The issue of notability of different categories of articles will always be a point of contention for online encyclopaedias. That you argue so passionately for t

The issue of notability of different categories of articles will always be a point of contention for online encyclopaedias. That you argue so passionately for the reduction of one category of content (fictional Harry Potter characters), but the increase in another (music bands) shows that, I believe. For me, these notability rules for music make sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#C... As music evolves away from big album releases at major record labels, these rules will probably evolve with them. But even now, these 'music bands known to pretty much everyone listening to some "not too mainstream" genre' can be notable if there are non-trivial articles about them in the media, even if they have no traditional album releases and haven't won any awards. You didn't really argue about the point of original research. The arguments here also make sense to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research In any case, I think hate towards Wikipedia moderators is misdirected (I'm not a moderator, haven't even contributed anything but typo fixes).