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 companys website  experts book reclassified with primary source usage restrictions results in removal   The radio production company is Hearts of Space established  years ago  including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA HoS was historically played on more than  USA public radio stations on a scale of  This  San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hills expertise reads  Hill who coined the term spacemusic more than  years ago hosts the Music From the Hearts of Space music program syndicated on  National Public Radio stations including San Franciscos KALW  FM which airs two hours of the program at  pm Sundays In addition Hills Hearts of Space Web site wwwhoscom provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into onehour programs combining ambient electronic world New Age and classical music  The claim as I understand it maybe I dont is that a justified primary source reclassification along with other sources properly reclassified as primary would cause a synthesisOR violation in the article titled Space music The further result would be that the cofounders 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 entitys 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  of the commercial market so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising   The rest of the  Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary and then removed for synthesisOR 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 doublesource 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 hes primary Where hes writing about the musicians in the genre it would seem to me that he is secondary just like any music critic       I agree with  on all three points  multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic  On the primarysecondary question  Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show On thirdparty topics such as music styles record albums musicians the radio and music business etc hed be a secondary source   Id say that within his area of expertise theres no reason not to use his work as a reliable source     Just to be clear about the encyclopediamargins deletionist effect of what you are both saying   Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expertbased secondary sources via WPVWPSPS The Wikipedia artmusic reasoning has previously been that the founder of an artmusic genre knows subjectively more about what heshe created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion You are changing that  What a secondary source says can be combined in a pointbypoint sourceprovable editorial analysis In this case since there are so few other mainstream sources many or most of them are presently combined with Hills 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 cannot 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