This RS question is whether Stephen Hill the cofounder of a notable niche music genre spacemusic can be disqualified as a secondary source expert and have his radio production company s website expert s book reclassified with primary source usage restrictions results in removal The radio production company is Hearts of Space established 25 years ago 35 including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500 This 2004 01 11 San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hill s expertise reads Hill who coined the term spacemusic more than 20 years ago hosts the Music From the Hearts of Space music program syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations including San Francisco s KALW 91 7 FM which airs two hours of the program at 10 p m Sundays In addition Hill s Hearts of Space Web site provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one hour programs combining ambient electronic world New Age and classical music The claim as I understand it maybe I don t is that a justified primary source reclassification along with other sources properly reclassified as primary would cause a synthesis OR violation in the article titled Space music The further result would be that the cofounder s detailed analysis opinions and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a commercial entity s branding drive Presumably he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Wikipedia article and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it If I correctly understand it I can only describe this position as extremist Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives Its niche music sales amount to less than 1 of the commercial market so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising The rest of the 102 Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary and then removed for synthesis OR should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double source things and to give all sides where sources disagree but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre or about his own show he s primary Where he s writing about the musicians in the genre it would seem to me that he is secondary just like any music critic Talk I agree with on all three points multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic On the primary secondary question Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show On third party topics such as music styles record albums musicians the radio and music business etc he d be a secondary source I d say that within his area of expertise there s no reason not to use his work as a reliable source Just to be clear about the encyclopedia margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert based secondary sources via WP V WP SPS The Wikipedia art music reasoning has previously been that the founder of an art music genre knows subjectively more about what he she created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion You are changing that What a secondary source says can be combined in a point by point source provable editorial analysis In this case since there are so few other mainstream sources many or most of them are presently combined with Hill s previous secondary source expertise to write the article But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source What a primary source says can not be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of t