status can have its own section, but her boobs on Twitter, cited by MTV, NME, CBS, etc. on Google can't be mentioned? And that's not even the worst of it; the same website that Wikipedia cited for her relationship status currently has an entire article on the front page about her Twitter. See for yourself; Latest Music News: Fri 28/05 - Hayley Williams tweets nude pic of herself! Same website. Already cited. Own article. Front Page. I really don't understand why this wouldn't be notable but who she's with is, especially coming from the same source. --Piroteknix (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it can't be mentioned. It's that it's not yet notable. Sure, it's made the news. Sure, it may yet become notable. Right now it's just another Twitter user with a semi-naked picture online. News-worthy, sure. Notable, no. Not yet.

When Paris Hilton's sex tape appeared, it wasn't notable. Newsworthy, sure. Notable, no. Then the story grew and grew - it had an impact on her career, people were writing about the tape and the impact it had on her career, etc etc. There were sources we could quote describing how notable the sex tape was and why.

Right now with Williams' Tweet, all we have is lots of news stories. No idea whether the story will still be around tomorrow. Maybe she'll sign a huge sponsorship deal because of this. That would be notable. That would make the Twitter incident notable.

Anyway, there's no rush. We can wait for notability.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My argument is the fact that news articles are picking up on this Tweet, and that over one-hundred different sources — some reliable, some not — are showing up on Google about the Tweet makes it notable. I know I'm not a "reliable source," and that this is personal research, but if CBS finds it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, and NME finds it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, and Billboard finds it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, and MTV finds it relevant enough to write up two news articles about it, it should be relevant enough to mention in one sentence here. --Piroteknix (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And not only those unarguably-reliable sources find it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, but the only other website cited under her "Personal Life" section finds it relevant enough to write up a front-page news article about it. --Piroteknix (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's get one thing out of the way here. Notability does not apply to article content. So we've got NME [11], MTV [12] [13], Billboard [14], the Toronto Sun [15], The Register [16] (NSFW), and CBS News [17] covering the story. Please explain to me why this cannot be included under personal life: "In May of 2010, a topless photo of Williams was posted to her Twitter account. Williams deleted the picture and claimed she was hacked. EXIF metadata showed that the picture was taken eight minutes before it was posted. (Source: [18]). --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, notability applies to the subject of an article. But it's a useful benchmark for content, since Wikipedia is neither a place for indiscriminate information nor news. No one's disputing that this happened. What I'm disputing is whether this news item has any place in the article right now. It's a Tweet. It's a Tweet that drew a lot of attention. Is it hugely relevant to the article's subject (Williams)? I don't know. We don't know. When reliable sources decide, we'll know. TFOWR^propaganda 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The actual "benchmark for content" says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. The sources I've listed are clearly prominent, and that many sources are pretty significant. And of course it's relevant to Williams. Who else would it be relevant to? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point they're trying to make is... this is (for now) inconsequential to her career as a singer, as a celebrity, as... well, anything. I understand there are tons of citable news sources regarding this incident, and I understand that according to the standard which you quoted, that would mean this page would be about a woman who showed her breasts on twitter, with a brief aside about her career as a singer. We live in an age of tabloid news, where things of this nature get blown way out of proportion. If we're not going to detail what she eats for dinner each night, if we're not going to detail who her friends are, and what influences they've had on her life (arguably far more important to who she is than this picture), then why does this picture constitute anything important? It doesn't. If it weren't for TMZ and the likes of useless tabloid press, this would be nothing. Wikipedia needs to hold itself to a higher standard. DTXBrian (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That said, the inclusion now is shaping up OK. My concern was (and still is) that WP:BLP issues would slip in - that we'd describe the incident without any explanation as to why it's significant (which would be bad (from a WP:BLP standpoint, as well as an encyclopaedic standpoint), as it would leave the reader wondering why the editors here thought the Twitter incident to be significant). Now we've got commentary on the incident I'm a great deal happier. We're not leaving the reader to infer why this is significant - we're providing cited explanations as to why the incident may be "controversial". (My view is that this is about as controversial as water, but my view doesn't count - it's what citable, reliable sources say that counts). TFOWR^propaganda 18:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. It is pretty inconsequential. I was wrong. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a biography of a living person, and its contents should reflect what is important in her life. For today, the media may think this is more important than, say, her faith, or her relationship with Chad Gilbert. On any other day, anyone suggesting that would probably be laughed at. We're not a news service. We probably shouldn't even be trying to evaluate the importance of this until the media fuss has died down. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The BLP policy also says that if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, which pretty clearly applies here. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Has this been covered by a notable source? Yes. NME have covered it. Is it relevant? Possibly. Considering the band, and by extension, her, have this media imposed image of being a good little band with solid christian ideals, I would say that on that basis alone, the incident deserves some mention, with the possibility of expansion/removal at a later date. Is the incident itself of note? Possibly, for the reasons above. Also (and I am fully aware this would be OR, and in no way should I say it should be implied in the article) but the timing of this, right after the announcement of a UK arena tour could be seen by some as a rather clever publicity stunt to put them in the public eye again 78.144.91.25 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Reliable source coverage of this one incident? Yes, certainly. Relevance? Far less clear (without a great deal of our own analysis. When a reliable source discusses the relevance to Williams', this should definitely go in. Right now this isn't notable or relevant (as far as we can demonstrate), it's simply well-documented. There's no "significant viewpoint" here - there's simply reports of a woman's breasts being shown to Twitter. When/if reliable sources start discussing the impact this incident had, then this becomes significant. Right now, our view on the significance of this - our view of how this sits with her personal and spiritual beliefs - that's all WP:OR. All we can say that an event occurred and it garnered a great deal of coverage in the media. That's not encyclopaedic, that's journalism. We're not a news service; we don't need to worry about getting every detail in as quickly as possible - we can afford to wait and see whether or not this incident becomes an important part of the subject's life/career. TFOWR^propaganda 09:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this at all important? It has nothing to do with a biography. If the media covered it for whatever reason, would you also add in "Hayley Williams has sex with her boyfriend!"? I've seen the media cover what celebrities are EATING, yet I've yet to see mentions about that in their articles (disclaimer: I have never actually looked at Kim's article, if it covers that Kim ate a lollipop once my faith in Wikipedia is gone). It's simply insignificant. Just think of what this is going to look like two years down the line - absolutely inane. There has also been no consensus on this, so I'm removing it from the article as soon as I can - damn silver locks. Please provide a convincing argument and get a consensus before adding in pointless minutia like this. If this turns out to impact her career in any way, and the media says so, then it can be added in. As it is now, however, it's silly. DeutscherStahl (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I know there's some Wikipedia rule about not comparing articles ("If the Star Trek TV series can have an article about every single episode, then why can't 16 and Pregnant" or something to that tune) but Hayley's Twitter incident is very similar to the photo leak of Fall Out Boy bassist Pete Wentz. The entire section in Pete's article is four sentences long and uses one source, which sufficiently covers the topic. His nude pics slipping online to LiveJournal didn't have a huge impact — devastating or otherwise — on Pete's career; the article states that he later laughed it off and they parodied the incident in a music video. A full four years later, the section is still in tact. Using Pete's article as an example, Hayley's photo leak should be covered to about the same extent. Not too much more, not too much less.

--24.177.155.88 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why that guideline is in place, you know. In this instance, that reason would be that you're following a bad precedence. I see no reason for something so insignificant to be included in his biography. At any rate, even if you would say it's significant enough to be included in his article, the circumstances are different - he explicitly commented on it, and it was apparently parodied. Hayley Williams has only made one very short tweet about this that doesn't even explicitly mention it (someone who didn't know better might look at her Twitter archives, see she said she got hacked, and have no idea it was relevant to her topless picture), and it hasn't been parodied either. DeutscherStahl (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The information has been re-added with the rationale "It happened, made news, is relevant." This does not appear to override WP:NOTNEWS, specifically "Routine news reporting on (...) celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The event is not simply a current-event news update, it's a highly-discussed event in her personal life that is gathering a ;lot of attention, positive and negative. It could be argued that her personal life in general (who she;s dating, for instance) is not relevant if the TwitPic thing is not. Granted, the TwitPic shouldn't be such a huge deal, but a huge deal was made of it, and it is what it is. I don't see why there's even a debate on whether it should be mentioned. 76.175.211.56 (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See DeutcherStahl's response in the "I don't get it" section below. Specifically, "Until this actually has a noted impact on her career or life, and a cited source says so, it's pretty trivial." Just because it's been highly discussed does not make it worthy of inclusion. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have brought the issue to the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Hayley Williams --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it

The topless incident DID HAPPEN, FACT, why shouldn't it be mentioned? How sad to have wiki pages run by fans. Be objective people.

See WP:NOTNEWS, specifically, "Routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (emphasis mine) --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• There are a lot of things that DO HAPPEN, FACT. That doesn't mean we should cover them all. It has nothing to do with being a fan or not, it's simply insignificant. Just because it got news coverage is nothing - all sorts of celebrity stuff is in the news, but it doesn't all merit inclusion. Until this actually has a noted impact on her career or life, and a cited source says so, it's pretty trivial. DeutscherStahl (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I should add to the fact that it hasn't done anything and practically the hype was over by the second week. Its pretty odd, but Paramore is known for it's "overrated" position in that they are popular but don't seem to get the kind of attention other bands get due to their good reputation. News like this only furthers them being "overrated" because its being covered, but does nothing to hurt them. Ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.195.69 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This page isn't about Paramore, much less any editor's opinions about Paramore. This page is a biography of a living person. If you can show a reliable source that says this is an important part of her life, then I will support this material's inclusion. Until then, it's just a bit of pop-culture trivia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Messed up link

theres a messed up link in the first section- the tags aren't properly opened/closed but I dont know much about HTML so I cant fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by FLANAGAN creto (talk • contribs) 08:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed a redlink along with another broken edit. If there is still a problem, please state the text that has the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.22.127.10, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

<content redacted>

72.22.127.10 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not a tabloid; please see Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed the suggested addition in question just in case. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How tall is Hayley?

I love Hayley. She's awesome! I went to her concert 2 nights ago. How tall is she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.23.75 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there is nothing mentioned about Paramore's song "Decode" which was the main theme song for the Twilight Saga's movie! Before "Airplanes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.188.183 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hair color?

Is she naturally red or blond? And has she ever commented on her own hair? --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Source 17 is incorrect

After reading the entire article (reference 17), Hayley only states that she believes god has blessed her, but does not say which religion she is part of. Therefore within the wikipedia article about her where is says she is a Christian, there is no valid citation. I wish to edit this, but I cannot. Would somebody please change it for me? Thanks. Zoleta (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. :D yz2907 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity

Hayley and the entire band has said they are Christians and I saw this was removed. On the Paramore page there is one source and here are a few others: http://www.slate.com/id/2231513/ http://www.gomemphis.com/news/2008/aug/01/paramores-music-punk-pop-jesus-groups-common-groun/ http://dtrtministries.com/2010/12/27/dtrt-ministries-wishes-happy-birthday-to-hayley-williams-of-paramore/ http://paramoreband.livejournal.com/31376.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Letdown (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• this not is a christian music..only the family origin of the members is of a southern region of bible belt..

picture

Could you please get a better picture of her up?--68.186.160.22 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a picture that follows the image use policy and image content guidelines, feel free to add it yourself. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitpic accident

She quite famously accidentally Twitpic'd a topless photo of herself. Does this warrant mention or is it too prurient for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.60.209 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the archive of this talk page: this very issue was discussed at length back in August apparently. The conclusion at that time was that it amounted to printing gossip, and Wikipedia tries to shy away from that. I haven't done searching for sources discussing the incident, but I think that if we have a reliable source discussing the incident (i.e., article in a major newspaper), preferably in some substantial depth and/or in clearly stated connection with a less-gossipy event caused by this leak (e.g., if Paramore were to get dropped by the label). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that "Williams is currently dating New Found Glory guitarist Chad Gilbert." is notable enough to get mention, but the fact that she leaked nude pics on her twitter account (which resulted in a large increase in her number of twitter followers and contributed to two members of paramore leaving the band) isn't notable enough? 99.255.58.85 (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a major source that says the incident affected anything, feel free to add the information in. However, it's unlikely that you'll find that information. Amount of twitter followers isn't something that matters to a Wikipedia article, and I guarantee you won't find anything stating that Josh and Zac left the band partially because of the incident. In everything Josh has said since leaving the band, he never once mentioned this incident. Sounds like speculation on your part, not a fact. On top of this, even if it were true it would not be suited for this article, but rather the Josh Farro and Paramore articles. For your other point, about her dating Chad, romantic relationships have always been considered notable on Wikipedia and just about every biographical article on Wikipedia mentions this kind of information.

Categories

Should she really be counted as a hip hop singer. Singing on the occasional hip hop record doesn't warrant inclusion in that category, surely ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the same thoughts as Beardo. I don't really think featuring artists should warrant inclusion in a category. I think it should be based on their primary recordings.-- (Lisdavid89 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

Data Section

Please note that I have moved her 'Personal Life' section down the page to reflect the biggest majority of pages on this site, also I mentioned as Williams is a musician the data in regards to her career should come before her personal life. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Would anyone have any objections to me changing the infobox image to this one File:Hayleywilliamscrop.JPG? Don't get me wrong I think the one that is there is great, but this seems to be a bit more appropriate for that of an infobox image? Not gonna just go jumping on that one though without the blessing of the rest of the editors on this page. Drop me a wee line here and let me know your thoughts. Thanks dudes. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hayley Williams. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090727125457/http://community.livejournal.com:80/paramoremusic/8164282.html?thread=191146682 to http://community.livejournal.com/paramoremusic/8164282.html?thread=191146682#t191146682
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/tegan-quin-and-hayley-williams

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} 18:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Williams-Gilbert

Did Hayley change her stage name? If not, i don't thing Gilbert should be there. Minerva97 (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hayley Williams. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.11alive.com/news/article/180832/1/Paramores-Hayley-Williams-mom-engaged-after-surprise-proposal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019034755/http://www.socialitelife.com/2007/06/26/asls_exclusive_interview_with_paramore.php to http://www.socialitelife.com/2007/06/26/asls_exclusive_interview_with_paramore.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416155745/http://www.paramore.net/blog/new-hayley-williams-bob-song-airplanes-premiered-today/ to http://www.paramore.net/blog/new-hayley-williams-bob-song-airplanes-premiered-today/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://blog.honeyee.com/john/archives/2007/10/27/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305231011/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50 to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604040853/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029215339/http://www.cria.ca/gold/1010_g.php to http://www.cria.ca/gold/1010_g.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728144010/http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=63 to http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=63
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?&artist=%22Zedd%22
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpi.co.uk%2Fcertified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Scandal

An IP has removed the following text (diff):

On May 28, 2010 Williams was involved in a scandal in which a topless photo of her was posted on her Twitter account. The photo was taken down within minutes and Williams stated that her Twitter account had been hacked.

References

I agree with the removal performed by the IP. Did the photo have any significant impact on the subject or her career? If so, write about that, with a reference. Was the hack significant in some way? If so, write about that. Given what we see on the internet, the term "scandal" is silly and if the text is restored it needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner—articles are not a place to record news-of-the-day "scandals". Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

This section needs more sources! Bowling is life (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

New picture

Since there is a new picture in the infobox don't you think we should put the previous picture somewhere in the article? Just a thought. Bowling is life (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hayley Williams. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.soundthesirens.com/zine/?p=2172
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506052132/http://news.iheart.com/awards/highlights.html?article=12310600 to http://news.iheart.com/awards/highlights.html?article=12310600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Instruments listed in the infobox

According to Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument, this field is only for instruments the subject is primarily known for. The infobox in this article ostensibly lists every instruments Williams has ever used. Personally, I'd just list Vocals, because I don't think Williams is specifically notable for any of the other instruments here, although in several of the performances during the tour to promote the Riot! album, there's clearly footage of Williams playing keys. Similarly, looking at The Final Riot!#Personnel, Williams is credited with "vocals, keyboard". In this article's lead section, however, it says that Williams is "the lead vocalist and *occasional* keyboardist" of Paramore. And so, I personally, would just list "Vocals" in the infobox, but also think maybe I discuss this on the talk page, first.--2601:153:900:43F0:5C4B:59CC:63AA:4129 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, and I edited that accordingly. Unfortunately, it looks like someone reverted my edit in favor of the previous revision. Regards.--Kevjgav (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The main picture used in this article is not very good

What do you guys think? I feel like we could find a better one to use. Xiibo (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life/Career

For her personal life, she started reposting on her instagram as of April 2022, and has recently sung with Billie Eilish during the Coachella event in 2022. 24.115.73.162 (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)