This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

MUSICBIO Criteria #6 currently reads:

My understanding of this is that it means a person who either was a member of multiple notable groups, or a person who was a member of a group with multiple notable members. However, another editor informed me that they believe that the second part of the guideline is saying a group with two or more notable members is notable.

So which is it? If it is the later, the criteria should be written as two sentences to avoid confusion. If it is the former, perhaps a tweaking of the wording will reduce confusion. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As in other discussions, notability by association is bogus. We don't want to create articles on "chorus dancer number 17" just because (s)he was in videos for two barely-notable bands. WP:GNG should prevail. LeadSongDog come howl 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The second interpretation is correct. As the one who wrote the current wording, I must say it seems perfectly clear to me, but I don't object to writing it in two sentences if that improves it. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it's already clear, but it doesn't hurt to make it utterly unambiguous if there is room for misunderstanding. Suggest something like:

• Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles
• Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians

Regards, decltype ( talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I solved the problem by changing the order of the sentence. The original wording was ambiguous because a musician can be an member of a group, and it isn't clear which part of the sentence "or" is referring to. The new new wording isn't ambiguous because a group can't be a musician. Hope that makes sense. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good solution. Now that I think about it, wouldn't simply adding a second "is" have been sufficient? Not that there's anything wrong with changing the order. decltype ( talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would have also worked. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a view on whether a ZoneMusicReporter chart satisfies Criteria 2? The chart - claiming to be a "Top 100 Radio Airplay Chart" - contains a list of what are to me very obscure songs indeed. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The good people at WP:CHARTS should be able to help here. -- JD554 ( talk) 10:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

C10 says "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. ... inclusion on a compilation album". So are we saying that inclusion on a compilation album od dubious or nil notability makes one notable? And if not, what are we saying? This, and my previous query, are currently being used by an artist to argue against an AfD. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that having a track included on a compilation album would usually be much of an indication of notability. If it was an authoritative compilation of the best tracks in a particular genre, region, country, etc., e.g. Rough Guide to the Music of Tanzania, then that may be a claim to notability, but for the vast majority of cases it isn't going to be enough to make an artist notable.-- Michig ( talk) 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It does say "media that is notable", so a non-notable compilation album would obviously fail that, but a notable compilation (one discussed in depth in multiple reliable sources) would be OK. -- JD554 ( talk) 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the construction of the sentence to suggest that "media that is notable" is defined as "a compilation album" without reservation. If we mean "notable compilation" then I think we should say so. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The reservation is in the statement "media that is notable". -- JD554 ( talk) 09:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No. To a wikilawyer, it clearly gives "compilation album" and as example "e.g." of a notable album. As it is perfectly easy to construe it as such - and as it is being so construed - I think it behoves us to amend the wording. Note that in the same sentence, we have as another example "performance in a television show or notable film" (my emphasis. I should like to propose that we change the wording to "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" (again, my emphasis). -- Tagishsimon (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would consider it an uncontroversial change to the wording to add "notable" before compilation album in C10, as this would clarify the wording but not change the meaning. Does anyone have an objection to this being changed?-- Michig ( talk) 10:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. -- JD554 ( talk) 10:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

←Just adding that if we add "notable" before "compilation album", we should also add it to the other examples which don't already have it. -- JD554 ( talk) 10:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for the others - "networked televion show" is important enough and "performance in a television show" is also enough, I believe - shows on major national networks would almost always be 'notable' enough here. I think it's reasonable to expect the notability of a compilation to be demonstrated, but if someone appeared on a national networked TV show, we shouldn't require that we first demonstrate that the TV show is notable - this criterion is essentially about widespread exposure, which would be achieved by appearing in or use in TV or film, but would only be achieved via a compilation appearance if the compilation is demonstrably important/notable enough. -- Michig ( talk) 10:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not needed before "networked television show", but the following example is "performance in a television show or notable film". As this doesn't say "networked television show", I think the clarification that it is a notable television show should be made as not all television shows are notable just as not all films are notable. -- JD554 ( talk) 10:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How about specifying "networked" again here rather than "notable". It's possible for some local cable/public access shows to achieve notability (in theory - I haven't checked whether we have any such articles here) and they may be notable for reasons unrelated to the size of their audience or for anything music-related. -- Michig ( talk) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC) The problem with specifying "notable" is that a lot of people insist on interpreting that as "does it have an article?" or "can I find significant coverage on Google?". A performance on Dee Time would have been more significant than a performance on one of the many satellite-only channels we have these days.-- Michig ( talk) 11:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the idea of "networked TV show" is a pure USAism. As a non-American, I *think* it means a show that runs on NBC, ABC or (whatever the third one is), but outside of the US, either there is no distinction, or the equivalent is "national channels". Suggest calling it "widely distributed television show". (The Jon Stewart show is available in both Norway and Sweden, but on different networks...) -- Alvestrand ( talk) 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As Michig says a non-networked show could be notable, and as long as it meets the WP:GNG that would be the case, but by saying "networked" it appears we're trying to create a tighter standard than the WP:GNG - and that's WP:CREEPY. I think "notable television show" for both would be better. -- JD554 ( talk) 11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think simply adding "notable" before compilation album would solve the problem. You're right that the criterion starts by sepcifying that the work must be notable, but I can see how it could be read at present to mean that a "compilation album" is an example of a work that is notable.-- Michig ( talk) 11:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the word notable ( diff) -- Tagishsimon (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bell_(singer-songwriter)

Hi,

I started the above page under Wikki. I am the artist. I am not on any label other than my own.

I do have 9 albums released (only one of which was physically and commercially distributed by a record label) and have had a few unsolicited articles written about me in the Swiss national press. I have been played on several US college radio stations. I have also been played and interviewed on both Swiss and UK local radio stations

But, I am not famous, or it now appears "notable".

Please can someone delete the page or remove the Notability tag. I don't want it on Wikki any more if the criteria is that one must be famous or 'notable'.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.254.25 ( talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've marked the article for deletion by the author-- TParis00ap ( talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I would propose that we add the following two awards to Category 8, as major awards: American Music Award and the MTV Video Music Awards.

Any thoughts? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that both those awards are almost certainly sufficient to establish notability. However, I do not believe the list in the guideline is intended to list every major award - just examples of them. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a guideline on tours? I'm just wondering if there's anything beyond WP:N that can be applied to concert tour articles. SKS ( talk) 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To reduce confusion with criterion 5, I propose a list of approved and unapproved 'important indie labels' similar to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. J04n( talk page) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While it seems like it could be nice to have, I think that could be very hard to do, particularly when it comes to excluding labels. While review sites tend to be reliable or not, a label can easily cross the threshold to "important" simply by signing a few notable bands and hanging on for a while. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that your argument supports the need for the list and also points out the vagueness of the criterion. The current wording begs for disagreement "more than a few years" What is that, four years? "roster of performers, many of which are notable" how many are in a roster? how many are 'many'? In listing the labels, consensus can decide the answers to these questions and put them in one place. Once these decisions are made the hard part is over, there will be plenty of editors wanting to list their favorite indie, and quick to add when the decided upon threshold has been achieved. J04n( talk page) 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

While certainly the criteria could use clarification, I'm not convinced that the list will be quite that easy to compile or update. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that can be maintained by a WikiProject (and should be if people are willing to do it), but should never be "official" since it is nearly impossible to be 100% accurate and 100% complete. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Moonriddengirl and ThaddeusB.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We're going to want to nail down some criteria for Musicals and Operas. I'm seeing a few of these float through AFD, and it'd be nice having something to point authors to. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Do you have any thoughts on the subject? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of the criteria for ensembles fit well, though I'd add a tony award to the list of awards that confer notability (I'd think that would make sense, since individuals can win it as well). As for the rest, I'd add a subheading that expands some of the criteria for musicals. Something like this: UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Draft Criteria for Musical Theatre

In addition to the criteria for other ensembles, the following criteria apply specifically to Musical Theatre productions and ensembles, to include Musicals, Operas, and similar productions.

1. Has had a charted album or cast recording on any national music chart.
2. Has received a notable award, including a Tony Award, a Grammy, or the Pulitzer Prize.
3. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of a national or international touring version of the production.
4. Is a production which contains two or more independently notable performers in leading roles, or for which the book was composed by an independently notable composer and/or lyricist.
5. Includes one or more songs that are independently notable.

The following criteria do not automatically confer notability, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

1. Productions that perform in a venue that is independently notable are not automatically notable themselves, unless the production's presence at the venue is responsible in part for the venue's notability (Long period of time performing in the same venue, etc).

• Comment seems like a good start. :) Not being all that familiar with musical theatre (aside from an odd musical here and there :D), I do want to ask about points 4 & 5. If, say, two of the notable actors from the t.v. show Gilligan's Island do dinner theatre in some retirement resort in Florida, is that production notable because they are? If not, is there some way we can clarify that? (The similar point 6 of criteria for musicians and ensembles has been contentious, and I'd hope to head off future issues at the pass by considering it now.) With respect to point 5, I would wonder if it is possible for a show to incorporate independently notable songs that have notability for other affiliations. The only extant example I can come up with is Love (Cirque du Soleil), which is obviously notable, so it's not a very good example. But the music from that production is not notable because of the production and probably would not lend towards notability of the production. Would it work equally well to indicate that the production originated one or more songs that were independently notable? Or is there some other word to help clarify that notability is not inherited in this way? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs some work, then, as I'm not sure how it would be best to address those issues. In the meantime, though, I think a Tony Award is enough to grant notability, and I'd like to add that to the MUSIC guideline. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I think a Tony Award is plenty. :) What about starting with points 1-3 and leaving 4 & 5 here for further development? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful to determine whether an ensemble who is has an album review or two in reliable sources, but no other reliable sources is notable. I see a lot of band pages on here that, other than an album review or two, are completely non-notable (never mentioned anywhere other than on their myspace pages and fansites). I think that reviews would be fair to use as inline citations and references, but I don't think they are enough to establish notability, unless they are in a wide range of notable publications. Jrtayloriv ( talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If the reviews are significant coverage and appear in reliable sources, then two of them is sufficient to pass criterion 1 for bands and musicians. -- Michig ( talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's what I'm asking -- i.e. are reviews considered significant coverage. I understand that an article in a reliable source would satisfy notability guidelines, but I'm not sure that a band that just has an album review or two and no other coverage is really notable. Jrtayloriv ( talk) 14:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bands and musicians basically perform live and release records. The vast majority of coverage of bands therefore consists of reviews of live performances and records, so such coverage, as long as it's "significant", i.e. not one or two lines saying little about the band or the work, then that is a reasonable indication of notability. A feature article in a well-regarded publication/website is clearly a good indication of notability, as is a decent interview (although often of limited use as a source). Bear in mind also, particlulary for older bands, that there where web content exists there is usually print coverage that isn't available online. The notability bar is intentionally set fairly low, so bands with no releases that nobody has written about are excluded (and there's plenty of these that get speedied each week) but a band wouldn't have to be really famous to be notable enough for an article. Each case needs to be looked at on its own merits re. how significant the coverage and how good the source is, but as a rule of thumb, WP:BAND works quite well.-- Michig ( talk) 17:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This guideline should probably include a section documenting practice for record labels. I offer the following as a proposal to start the discussion — it's a summary of the existing practice, not a new rule, but may still need to be expanded and/or rephrased for clarity nonetheless:

While a record label which has released material by notable artists is likely to be notable enough for inclusion, the roster alone does not confer notability on a label whose article does not contain any other sourced evidence of notability. For example, unless media coverage that is specifically about the label itself can be found, an artist's own personal vanity label may be more appropriately discussed in the artist's article than in its own separate article.

Feel free to suggest appropriate additions, changes, edits, whatever. It's just meant to start the discussion; it's not a final wording that I'm wedded to. Bearcat ( talk) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that we want to discount labels that have/had impressive rosters or releases. Labels by their nature are not going to be the subject of media coverage. There should be some sort of other criteria for notability such as a certain number of certified gold albums, a number of notable acts, a number of albums on the Billboard 200, etc. Food for thought... J04n( talk page) 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, there are at least 3 labels that are now up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flesh Eating Ants Records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OK! Records, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bald Freak Music. I haven't tried to assess their notability yet, but it would certainly be easier if a consensus could be reached for criteria. J04n( talk page) 17:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading text calling for Defiance, Ohio's deletion, I came to this page. I think that if editors are investing significant time to describe a band, there must be some significance, and hence the deletion criteria as written here are irrelevant. Furthermore, significant intellectual and cultural information may be lost by deletion, simply because Capital passed it over ("humbots").-- John Bessa ( talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(I originally wrote this on the talk page of WikiProject Songs but I suppose it makes sense to cross-post it here)

I'm pretty sure nobody wants to take up that fight but the notability criteria for songs are causing problems. While working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs, I find many instances in which a song stub was replaced by a redirect without any merge of the content (see Music (Erick Sermon and Marvin Gaye song) or Just Another Day (Jon Secada song)). I also see a number of cases where some enthusiastic newbie starts articles on his favorite band's most important songs only to find all his work turned into redirects within a few seconds and without any sort of notification, explanation or encouragement to expand the more deserving stubs. Moreover, people don't bother to classify the redirects as Category:foo songs (see just about any random example) and more importantly don't bother to check that the song is indeed insignificant. The language used in WP:NSONG basically encourages this and while I understand the motivation behind it, its impact is negative. I'd rather have a ton of stubs that are properly written and properly categorized than a ton of redirects to places with zero info on the subject. Pichpich ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAND states "A musician or ensemble may be notable if it...has had a charted single or album on any national music chart"

There is currently an WP:AFD that is open, and the above definition is being discussed. The nominated article was charted in the top 200 of the !earshot chart, !earshot is "a supplement that serves as the official monthly chart publication of the National Campus and Community Radio Association. The argument has been made that this chart satisfies the definition of "any national music chart". I would be happy if "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart" was completely removed from list, but really would be just as happy with a better definition. Click23 ( talk) 16:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I believe this is the AFD you are referring to. I think a better definition is in order as well, because not everyone will 'assume' a national chart equals commercial charts such as Billboard. IMO there are too many smaller charts, such as student/campus/local station charts that are 'charts' as such, but are nonnotable. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 17:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a national chart in accordance with WP:CHARTS? SKS ( talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it is reasonable to read "national chart" as including campus radio charts. List of record charts and WP:BADCHARTS might help with this discussion. Fences& Windows 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• IMO this situation would qualify as a national chart and meet the standard. It isn't one college but a national association of college and community stations. J04n( talk page) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines (both here and at WP:CHARTS) are supposed to refer to general, all-encompassing national charts. That's why, for example, genre charts are generally not permissible, nor are retailer- and network-specific charts. Since this refers to a relatively small subset of national radio stations, why should it be considered acceptable and notable? SKS ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't, but WP:BAND states "any national chart", and does not say what that includes and what it excludes. Click23 ( talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this particular discussion having anything to do with WP:CHARTS, it has to do with WP:BAND, which as Click23 pointed out states "any national chart", which includes genre charts and this non-commercial chart. The idea that a non-commercial encyclopedia would discount a non-commercial radio chart seems to go against the spirit of this project. If it were a local chart my opinion would be different but I believe my opinion in in step with both the letter and spirit of the law here. J04n( talk page) 01:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

drat, it's already been deleted J04n( talk page) 01:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

J04n, the reason I started this was that I do think wiki should "discount a non-commercial radio chart". The WP:GNG guideline is pretty stringent, with the "any national music chart" statement WP:Band is actually allowing subjects to be included that do not meet the spirit of WP:GNG. To exaggerate a wee bit, as it stands now if a album was ranked #6982 on the American College Top 10,000 Jazz Band Albums with Bald Irish Trumpeters, it would be notable per WP:BAND. Click23 ( talk) 12:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a small word that's being missed. WP:BAND says "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:" (my bold); it doesn't say they are notable by meeting at least one of the criteria. To be notable there still needs to be the coverage in reliable independent sources etc as per WP:GNG. The guidelines at WP:BAND attempt to show a list of what are likely to show that a musician/band etc are notable, but not what definitely makes the musician/band notable. -- JD554 ( talk) 12:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disscussion moved to the Village Pump, please reply there. Click23 ( talk) 15:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Updated link to point to Village Pump archive page. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Having seen numerous articles on concert tours deleted in recent months, I really think that some guidance is needed over what would constitute a notable tour, and thus be worthy of an independent article. Clearly WP:GNG applies, but would it not be better to have specific guidance here? Something along the lines of requiring significant coverage in multiple reliable sources – but, simply listings of tour dates with a paragraph of text do not count. Significant coverage would require multiple, well sourced reviews of the tour. In particular I have seen setlist.fm used as a source, which clearly does not pass WP:RS. If the tour fails to meet these criteria, then it should be mentioned in the appropriate album or band article instead. Nouse4aname ( talk) 11:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked this question back in October, and it went by unnoticed. :P SKS ( talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "non-trivial coverage by multiple third party reliable sources with information beyond tour dates and set lists" is more than resonable. J04n( talk page) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We need more input to get this introduced to the notability criteria, but the wording above seems logical and self explanatory. Perhaps some examples of articles on tours which represent the standard to aim for... Nouse4aname ( talk) 11:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles.

I know this probably isn't a perfect place to post this, but it is a relevant issue to this page. This became more evident when I saw above the questions regarding reviews and their usage as sources, a matter that has been tackled in the discussion. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 09:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion occurring here as to whether the precedent of shortening Lady Gaga's name down to just "Gaga" violates WP:MOS. All users are welcome to contribute. WossOccurring ( talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The nutshell did not reflect the content of this page:

1. The page was not just for musicians and ensembles, but also for composers, lyricists, albums, singles and songs.
2. More urgently, the description is much less strict than the actual criteria; this leads to misunderstandings and disappointments, as happened at this AfD.

I usually prefer nutshells on policy pages to be about the policy. But in this case, it is probably futile to try and summarize some 30 different criteria into one nutshell; the only way to do so meaningfully would be to say that WP:N applies. I am therefore changing the nutshell to describe the page. — Sebastian 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a question on these from some experts in the field here on these albums. I know that Aluminum fits WP:CSD#A9, but does Everybody? The former has not charted that I can tell, and the article for Everybody indicates only one song ever charted, which I believe is enough to pass not only A9 but WP:MUSIC, if I follow that right. The problem is the band itself has no article as of yet, so what would be the best solution for the Everybody album? BTW - I have already placed a CSD tag on the article in the userspace as it is a duplicate of the Aluminum article in mainspace, so that is already covered.  :) ArcAngel (talk) ( review) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The band is notable - they later became Joe 90 (band), see Rolling Stone review, and Chris Seefried went on to join Low Stars, but I can find no coverage of either album, so merging the more important points to Joe 90 (band) would not be a bad idea. Since the band does have an article, but under their later name, A9 would not be appropriate here. -- Michig ( talk) 08:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are GMA Dove Awards considered "major" awards under the notability criteria? Jason Quinn ( talk) 18:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, definitely. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 12:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, yes. J04n( talk page) 12:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur, they are the major awards within the sphere of American religious music. I've actually suggested they be added to the examples before, but consensus was that it wasn't useful to make this page into a laundry list of such awards. Jclemens ( talk) 16:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At the Christian music project the assessment of an artist's " Importance" is partially based on the types of awards that that have received. For Doves in particular, the type and number help determine the status of the artist. That's certainly not the only measure, but yes, we do consider them important. Dan, the CowMan ( talk) 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is way OT, but was I the only one to think of Genetically Modified Arachnids? LeadSongDog come howl 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I think more importantly, far too much emphasis is placed on awards. Nick carson ( talk) 05:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this RS? -- Dweller ( talk) 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the personal website of a Certified Public Accountant in California, based on this and this. So I'd say that's a resounding no. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An observation that may or may not generate discussion... I often investigate and comment on AfD's at Bands and musicians and have noticed a growing trend that may have been noticed before. In this day and age, new bands are likely to start their promotional efforts by building their own pages on social networking sites (MySpace, Facebook, etc.) and getting their MP3 files on music sites (LastFM, etc.). There seems to be a craze for doing the same thing on Wikipedia as if it is yet another social networking and self-promotion site, and they even use the previously self-built pages as references here. This usually kicks off discussions of notability under WP:BAND which tend to result in a consensus to delete. I propose that something be added to criterion #1 of WP:BAND along the lines of "pages the band has built itself on social networking and file sharing sites cannot be used as references in Wikipedia, are not reliable third-party sources, and do not confer notability." Support for this idea can also be found (indirectly) at criterion #4 of WP:PROMOTION. Comments? Doomsdayer520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that might be covered in number 1: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", with footnote clarifying:

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Self published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.

The other points do not mention that material must be verified by other than WP:SPS, but it says generally that "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true." SPS are excluded for that by WP:V. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I have seen that big footnote many times but somehow forgot about it while crafting my comment above. Thanks Moonriddengirl, I think that covers it, at least for experienced WP users. But maybe there is a need to be more specific with the term "self promotion" in the footnote and add distinct language about the social networking and music networking sites? They are the wave of the future (present) after all. Doomsdayer520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you envision? Do you think it would be helpful to write, say, "their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc."? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good... I would recommend precisely what Moonriddengirl said (but expand "website" to "personal website" and "book publisher" to "self-published media" or some such). I don't think I'm established enough to make actual changes to the WP guidelines, so I'll leave it as a recommendation to Moonriddengirl and others who happen to come across this discussion. Thanks, DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the implication of differentiation between 'encyclopedia' and 'directory' shouldn't be used in this criteria. Also, it fails to deal with the fact that many bands who are signed to major labels have indirect relationships with individuals and groups within the media via who they can promote themselves. Nick carson ( talk) 05:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nick carson. Why is self-promotion of unsigned bands and ultra-small labels on torrents, MySpace, twitter, college radio play etc. not applicable to notability if there is a verifiable audience? (e.g. with torrent trackers, number of blog reviews, etc.). Shouldn’t verifiable quantity count as well as the quality suggested by mainstream press coverage? Shouldn’t a million torrent downloads or a few dozen independent blog entries hold as much weight as a review in Pitchfork, to determine the notability of a band? Quantity is actually more verifiable than the quality of a mainstream review. Or is Wikipedia just an extension and encapsulation of mainstream media? Ironically, the conflict of interest is right there in the form of “notability”: Wikipedia is a sort of “mainstream press conglomerate” promoting mainstream press legitimacy—it IS the mainstream press promoting itself. Regardless, Wikipedia remains my go to source for mucho info. Jdcasten ( talk) 17:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the song "Don't stick stickers on my paper knickers" notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia.

It was recorded at least twice, and has been played on stations such as Radio Caroline and BBC Radio 2. One recording was by Katina on Cactus Records ref CT4A in 1972. It was also recorded by X Certificate in 1973 on Spark Records SRL 1096. The lead singer of X Certificate sounds very similar to the lead singer on Johnny Reggae by The Piglets, but I don't know if they are the same person or not. The songwriters are credited as Norton / York. Mjroots ( talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add an additional criterion for composers and performers outside mass media traditions. Where composers or performers are covered by notable sources such as Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians or Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart or New Grove Dictionary of Opera or the Grove Dictionary of American Music, then they should be notable enough for Wikipedia Andrewrabbott ( talk) 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre probably covers that anyway, in fact. However, I would add that those sources should actually be included rather than the simple claim that they appear in said works. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 01:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song)#Merge proposal and comment. Thank you. – xeno ^talk 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?, Any song can go to Wikipedia?, I see the stories of some songs that were on Wikipedia, and only need to edit them a bit. If you ever get to redirect a song, can you re-create but with a little more information? -- Eduardofoxx13 ( talk) 19:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you can a) improve the article from its previous state, and b) make sure that it meets the WP:NSONGS guidelines, you can recreate the article. If it was redirected, it was most likely due to notability issues, especially in the case of songs. SKS ( talk) 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The section for WP:NSONGS mainly talks about the criteria for future albums having existing articles, I think future singles should be specifically included in that section as well. 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 04:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

'ello. Question for anyone who cares to indulge. Regarding point 1 of the notability guidelines for musicians and ensembles (non-trivial published works, etc.). There is an exclusionary point listed, which reads:

• Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.

Interested to get a clarification/interpretation of this. Specifically, the "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" reference. I am participating in an AfD where I've recently altered my opinion on the AfD because of the introduction of a four page interview with a band in a notable source. However, there is a dissenting view on this source that references this particular reference.

My take on this is that it doesn't cover interviews, in general, but specifically covers content that the band or musician started of their own accord. I take as possible support of this interpretation the note appended to this reference, which speaks of "endorsement interviews." I think you can only interpret this as broadly excluding interviews for notability sourcing if you take the phrase "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" out of context.

Basically, I think the wording of this section of the guidelines could be interpreted to refer to literally 100% of interviews with bands and/or musicians, which, in my view, is problematic. Not here to seek a change to the wording, just here to get second opinions. I do think the literal read of this phrase excludes any and all interviews with bands/musicians as sources of notability, but I don't think the literal read gets at the spirit of the rule (yay letter of the law spirit of the law confusion). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 07:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, the reason I think the literal read fails to grasp the spirit of the law is that I would be taken aback to learn that (hypothetical example) a band that had a lengthy interview in the New York Times or Rolling Stone (or Pick Your Ludicrously Notable Source Here) couldn't claim this interview as a source of notability. That said, I can actually imagine rational arguments to the effect that a band -couldn't- use such an interview as a notability source. Hence my hope for some helpful second opinions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the intention of the guideline originally was. However, I do agree that it should not be interpreted too literally - certainly interviews from major sources can establish notability. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the concentration should be on "press releases" here, guide your interpretation of the sentence from that. When the band self-releases a press release (or has a MySpace, etc), this is obviously not making them notable. Or if their label releases information, an article, or an interview, that is quite problematic in establishing notability. However, third-party interviews which have statements from the band, would be excluded as they have been published by a notable third-party source. Case by case basis required though I think. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 12:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add to the pile-on opinion here: of course interviews with independent reliable sources count towards notability. Fences& Windows 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The present text is slightly ambiguous, however, despite the note. It could be made clearer to explain that self-promotion and promotion by individuals and groups with a clear conflict of interest are to be excluded. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 01:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Posted this a ways back and somehow neglected to come back to it. Thanks to all for the insightful replies. I am in agreement with the opinions in general, and also agree that this doesn't necessarily call for a revision to the wording -- which is a difficult business and one that could just as easily introduce new problems in the process of fixing this minute concern. Case-by-case review of sourcing against this criteria is indeed appropriate. Regardless, thanks for the replies! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The real issue that this tried to capture was the independence of the source. Publication of artist-supplied biographies with no real editorial oversight is common in periodicals that contain event listings. Local radio and television interviews with artists, with no real fact checking, are also common. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is also a good point. The guidelines really do need to make all of this clearer. I am presently attempting to make sense of the Music MoSes as part of all the present auditing: WT:MOS (you'll see my name plastered at the top of WT:Manual of Style (music) and WT:MUSTARD for starters...) Perhaps these notability guidelines should be next? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason that a crap album by a crap band on a crap major label should be automatically notable, while a great band on an obscure label should be excluded. These rules need to be trashed. Let anything go with art. Wikipedia will not run out of storage space and if people care enough to document a band or a release, let it stand! Carrite ( talk) 03:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Greatness is a matter of opinion. If something is worthy of attention, wouldn't notable critics write about it? Wikipedia is not a means of promotion for any group, hence the need for coverage from reliable sources. Shawnc ( talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Echoing that: your personal definition of "crap" is likely to be very different from my personal definition of "crap". These standards have been carefully crafted over many years by many different editors according to consensus and a careful reading of WP:N, WP:V and many other major policies and guidelines that Wikipeida uses. Therefore, JLS, New Kids on the Block and Mud (in my "crap" pile) all stay while many others remain out if they have not at least received decent reviews from indepentent music magazines like Mojo etc. Many lesser bands are indeed included if you hunt around enough: One Night Only, Belle & Sebastian etc etc -- Jubilee♫ clipman 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the lack of storage space but rather the futility of trying to get an article right regarding a subject for which there are few sources. Trying to referee a dispute between two ex-bandmates is futile and a waste of our most valuable resources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal: I propose changing the wording "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" to "Songs that have been highly ranked on national or significant music charts". The lower places on charts are generally are not enough to make a song notable, unless it is notable by other criteria. Marokwitz ( talk) 14:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Highly' is too open to interpretation, and the significance of a particular chart placing will very from one chart to another. There isn't a problem here that this will solve, it would just amount to instruction creep that would be seized on by deletionists.-- Michig ( talk) 14:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Commment: There is a contradiction between your interpretation to the spirit of the first sentence of the guideline: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". Yet a large proportion of commercial singles are at some point listed on some weekly chart. Being listed on a weekly chart alone is not sufficient. The song must either be at one of the top positions, or should be noteworthy enough to be covered by a reliable secondary source. Marokwitz ( talk) 15:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"...a large proportion of commercial singles are at some point listed on some weekly chart" - really?!? I would strongly doubt that... -- Jubilee♫ clipman 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - most songs don't chart and so are not notable. There is no contradiction. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 15:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. as Michig. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 15:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment even songs that do rank at number one on the British or American pop charts are not always remembered and thus fail to get an entry unless someone happens to come across them one day in some back issue of NME or where ever. I would not advocate it but you could almost drop the criterion altogether as being superfluous to the others and to the general guidelines...! In fact, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" is probably enough for 99% of cases. That said, the basic advice that a song needs to have charted (top 40), won significant awards or been covered by notable artists is useful and should remain as is -- Jubilee♫ clipman 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment clipman, I gave it some more thought you are absolutely right. Removing the criterion altogether . A song warranting it's own article should be covered by verifiable material from a secondary source. I would like to refer you to the AfD entry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Was wir sind where a totally unnotable song with zero encyclopedic value is being kept simply because it at some point hit the 15th place in the Austrian charts . This criterion is causing harm by allowing people with commercial interest to promote non-notable artists and works. Marokwitz ( talk) 06:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hm... WP:BEANS... sorry everyone. I suspect removal of that criterion will be opposed, however -- Jubilee♫ clipman 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the word "highly", and oppose removing the criterion altogether. WP:NSONGS already states that charting songs are "probably" (not automatically) notable. More importantly, it explains that all songs "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's also helpful that WP:NSONGS addresses the topic of charting songs; if that sentence were removed, the answer to what I imagine is a fairly common question—"If a song charts, is it notable?"—would be even more unclear. The current wording already suggests to me that the principal criterion when evaluating a song's notability is meeting WP:N, not how high the song peaked (or that it charted it all). That said, I'm certainly open to changes that will better articulate the point.  Gongshow  ^Talk 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Gongshow. However, the nom does have something of a point. A song may, theoretically, never chart, never win any awards and never be covered but still be notable because hundreds of reliable sources write about it expansively in a non-trivial manner. OTOH, a song may, theoretically, be number one in the US and the UK, win several notable awards, and be covered several times by notable bands but still not warrant an article because no one writes about it at all. Notability, IMO, is entirely dependent on verifiability: without verifiability, we have no article—QED. Witness the mass of BLPs we have and how they are being deleted if they are unreferenced—claims of notability notwithstanding. OK, my two extemes are unlikely to be reality but the huge grey area between them needs to be addressed. That said, the advice laid down in the guidelines pretty much covers the points I have just made by pointing to WP:N, which itself immeadiately points to WP:V as the more important factor to consider by pointing to WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:NOR etc etc throughout. Especially of note is the section found at WP:NRVE. In general, though, it is true to say that a song that has charted, won a notable award or been covered by notable musicians will be written about somewhere. After all if the public mass-bought it, a notable independent body honoured it or a notable band though it good enough for them to play, then the newspapers, at least, are hardly going to ignore it. Anyway, the page is only meant as a guideline not as The Law-Set-in-Stone-to-be-Obeyed-Always-and-Everywhere. Even policies are not meant that way... -- Jubilee♫ clipman 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yep I agree that the nom has a point, as I've noticed some "Keep, it charted"/"Delete, it didn't chart" !votes in AfD discussions, so if there's an opportunity to clarify/amend guidelines for the better, I would be all for it.  Gongshow  ^Talk 03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thinking cap on... it may take a while, though, and input (active, preferrably) from the various WikiProjects, TaskForces etc would be necessary. One problem, possibly, is the lack of bullet points in that particular section; that may be deliberate, though, so I'll have to scan the archives -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Anything that has charted on national or significant music charts will have the ability to have at least one source; the chart body that charted it. If something has charted but is not verified I recommend checking for a source on WP:GOODCHARTS. There you'll find each countries chart listed with links to the official site and because Notability is not temporary a good archive of it in the absence of one from the official body. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 12:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pretty obvious stuff, now you come to mention it and similar to what I was thinking due to recent events: I actually linked to a WP:BADCHART, by coincidence, last night and was gently reminded of its status... Shouldn't the guideline explicitly point to GOODCHARTS and reject BADCHARTS? That might go some way towards allaying the fears of the nom above (possibly) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• SunCreator, just being listed in a chart does not constitute "Significant coverage" WP:SIGCOV, which means that sources address the subject directly in detail. I think that's the core of my disagreement with you. I've seen people interpreting this rule as "If it's charted anywhere, it's notable" and ignoring the requirement for significant coverage. That's what I would want to clarify. The word "probably" just adds to the confusion. Marokwitz ( talk) 08:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am still trying to figure out how to best deal with this but your point about WP:SIGCOV is well made and undeniably correct. I note you made the same point in the present AfD for Was wir sind, though I suspect a rewrite here will come too late to stop the snow falling over the rolling keep vote there... Anyway, I suspect the German media must have covered that song somehow, we just need to find the coverage. Any more input on how to clarify the present guideline would be appreciated from everone! Cheers -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, what do you say about this wording: Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable, as long as they received significant coverage. I know this repeats the general notability guideline, but unless we clearly repeat it, people will continue to use this rule incorrectly. Marokwitz ( talk) 08:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• That might help certainly. My current thinking is to state clearly that the "criteria" are actually only pointers to posible notability. Something like: "The following may help guide you when trying to establish notability, but note that claims must always be verifiable ( WP:V) and that all the conditions of WP:N must be met especially those in WP:SIGCOV: [bulletpoint]Songs that have charted... but see WP:BADCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS. [bulletpoint]Songs that have won... [bulletpoint]Songs that have been performed...." Thoughts? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 08:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, its redundant. I would also like to point out that WP:GOODCHARTS is not an exhaustive list of all genuine charts that have ever existed - unfortunately many editors may be apt to interpret it that way. A song that has charted on a major chart will almost certainly have received significant coverage - hundreds of publications review singles every week and publish news stories about them, and it's extremely unlikely that a single will, say, reach the top 40 in the UK without receiving such coverage. Whether we can find them on Google is another matter. Note that we require subjects to have received coverage, not to have this readily available on Google. The purpose of topic-specific guidelines is, I believe, to point to those criteria that will indicate that the subject is notable or can be assumed to be (i.e. coverage will exist) and should not themselves repeat the GNG.-- Michig ( talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah good point. However, they are also not supposed to contradict the GNG nor are they meant as a replacement for it. That said, the lead to this section already states this: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, as that lead points out, the mere claim of notability is not enough: we are required to verify that claim, one way or another. You are correct that not all sources will be freely available (in either sense) online, however editors are still required to find a source and cite that source. That is fundamental to all the Notability guidelines, being, as it is, a policy. Without that verification, any claim in-article can be deleted more or less at will and any article can also be deleted if the sources are not produced. "Almost certainly" is not good enough: it has to be "definately and here's the proof". Witness the deletion of unreferenced and poorly referenced BLPs and the "Sticky PROD" now ready to be put into general usage... Of course, the GOOD/BADCHARTS are not excusive listings but they are a pretty good guide as to what to avoid and what to trust. UK and US songs are likely easily sourced, indeed, but what about those from other countries whose music is less widely distributed beyond its own borders? The question remains then: is one solitary RS that merely states the song's place on a chart enough to satisfy the significant coverage criterion? There is also a "too long; didn't read" issue with this particular section of the Music NG, IMO, which also needs to be addressed -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 10:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jubileeclipman, I agree completely, and support your proposal. Redundancy is not a bad thing when it makes the criteria more clear and accessible. Marokwitz ( talk) 10:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surpised at the current state of the guidelines - they've been hacked about a lot with little discussion by people aiming to get more articles deleted. They were fairly sensible a few years ago. Specific guidelines shouldn't contradict WP:N, which clearly states "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right.". In the case of your 'other countries' single with only one source verifying a chart position, we simply wouldn't have enough verifiable content for an article, so notability would be moot and it would likely be redirected anyway. Where we may have an issue is for example a single that was a top 20 hit in 1974, enough verifiable information for a well-sourced stub, but no significant coverage available online (even though it is bound to exist in print sources from the era) - deletion here would not be beneficial. -- Michig ( talk) 10:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How would you vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Was wir sind? One a related matter, there is considerable discussion over at WT:MOS about a rewrite of that guide and all of its related MoSes. A coordinated effort to sort out both MoS and NG together would not be a bad thing. I have already signed up over there to take on the Music MoS and MUSTARD etc -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Michig, unfortunately even the 'other countries' single is currently about to be kept and not redirected, much due to the unclear phrasing of the present criteria. Do you support any of the rephrasing proposals? Regarding the 1974 single in your example, Wikipedia is more than a summary of information on the public Internet. An editor believing a certain 1974 song is important enough to merit it's own article, is expected to go to a library and do proper scholarly research before creating the article. Marokwitz ( talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer Jubileeclipman's question, I voted Merge and Redirect - the guidelines are never intended to be followed as hard and fast rules and the sooner more people appreciate that the better - every AFD should refer to guidelines but should be considered on its own merits. If we're discussing 'importance', a single that reached the top 20 in one of the major markets (I'm not sure whether Austria falls into this category) is certainly important enough to be included and of encyclopedic value. I would agree that it's highly preferable for editors to gather enough sources before even creating a stub, but it doesn't always happen, and we would have far fewer articles if we had insisted on it from the start. If we have enough verifiable content for at least a stub (which isn't the case in the AFD mentioned above) and some evidence of encyclopedic importance (that's what the guidelines are for) then we should have an article. -- Michig ( talk) 11:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No open issue on this one, although I recently learned from an AFD on a band. Long story short, I had barked up the wrong tree, focusing only on wp:music, while the finding was based on wp:notability (I'll call that the wp:notability "has been published" standard) being the operative policy, and wp:music standards (I'll call those the wp:music "prominence" wording) being more of an indicator of whether they meet the wp:notability "has been published". I'll take it as a learned reality that meeting wp:music does not exempt a band from also having to meet wp:notability-has-been-published, and highlighting such in any discussion. But to try to fully understand use of wp:music, I (and I think others) would find it useful to hear from the regulars here:

Question #1. In addition to reflecting on wp:notability compliance, does wp:music set up a SECOND "prominence" type criteria that must ALSO be met? (of course there is the overlap where one could say that meeting #1 of the 12 in wp:music addresses both)

Question #2. And, if so, would it be required that statements in the article and sources directly deal with such "prominence" (i.e. addressing the wp:music prominence criteria if any other but #1 of the 12 are used) If so, it would seem that this would essentially require peacock and out-of-place-in-an-article type wording. And that it would require less common type coverage, where the article writer would have to be giving their assessment about the band's prominence (along the lines of wp:music criteria) instead of writing about the band, it's people, performances and music.

Thanks Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right." WP:MUSIC is part of Wikipedia:Notability. So for Q1 above: if it meets the WP:GNG (the part of WP:N that deems a subject notable if it has received multiple significant coverage in reliable sources) it is notable. If it meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC it is also notable. It's one and/or the other not a requirement for GNG + specific guideline - since any subject passing GNG is by definition notable and GNG+MUSIC would be a redundant combination. Re. Q2, the article should contain citations of reliable sources that allow the passing of one or more criteria to be verified. Most if not all of the criteria in WP:MUSIC are indicators that significant coverage will exist. A subject is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage, even if that coverage is not yet demonstrated in the article, or readily available from a Google search. WP:MUSIC is a rule of thumb - editors need to exercise some (un)common sense to judge whether the subject of an article is suitable for inclusion. -- Michig ( talk) 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• My take on this is that the specific guidelines are here to help establish notability in certain circumstances where the criteria in GNG are not obviously meet. In other words it is not either/or it is actually both but that is not always obvious. "Prominence" should be established not so much by the wording itself but by the simple sourced inclusion of any relevent facts relating to criteria 1 to 12 without hyping the band or introducing POV or OR. Inclusion of those facts with sources will probably establish that band's notability. Note the "probably": there are exceptions that need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis but 99% of the time these criteria will hold true.
• These guidelines could probably do with an overhaul, actually, to clarify all of this. Care to help out sometime, Michig? I'm on the MOSes at the moment as part of the general audit (see WT:MOS if you dare...!). I could do with help on those too. Talk via my talkpage, if you can help. Cheers -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that these guidelines effectively already incorporate GNG as one of the criteria for notability (see option 1). The essential thing is some criterion to justify inclusion plus Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's very difficult to reword these guidelines without making them instantly usable by some editors to justify either including or deleting more articles. If anything, they need to make it clearer (perhaps in big flashing text - only joking!) that these are a rule of thumb to indicate when a music-related subject is suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, and that reasoned, logical arguments should be used when discussing the notability of individual subjects, which explain why a particular article is/is not suitable for inclusion.-- Michig ( talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Michig & Jubilee. And just to make sure I understand correctly, Michig's answer to my Q2 the later part of Jubilee's first paragraph is for cases where it's not obvious that GNG is met, and so a criteria from WP:Music is being used as an alternate way to potentially establish or review notability? If so, I think that some clarification would be good, as there are some very expert & conscientious admins who interpret it exactly the opposite.

While this example I just described is one case, there is another case where there are emotionally invested people on BOTH sides of an AFD debate. If a band solidly meets GNG, and also solidly meets criteria #1 of WP:Music, can a "delete" person claim that they still don't meet notability unless the article/ a band / a "keep" person ALSO proves "prominence" and I think that the answer from both of you was "no" on that?

Thanks again. North8000 ( talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG is difficult to apply in specific cases, which is why we have WP:MUSIC. A band that meets WP:MUSIC is presumed to meet WP:GNG, and a band that fails to meet WP:MUSIC is presumed to fail WP:GNG. Documenting that a band meets WP:GNG is more work than listing a discography and label affiliation, so it's rarely done, but it's possible. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that three experts responded. But on this interaction question, I think that what you said on the interaction is the opposite of what Michig & Jubilee said, which could mean that this is complicated, not clear cut. But what I think that I clearly learned is that the WP:Music does not establish a separate "prominence" criteria that must be met separately from / in addition to notability. Thanks again. North8000 ( talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Notability has nothing to do with public prominance. Look at the criteria for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions" (Other). In fact, most modern classical composers and musicians fall into that category, in my experience; the mass sourcing drive by the classical music wikiprojects confirmed that much for me (as if I did't know anyway). Although "Pop" acts are specifically designed with mass-marketing and the widest-possible-public in mind, many rock/RnB/rap/soul/etc acts, just like their classical counterparts, might be largely unknown by the "public" but acclaimed by critics etc. (Perhaps that fact should be made clearer.) In other words, it is about the sourcing, not the publicity machine that attempts to drive that sourcing. WP:N is entirely dependent on WP:V and makes no bones about that fact: find the sources to establish that at least one of these criteria are meet with then you have a case that the band or whatever is notable. Prove significant coverage in several independent and reliable sources then you have a strong case for a standalone article. If an experienced admin feels that the case isn't strong enough, however, and deletes anyway, then I suspect they must have very good reasons for that making decision and I would doubt that they have misinterpreted the guidelines. There are always exceptions to every rule, of course (including all those linked, directly quoted, or mentioned in this comment) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 20:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• One other point that should be borne in mind: Biographies of Living People (often shortened to BLPs) must be extremely well sourced. This is because they are about people who are actually alive to read the content and therefore to object to that content... Thus, even a well-sourced article might not be enough in these cases: we might need an exceptionally-well-sourced article. Cheers -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, no open issue on this one, just trying to learn and hopefully it will also be useful for others. And I think that what you said further reinforces my 20:46 5 April recap above. In short, I think that even you experts see the opposite on one point, whether:

-wp:music merely helps interpret / implement GNG vs.

-WP:music being an alternate way to meet notability, where GNG compliance is not obvious.

And again, I think that you all have said the exact same thing on my other underlying question, which is that wp:music does NOT establish a SECOND "prominence" test that must also be met. And, so, a band that SOLIDY meets GNG does not need to address wp:music. (Although I think that solidly meeting GNG inherently solidly meets #1 of 12 in wp:music.) Thank you again. North8000 ( talk) 13:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

P.B.G is an american underground hip hop group cincinnati based group,the group consist of six members reese,deezy,d-money,dre dre,flocka,and yung-e also known as(yung mulan,and yung elmo).P.B.G performed downtown CINCINNATI,they perfored the two songs off there the 3 muskiteers mixtape,i wanna know,and six million ways to die.the mixtape the 3 muskiteers is scheduled to be released in 2013. the freestyle ransom was suppose to be a diss track towards both scooter smiff and lil sam but is scheduled to be released. P.B.G-the 3 muskiteers2013 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.187.213 ( talk) 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They don't sound very notable to me, see WP:BAND. -- JD554 ( talk) 05:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there are Skream, Noisia, Spor, Limewax, etc. maybe there should be others such as Konflict, Current Value, Usual Suspects, Stakka, Skynet, they seem to be quite prominent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.53.14 ( talk) 23:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we are just going to tag them for deletion cuz they're mostly spam, non notable, or unsourced pages. Tempmusic ( talk) 14:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into creating a page for an artist named Tom Milsom, and I'm looking over the guidelines to see whether or not the page would end up getting deleted. Essentially, if his record label, DFTBA Records, qualifies as a "more important indie label", he is entitled to a page by way of criteria #5, as he has released four albums ( Taking Leave and Painfully Mainstream can be found on the main area of the site, while Geometry and Trockstuff can be found in the Free Downloads section) with the label.

The criteria gives a brief example of what a more important indie label entails by giving the description "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". For DFTBA Records, the "roster of performers, many of which are notable" portion is - in my opinion - very easily fulfilled. Performers include Charlie McDonnell, Hank Green, Rhett and Link, Alan Lastufka, Julia Nunes, Venetian Princess, Smosh, and upwards of 15 other artists that don't have articles on Wikipedia. I don't think there is much room for argument when I describe that list as "a roster of performers, many of which are notable". What is a bit more difficult to determine, however, is whether it has been around long enough to be considered to be a "more important indie label" according to the given example. DFTBA Records WAS founded in 2008, so it does have a few years of history, but I'm left unsure as to whether or not it has a long enough history to be considered a notable indie label. 72.192.16.7 ( talk) 22:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to ask these questions before leaping in, IMO, and I commend you for doing so. By far and away the most important thing we need are reliable sources indepentent of the subject that verify notability. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Independent sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more on this. If you can find decent sources of the sort we need, then you will have gone quite some way towards establishing notability. Notability is alway open question, however, in any article. The thing that I always keep in mind is this statement: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb..." Basically, be bold—as long as you have the sources -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The guideline in the Albums, singles and songs section states that demos are in general not notable. I detect an issue in the fact that a "demo" is actually not defined anywhere in the guideline. If an artist self-produces a recording to "demonstrate" what they're capable of, that's a demo under the traditional definition. But if that demo is later released as a commercial item after the artist becomes notable, is it still really a "demo" even if it is unchanged? This question was also posed by Richhoncho at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand Over Fist. Many articles for demo albums have been proposed for deletion recently, under a strict reading of the guideline, but serious questions have arisen for some releases that started as demos but became something more. A telling example is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocketwatch (album), see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roxx Regime Demos. I propose that the guideline stating that a demo is not generally notable be expanded to include a precise definition of what exactly a demo is under the guideline, because this is causing some confusion among editors who participate in AfD discussions. (P.S. Of course, notability is always the overriding question, regardless.) DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 01:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My take on this is that a demo can be released as an official album or single, just as you say. The released album or single, though, isn't a "demo" it is an official release. The master copy is the "demo", surely. The two might sound identical but they are not the same. There are so many examples of this happening that it is impossible to count them all. I agree, therefore, that we need to make the distinction clearer in this guideline, especially given the misplaced AfD debates linked above -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A 'demo' is a demonstration recording with the aim of securing a record deal or convincing a record label to allow a proper recording to take place. This is, I believe, what the guideline refers to. For some reason, however, self-released albums, particularly by heavy metal bands, often professionally recorded and released on their own record label are now referred by some people as 'demos'. Personally, I think a 'self-released album' should just be treated like any other album, and judged on the usual criteria. Lots of non-metal bands half self-released albums - they usually set up their own label to release them - they're not demos. If the coverage is there they are notable. If it doesn't they're not. Pocketwatch is a set of tracks originally recorded as demos (or perhaps just 'work in progress') that were later released as a commercial album - in this case claiming that the album can't be notable because the recordings were originally intended as demos is ludicrous. If a band records a demo in the proper sense of the word and these exist but are never released, then the demo is probably not notable. When a recording is released commercially, on a major label or on one set up by the band concerned, it makes no sense to differentiate re. notability based on the reason that the tracks were originally recorded. There's a similar issue with 'mixtapes', with many hip hop artists using the 'mixtape' release model (often free downloads for a time followed by commercial release) for albums - we see lots of these up for deletion because it can be argued that they are 'mixtapes', irrespective of whether or not the coverage is there.-- Michig ( talk) 06:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Add to that: technically, Nebraska is a demo album because Springsteen chose to use the "demos" (i.e. the rough cuts he threw together when planning the songs) rather than the studio recordings for the release. It would be ludicrous to reject that album as non-notable because of that fact! Futhermore, many bands release albums of demos (in the sense used by Michig) and these albums go on to be extemely well received. The Beatles spring to mind in this context... -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 07:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: In the past 18 hours or so, these questions have become really hairy in the currently active AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roxx Regime Demos. Comments by Jubilee and Amsaim are particularly illuminating on the problems caused by strict adherence to the policy on "demos" and notability, which are made even more hairy by the fact that we really have no true definition of "demo" to work with. Pay attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs and you'll see Justin (koavf) scorching the earth for demo album articles and starting AfD's saying nothing but "Demos are assumed non-notable." He has dozens of recent AfDs of this very nature. I see a real problem with adhering so strictly to a policy that does not define the item (demo) that it instructs us to assume is non-notable. The AfD pages that I've linked throughout this thread, plus the subsequent comments here, prove that "demo" has many different meanings, and a guideline with no clear definition of the term is sure to break down. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To jump in here. 'adhering so strictly to a policy' - perhaps it's helpful to point out here that it is a guideline! Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang straight! I mixed up "policy" and "guideline" myself, but the fact that we are discussing a guideline here makes the big question even more illuminating, IMO. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Guideline" being the operative word, indeed. The guideline itself actually tells you to use common sense—several times, in fact. Perhaps the style of presentation is wrong or something? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 03:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents Here is what I have done in regards to demo albums over the past three weeks or so: First, I reviewed Category:Demo albums and looked at every article to see if there was any assertion of notability/independent source. Out of the 94 articles in there, I nominated the majority for deletion—either through AfD or prod—and the majority of those articles were deleted. I have since added some articles, and the present total of 62 is the product of my efforts to delete spurious self-released cassettes (which ultimately resulted in 43 members of that category, as I recall) and the addition of several articles which were not previously included in that category. Simply put, demos cannot assumed to be notable without significant third-party coverage asserting not only that they exist, but that the are furthermore important (e.g. critical commentary on the album, an explanation of how this album fits into the history of the artist, etc.) Many of the articles in Category:Demo albums were never nominated for deletion because they clearly are notable (e.g. Nebraska (album) and Anthology 3, the latter of which I added), even some which never saw proper commercial releases (e.g. The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music.) Almost all of these demos contained no assertion of notability other than their existence, so they should have been deleted (and many of them were!) per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you follow WP:BEFORE, specifically point 9: "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist"? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 23:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I concur with Doomsdayer520. We must decide either to define "demo" (and all those other terms for that matter) or find some better way to contextualise the meaning. Or just drop the claim that "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable", though I doubt that would be very wise (or constructive) in the present circumstances (nor necessarily correct: most of those really are non-notable) [I'll read the conflicting text now and reply separately]-- Jubilee ♫ clipman 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the wording is already fine. 'general not notable', means generally not always. If someone misinterprets the guideline then it's there issue, and yes it's a guideline anyhow, so use with common sense. Adding more info in terms of defining demo and such terms would amount to unnecessary instruction creep. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if someone decides to PROD one or two articles or nominate them for AfD, but Justin nominated almost an entire category of articles as far as I can tell according to his very strict reading of the word "demo", which interpretation is now under serious scrutiny -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, these things happen. I've made similar mistakes in the past from reading guidelines and policies only to find out it's not quite as it reads. You learn from such things, this is the wikipedia way. I could say more but I'll keep my nose clean. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes... been there, done that and had to burn the tea shirt in public, IIRC...! I really do think these guidelines need tightening, though, and not just in this particular section -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 02:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My edits

If you want Here are the results of my edits to the articles in Category:Demo albums:

In other words, 69 out of 73 ceased to be articles. That's a pretty good ratio (95%), so I would hardly call my actions unreasonable. Clearly, the community in general agreed that the vast majority of these articles could not sustain themselves on the merit of WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Justin. They certainly help to place this all in context -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 03:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

One more Keep, FWIW: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roxx Regime Demos -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And one more Delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand Over Fist -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 16:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

??? Great discussion... so have we reached any sort of consensus? We have brought to light the weaknesses of the non-definition of "demo" as seen in the more extraordinary of Justin's scorched-earth AfD's. It looks like we decided that the guideline needs either a precise definition or a call for flexibility. But I must admit that SunCreator brought up a very good point about instruction creep too. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It does seem unfortunate that, for example, the material that related to Heavy Liquid, Detroit Rehearsals Spring 1973 etc.. has been deleted with The Stooges 'Detroit Rehearsal' tapes article. I have made a minor tweak to the guideline to emphasise it is the unreleased nature of material that is the guiding factor - it can only be a guide. And certainly, for example, unreleased Beatles material is extremely notable. Rich  Farmbrough, 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC).

This just won't lie down so I have started a user talkpage, User talk:Jubileeclipman/Demo album, where we might have a centralised discussion about this and possibly create a properly sourced article about "Demo albums" in the process. (Presently, Demo album is a redirect to Demo (music)). Any thought welcome (including suggestions for dealing with this in a different manner—I created the page to help diffuse tension at Talk:The Roxx Regime Demos but userspace might not be the best place to hold such important discussions, now I think about it -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this, which impacts on the above debate considerably, IMO. I personally agree with that change and endorse it. However, others might not so bring it to your attention for review. Thanks -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 23:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the change and am happy it's avoided definitions. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 00:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; it has completely changed the meaning and it was not discussed here before-hand. I will revert it; if consensus is that it is appropriate it can be put back *after* consensus is reached. I42 ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above: I was particularly concerned with mixtapes, having come here to quote the guideline in relation to such a thing. The policy originally stated that mixtapes are in general not notable and was changed to state that unreleased mixtapes are in general not notable - quite a change. IMO, if this text is changed as a result of the discussion above, it should be done in a way that does not affect mixtapes, unless that is discussed also. I42 ( talk) 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(Additional discussion here). I42 ( talk) 05:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better as 'Unreleased...are generally not notable. Many mixtapes (of the rap variety) are notable, i.e. they receive plenty of coverage (and they often form an important part of an artist's output) and my preference would be for mixtapes to be removed from the list. It would be better to treat officially-released mixtapes the same as other albums - there's little difference these days between a lot of mixtapes and 'proper' albums - if the coverage is there we should have an article. We have a problem with some people seeing 'mixtape' and 'demo' followed by 'not notable' and just lazily prodding/AFDing any article that is on a mixtape or demo (of any variety), often without considering the possibility that they may be notable. The clarification was useful.-- Michig ( talk) 06:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if it would be better to drop the whole "X,Y, and Z are probably not notable but A, B, and C probably are" thing. Basically, something is notable if multiple independent reliable sources can be found that discuss the importance of the subject of the article and isn't notable if that coverage isn't there. In essence, an album, song or other any other musical work—released/published or otherwise, "demo", "mixtape", "draft" or otherwise—isn't notable in WP terms if no one writes/talks about its importance; an unreleased album or song could be far more WP:NOTABLE than a released album or song simply because it has far more sources to WP:VERIFY its importance. The crucial question is not "did such and such a band write/perform/cover it?" nor even "it is released?" but rather "who discusses it and why?" The Guideline contantly (and correctly) reminds us of the prime importance of WP:V. We do need to somehow define what "importance" means but I honestly think we are going about it in the wrong way. Why is Dark Side of the Moon important? Why Nebraska? Why The Marshall Mathers LP? For that matter, why Beethoven's fifth Symphony, Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake or Bach's Mass in B minor? And those latter are notable neither because their composers are notable nor because they are very frequently performed. Beethoven wrote all sorts of rubbish that just isn't remembered except by academics or Beethoven fanatics and kids play many of his simpler piano pieces to death but those works do not get individual articles. Why then? That's what we need to answer -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 14:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think this whole section of the guidelines probably originated as simply saying "X, Y, and Z generally receive significant coverage in reliable sources but A, B, and C don't". Unreleased demos don't tend to receive significant coverage. Mixtapes perhaps didn't used to, but now many do. The essential thing is that editors understand that this section is telling them what often is/isn't notable by WP standards, rather than being the 'rule' that so many people seem to want it to be. It could certainly be better worded to make this clearer.-- Michig ( talk) 16:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The critical thing here is "generally". Notable mixtapes exist which buck the trend but many more still appear to be non-notable. Any truly notable mixtape will be identifiable as such with suitable referencing, and the guideline encourages this where it exists. I42 ( talk) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A notable mixtape (as for a notable album of any other kind) will be identifiable as such by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, whether or not these are references, external links, links in an infobox, or presently absent from the article. It's the existence of coverage that gives a subject notability, not the presence of references in an article. Sorry if that seems to be labouring a point but a lot of editors appear not to understand this. Many album articles are on notable subjects but need improving to incorporate coverage as references, but too many are put up for deletion simply because this hasn't yet been done.-- Michig ( talk) 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Michig's point is borne out by the fact that some AfD's start out as apparently clear deletes but end as clear keeps. WP:HEY explains the idea more. Sending an article to AfD just to force sourcing and cleanup is frowned upon but no one takes issue with an AfD ending as a keep after genuine and unforeseen efforts are made to source the article. I am neither Inclusionist nor Exclusionist/ Deletionist, BTW, but simply look at each case on its merits which, IMHO, is all anyone can reasonably do -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Point number 3 notes that a musician should have a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. As Wikipedia grows larger as each year progresses, should we lower this standard to having a musician attaining silver or higher in one country? This would enable Wikipedia to have a higher scope of bands or musicians being included here. Of course, reliable sources and verifiability of the band or musician should be taken into consideration as well. Any thoughts on this matter would be most welcomed! -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 12:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wouldn't the fact that WP is expanding, added to the fact that the number of bands is expanding along with the world's population, suggest that we should raise the standard to Platinum? To be quite frank, Gold albums are almost ten-a-penny these days and Silver albums are almost worth less than the amount paid to the people that actually pressed the special disks... -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to increase the scope to include Silver. Some people want to have less articles(see next section below), some want more. I say there is more then enough low quality musician articles at this time. If most where GA quality you'd have a point but the reality is most of them are stubs. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Right here's my issue. Starting with Lady Gaga people have begun to create articles for songs and promo singles. Some for example Speechless (Lady Gaga song) and Fresh Out the Oven are plausible but others such as Breakin' Dishes are dubious and some such as Radio (Beyoncé Knowles song) are seriously doubtable. However i think the issue here is that the current guidelines are too loose. For example

Singles

• Must have a release date (sourced from more than source).
• It must have AT LEAST one official source which refers to it as a single.
• Information on who wrote/produced it.
• A sizeable amount of information - it must not fall into a stub catagory.
• Preferably a single cover
• Charted on AT LEAST one national chart.

Songs

• Must have recieved MUCH critical attention i.e. it must have recieved independent coverage seperate from album reviews etc.
• There must be something special about it for example its been performed lots of times or been covered by lots of other artists.
• AT LEAST one national chart.

I do think it needs to be explicitly stated. People appear to be wasting wikipedia space and using album reviews to somehow suggest that songs which were never released are in fact somehow notable. There appears to be an underlying tone that fans who are upset that a particular song was never released go away and find the song on any national chart, add some info just because the song was mentioned in the album review and suddenly the song is notable for its own page. We should act now as digital downloads are becomming more popular and so soon it could be that 75% of the songs on an album chart but that doesn't necessarily make them notable for their own pages. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 23:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, we have to avoid WP:CREEP... I certainly think these Guidelines need tightening (and have been saying so for quite a while) and I also think that your suggestions are actually pretty good but I also worry about over-instructing our editors in advance of problems that might transpire... Personally, I would ditch most of the prose in the WP:NSONGS section and create bulleted lists akin to your lists but I would simply use the present advice found in that prose to start with then look at ways of tightening these guidelines in the light of such questionable articles as you have brought to our attention above. There is nothing at all about classical music (as opposed to musicians), BTW, and something really does need to be written soon, IMO. Also, the whole thing about "demos" needs to be reviewed properly or that will just go round and round in circles. Good start, though, Lil-unique1: I'll have a think about all of this and get back here soon with my own suggestions and further thoughts -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes i agree completely. First we need to model the current information much better and then focus on tightening the rules and controls. Whilst i mention future problems i'm currently concerned that artists like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Beyoncé etc. whom are popular in terms of digital sales are having articles created for charted album songs (not singles) which in some cases might be seen as plausible but in others is simply dubious. But yes i am going to work on a new way of modelling the current guidelines, meanwhile i've notified users at WP:SONGS, WP:Albums and WP:record charts to encourage wider thought. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well heck... if you take the "charts" at We7 or YouTube into consideration then literally anything could be notable if enough people download it via those sites. And most of the "sources" for Radio (Beyoncé Knowles song) appear to be reviews of the album with passing mentions of the song. The article is really a synthesis of sourced material that comes to conclusions not really stated by those sources. Have tagged it as such -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Oppose - I don't agree with such reasoning as 'People appear to be wasting wikipedia space', read the policy WP:NOTPAPER. The example of supposed 'increases' because of downloads is a baseless one, there are much less new songs charting at this time then anytime in the last 20 years, only one third of 5 years ago; see graph here. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 00:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

However, these guidelines really are in a mess, IMO. I have explained why I think so several times above and elswhere but I will get back here over the next few days to explain further -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... that graph is about top 40 entries. I still think there is a strong argument for reviewing notability guidelines. I actually think the lady gaga creations are notable but it certainly would not harm users to review policy. It not necessarily about reducing space but more about being efficiant and reducing the number of wasted links in an article. For example Breakin' Dishes could quite easily be merged into Good Girl Gone Bad saving people the time of having to search for it. At the very least we could do with reviewing the current guidelines and streamlining them even if we don't tighten the criteria. Might point was that it was been changed several times but needs a re-write. phrases like "probably" and "maybe" should be avoided. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. First of all, the Lady Gaga song articles look great, "Breakin' Dishes" looks good, and "Radio" borderline. There is a lot of information in the Gaga articles.

There are six bullet points under Singles. The first four are simply to prevent stubs from being created. That's against the spirit of WP. If it's clear that a stub can't be expanded, then it's okay to nominate it for deletion or, preferably, merge it. Note that without the first two items, it is unlikely that the single can assert its own notability. Yes, I know that's why you're writing this - to clarify this - but is the effort really necessary? It's instruction creep, but when you start to add rules, it gives people the opportunity to Wikilawyer reasons for inclusion. "But I met your very specific rules!" And then, to counter additional too-short articles, you have to add more rules. Keep it simple and loose. I think the current text is good:

Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

How about adding "... a reasonably detailed article, such as composer and release date;"?

Back to the bullet points... "Preferably a single cover". This is bad guideline. "Preferably"? How, exactly, does the addition of cover art improve an article's chance of survival? "At least one national chart." Does this mean that the article must include the chart listing, or simply that it must have charted? What if it didn't chart, but you have a sizable amount of reliable source material? If there's material to base an article, there should be an article. And the bullets under Songs... First point, "MUCH coverage". Why must you mention this? If it doesn't have coverage from a reliable source, it's not notable, right? Delete it. If it does not have "MUCH" coverage, but the article does have some reliable sources, why delete it? Worried about wasting pages? "AT LEAST one national chart." Songs don't have charts. If they did, they'd be singles.

Now if you want to propose getting rid of Performance History sections, I'm all for it. - Freekee ( talk) 04:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm i kinda agree with you but i dont as well. For example "Speechless" by Gaga is not a single, "Radio" by Beyonce is not a single (it was never released for purchase or specifically sent to radio, Dutch radio chose to play it as much as they did thanks to commerical usuage) and even "Breakin' Dishes" by Rihanna is not really a single (by wikipedia definition a song is not released until it is purchasable seperate from an album) yet all charted. At the very least the guidelines could be clarified and laid out more clearly. Your suggest of adding "... a reasonably detailed article, such as composer and release date;" is a good one. perhaps the debate needs to widen to assess what makes a song a single. I just don't see why under the current guidelines its right for there to be ambiguity. "Breakin' Dishes" was deleted four times yet people keep arguing that it meets notability guidelines. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 04:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. What difference does it make whether those songs are singles? Some of them have quality information. As I said, IMO, "Radio" is borderline. I feel this because there are only five sentences besides Critical reception and Live Performance. That's not a whole lot of helpful info. The other three are acceptable, at least. Are you basing this opinion of non-notability on this sentence from the notability guidelines... Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect...? Please do not assume that any song that isn't special in some way, automatically fails N. Notice another sentence from that paragraph... Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. This implies that if there is quality information, with which to write an article, its existence is allowed.

I'll admit the guidelines are very soft with regards to spelling out what is allowed, but a bulleted list of criteria is not the way to go. Freekee ( talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed you made some changes to your suggested guidelines. I still think it wouldn't help much to add this stuff. Maybe incorporate my suggestion from earlier, and also recommend that for songs, articles not be written unless a lot of information exists. That's still kind of a no-brainer, though.

Keep in mind, that your suggestion about songs is particularly geared towards popular music. Think about how other types of songs will be affected by these guidelines. - Freekee ( talk) 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NSONGS actually serves us quite well. It allows for songs that I probably wouldn't create articles about, but I expect guidelines to err on the side of inclusions. I don't think creating a pile of extra conditions that get broken more often will strengthen the guideline. In general, adding conditions weakens a guideline, because it increases the number of people that want to find excuses to cheat. If I was going to add anything to WP:NSONGS at all, it would be an explicit prohibition on future singles.— Kww( talk) 15:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And I would be against an explicit prohibition -- if you mean a total ban -- because you know that there will be a few instances where a future single passes WP:N & WP:V.  ;) More seriously, though, I agree. There's a fairly solid line drawn by WP:NSONGS. It's not perfect, but no policy or guideline ever will be. Perhaps (legitimately) charting anywhere in the world as an indication of notability is an issue (I know it's been brought up a few times) but it's something that's generally agreed upon as being important, and it's easy to define/see: it either charted, or it didn't. With using a release as a "single" as a criterion, it's extremely problematic. How is a single release defined? Is it having an "official" radio impact date? Is it having a "single" release on iTunes? Is it the artist or band proclaiming it as such at a concert, or just performing it live on a national show? Is it having a music video filmed (and released) for the song? I say this because this is a fairly annoying issue in the Korean pop realm that I usually deal with. For example, the South Korean market is essentially dominated by digital retailers — and I believe all of them sell album songs as single tracks, meaning that when an album by a popular artist is first released, various songs from the album chart fairly high, albeit only for a few days. Does that mean that all of them are now singles and therefore can have articles? Also, Korea's main three TV networks all have music performance/chart shows (think Top of the Pops) that run on the weekend. Sometimes, just for fun, a band or singer will sing an album track just because. Does that mean that it's a single? What if you put the two things together? It still doesn't pass the definition of a "single" because it was never officially released/sanctioned as such. Therefore, the whole thing would become debatable. I know that in my example(s), charting is still an issue. I also know that there were other things listed that would be used along with this definition of a "single" release. However, WP:N and WP:V say enough as it is; we're just specifying/adapting it for song articles, and I think the chart criteria is...acceptable enough, I should say. (I kinda realise that in my above example, using charts as the standard makes things even more questionable, but WP:N+V take care of that.) SKS ( talk) 05:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • About "future singles" ... I've seen AFDs get swamped out by fans, but, to date, I haven't seen a future single article that shouldn't have been a part of the album or artist article.— Kww( talk) 00:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a new bit should be added for future singles: "a song which has not yet been released should not normally have a page until the week before release. there must be valid and confirmed release dates from more than one credible source and the information should be of viable length." or maybe we could have a simpler ruling: "if a song has a future release date an article for the song should not be created until the song is released".? then the only problem would be what defines release? radio premiere? purchase date (this is my opinion)? or radio add date? What would be your suggest Kevin because i defo agree about AfDs being swamped with new singles. But there is plausible cause for the article in some cases e.g. " Commander (song)" where there is a sizeable amount of information but no parent album page because the details of that are sketchy. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 01:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • That would be two weeks before our current guideline calls for creation, because normally a single article shouldn't be created until it first charts, which is usually a week after release. If I was going to add something, it would be Note that single articles should not normally be created until after a song has charted, meaning that future singles should only receive articles on vanishingly rare occasions. The belief that a song probably will chart at some point in the future is not sufficient: see WP:CRYSTAL.— Kww( talk) 03:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok i get the point. People are obviously against the idea of introducing new guidelines and my proposals so that's fine. what i will do is post a copy edited version of the criteria on this page and seek approval for it to replace the current guidelines. All i will do is rewrite the existing ones. I will not add or remove anything. I will simply copy edit in-line with the existing guidelines and comments/suggestions above. i will post here first before changing the actual page. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I was going to have a go myself but RL has started to encroach big time, now. I'll check back as and when I can, though -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind the general WP notability guidelines. To sum them up, a subject probably deserves an article if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. If it has that, you shouldn't delete the article just because the song didn't chart, or it didn't meet some short list of hard criteria. On project pages like this, the guidelines are a sort of quick reference to new editors, on whether they should write an article. Try to word them like that, rather than making them sound like if it doesn't have this stuff, you can't write it. - Freekee ( talk) 05:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The general notability guidelines are a minimum standard. WP:MUSIC has always functioned as an exclusion policy: it's presumed that we wouldn't even be talking about where and whether a song had charted or what label a group had signed to if we didn't have reliable independent coverage of those aspects. The nature of the music industry is that sourcing can be found on the most obscure and least important works. The goal is to identify the subset that actually justifies the time and effort of maintaining an article.— Kww( talk) 05:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See my answer above re demos and mixtapes: IMHO, we are going about this the wrong way. The question is "who discusses it and why?", IMO -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 14:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC may say it's a minimum, but WP:N contradicts that position. WP:N is a policyguideline and WP:MUSIC is a guideline, so therefore the policy rules out. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 23:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction; WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:N isn't a policy. -- JD554 ( talk) 07:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked this question here quite thoroughly about 1-2 months ago and some of the above talk conflicts with the unanimous answer received back then which was that wp: music was to help interpret wp:n, and that it is NOT to create an additional or more stringent condition/test. (e.g. "prominence"). North8000 ( talk) 11:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Striked parts of above. My mistake. WP:N is a guideline. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 16:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@North8000: I agree we seem to be going round in circles! That's why I can't make much progress on all these Guidelines (i.e. including MOS:MUSIC, WP:MUSTARD etc), actually: no one seems to agree what we should do or what they are really trying to say -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 17:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)