Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Criteria and Verification

I know a recording artist who met the criteria to get a visa for Artist of Extraordinary ability. In order to get this visa she had to meet criteria equal to some of the criteria for notability in music (which include: must hold membership in an organisation that requires outstanding achievement, have had articles featured in professional or major trade publications, or other forms of media of national / international repute, have made noteworthy innovations or contributions in / or to the area of expertise, have his / her articles featured in well-known journals and other popular forms of media, received recognition from organizations, critics, government agencies or other recognized experts in the field, etc). For some reason, her entry continues to be deleted from Wikipedia Music. How does one verify one's notablility? How does one submit supporting documentation to prove that a listing belongs here and is not merely publicity? gruvjunky 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaks

I am constantly seeing edit wars on upcoming albums about the album's leaking. There should be something here to clear it up. I'd say that an album's leaking isn't really relevant and encyclopedic. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place you can check to see whether or not an album has leaked. Adamravenscroft 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that leak dates aren't relevant information. This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_8#.22This_album_was_leaked.22, but I am unclear on what the final decision was (if there was one). JYi 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (songs)

I've reopened discussion on this; we need something. Once it's settled, it might be merged here, if that's acceptable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have the discussion here, rather than proposing a new, separate guideline, (i.e. do the "merger" first). Otherwise it looks alot like WP:CREEP. UnitedStatesian 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no creep involved in a sub-guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the proposed guideline a sub-guideline of WP:MUSIC or of WP:N? It doesn't say (and in fact doesn't say it is a sub-guideline at all) UnitedStatesian 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want - WP:N has really no further weight than WP:MUSIC does (and, in fact, WP:MUSIC probably has more historic weight). But no, there's no creep involved in it, and even if there were, the possibility of creepiness is no good reason to oppose something that's necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point: I am not arguing against adding whatever guidance for songs that is necessary. I am arguing against putting every tiny piece of guidance we need on its own Wikipedia page - different guideline pages for songs, music excluding songs, albums, song verses, movie theme songs, etc., etc., etc. It is impossible to navigate gudelines, subguidelines, subsubguidelines that are all on different pages. Frustratedly yours, UnitedStatesian 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're not the norm in this case, I think. I apologise if it's frustrating you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no reason to have so many guidelines. Friday (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If there was actually no reason, we likely wouldn't be creating them. The need for them is why they continually crop up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your circular logic has not addressed my concern. Why do they need to be on different pages? What is the reason that this is the norm, and I am not? (I haven't considered "becasue we said so" a good reason since I was 4) UnitedStatesian 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose an argument could be made that that they could be, but it's simply not how we generally handle them. People come here for information on music acts and groups, not the things they produce. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "what they produce" an integral part of talking about a band (or really anything)? Could you really talk about Nirvana without a discussion of Smells Like Teen Spirit? Led Zeppelin without Stairway to Heaven? How would you write a complete article on a band, without writing about, well, exactly what it is they do? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly depend on the band. Some, like, for instance, Babyshambles, aren't really known for their music, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be covering that part, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)--badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the proposal alrady existed; I simply reactivated it. This page doesn't mention songs/singles (and caves in on albums), and I'd be all for incorporating the guideline here — but as it could be a very long discussion, and the proposed guideline itself is currently very long, isn't it more sensible to discuss it separately first? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like these criteria:

1. Has won a notable award
2. If a song has a body of published reviews by notable critics or historians.
3. Is an official anthem of a notable state, region, province or territory
4. Is a musical standard (e.g. a pop or jazz standard)
5. Is a folk song, hymn or Christmas carol with a documented history of more than fifty years
6. Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music
7. Is the signature song of a notable performer
8. Is historically notable for innovation (e.g., stylistically or technologically)

Some of those, though, like the last, will be difficult to argue for.

I don't like these other criteria:

1. There is enough information for it to be spun-off from a very long album article (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
2. Has appeared in the Top 20 chart of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country
3. Has appeared in the Top 100 chart of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country for at least six months (need not be consecutive)
4. Helped launch a notable record label
5. Has been placed on a "best of" or "most influential" list from a major music media source
6. Has been officially released in at least one remixed version
7. Has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network
8. Has been the subject of a major publicity campaign
9. Part of the score for a major motion picture, theatre production, radio series, or television series
10. Has been downloaded a high number of times through digital download websites

You should remember that, unlike 50-100 years ago when musicianship mattered, nowadays a song can become a "best of" and a part of a movie soundtrack and get remixed by Prodigy and hit the top 20 all because of a major marketing campaign. I would say that major marketing campaigns do not lend any substantive notability, just the empty notability-lite of pop culture.

I would really say that, for a song to be notable, it has to have been written about in substantial articles by serious music writers; so "body of published reviews by notable critics or historians" above seems like the best criterion. Although, of course, you'd need to keep a back door open for national anthems, folk songs (e.g. Xmas carols), jazz/blues standards, and maybe signature songs of important performers. What we don't need at Wikipedia is an article on every signle song on every single record put out on Virgin - because trust me, they'll hire some intern to write those articles if you give them that chance.

Anyway, that's all jusy my opinion, and my own opinion probably isn't worth that much. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let the Virgin interns write them, who is going to read them? Pustelnik (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Albums?

I am sure there is discussion on this somewhere in the archives, but can someone explain why the albums section seems to contradict WP:NOTINHERITED? Shouldn't the album need (like everything else in WP) to stand on its own by being the subject of reliable independent secondary sources, like reviews of the album? UnitedStatesian 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with the part you linked to, not with the albums section - notability is often inherited. If you need to somehow work the two in your mind, however, consider album articles simply subarticles of the artist with better formatting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, they should need to be covered independently. Otherwise, they should simply be merged into and mentioned in the artist's article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely false historically, operationally, and consensually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So are song articles subarticles of the albmus, with better formatting, and verse articles subarticles of the song articles, with better formatting, etc., etc., etc.? How is a neo-WP editor like me supposed to know how to draw the line? UnitedStatesian 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In some cases. To answer your question, though, that's what WP:SONG is trying to figure out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Albums by major artists are almost guaranteed to get reviewed in lots of places, causing lots of coverage. However I think albums should generally be mentioned in the discography section of the artist's article rather than having their own. A great deal of our album "articles" are just cover art and track listings- nothing resembling an encyclopedia article. If that's all we have, merge. Friday (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's thankfully not the view held by most people, nor does it really reflect the reality of the situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is an uncommon view at all. A track listing would be seen by many as an "indiscriminate collection of information" and thus better handled in the context of the artist. Standard practice for dealing with overly detailed sub-articles is merging them into the main article. Friday (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's simply false. Sorry, I don't think you've spent much time working on album and book articles if you believe that to be the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It used to be that school articles rarely got deleted, too. Now they quite frequently come out either "delete" or "merge to district". Consensus can change, and once cruft reaches a critical mass, more and more people will be ready to start cleaning it up. (And there's rather a selection bias there, obviously the people making album articles think they ought to exist! That doesn't mean it's a consensus of all editors, just that particular group.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that there's any evidence of consensus changing on this issue. I wouldn't worry about "cruft," and I'd refrain from using that terminology in the future, for that matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I could call them a spade, I suppose. But terminology aside, there does currently seem to be a good degree of shift toward either merging or deleting such articles, and toward placing a greater emphasis on covering in a main article and splitting out only when necessary, and only when the "child" article stands on its own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's all I'm suggesting- not saying "No, we don't do album articles" but rather deferring moving them to a separate article until the day there's enough content for one. This is generally how we should approach everything, not just albums. Friday (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of "enough content" wildly differs from the norm, though, without even addressing the navigational issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Enough content" is "enough to justify an article on the album itself as separate from the band who made it". At minimum, there should be more than a track listing and a few sentences' synopsis of sales and the like, which are what most album articles I've seen look like. And what navigational issues? No one said we shouldn't have a redirect, just not an article. We certainly should have a redirect to the band's page when the album is covered there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with stubs. I know you have this thing against them, but stubs should be expanded, not removed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, permastubs are not stubs. "Permastub" means "A stub that can't be expanded, because the source material's just not there." Stubs are great. Permastubs are not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I can't predict the future, however. So there's nothing wrong with stubs, or permastubs if they're comprehensive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:NOTINHERITED is part of an essay (not a policy or guideline) that expresses the opinions of some editors. The suggestions there are in general pretty good. WP:MUSIC is a guideline that reflects a consensus (although a rocky one at times) that most albums (specifically, not most individual songs) by notable artists should have coverage and that this coverage is better organized on a separate page from the artist. Some general reasons for this might be, one, albums themsleves are primary sources with useful data that would clutter an article on an artist, and two, there are many other music encyclopedias organized in this way. In my own opinion most articles on recent albums of note should also indicate coverage in multiple independent sources (e.g. reviews). However, it is harder to dig up these sources for many notable albums released prior to the internet era. If we strictly apply WP:N to material from decades past we end up with holes in our coverage and make groups of articles more difficult to navigate chronologically. -MrFizyx 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To further things along, can we go ahead and add an inverse to the albums section? Something like "Conversely, if a artist's album or albums are considered notable by Wikipedia standards, then the artists have sufficient notability to have individual articles." That clause is not a new idea to Notability as it is already covered in WP:N's section for creative professionals, but I think it would do good to have it replicated in WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how about we take out some "automatically notable" stuff, rather than adding yet more? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, whatever. I was just trying to help -- what I proposed is already covered in WP:N, so it's not a contentious addition. I just thought it would be helpful to be placed here, but if you want people to be referred to WP:N if an artist has a page because his albums are notable rather than WP:MUSIC, that's just peaches to me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We want to move things closer to reality, not push them further away. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why albums are automatically notable if a band is notable, yet TV episodes aren't automatically notable just because the TV show it's from is? That make no sense what so ever. A lot of the articles for albums I've come across are nothing more than a list of songs. We need to get a stricter policy on albums. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, TV episodes are. If current policy on TV episodes says otherwise, that needs to be adjusted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the TV episode policy have to be adjusted, why not this one? What makes somethings notable? According to WP:N "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." You seem to be the only editor who believes notability is inherited. According to the philosophy, If and actor is notable, so are his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc. Notability isn't a house it doesn't get inherited. I've seen 5 editors question this policy in this discussion yet only 1 editor saying "it's consensus". --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the TV episode guideline doesn't reflect reality if it thinks individual episodes aren't notable. Don't pay attention wo WP:N, it's under a massive rewrite at the moment and does not have precedence over individual subject-specific guidelines. You've got my philosophy wrong, however, and that's part of the problem - understand the philosophy, and you'll come closer to understanding notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a massive debate over episode notability and the main consensus was episodes are NOT notable unless there are "multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." Even the album section says that inheriting notability is "controversial", to me that means we need a better consensus if the current one is considered controversial among editors. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! - so can I AfD every one of those 1000 darn Simpsons episode articles now? Really? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can handle the hell editors will put you through for it, go ahead :) But i suggest you take Mel Etitis's advise. When he put up a Disney series for deletion it raise hell, I'd love to see the debate over The Simpsons episodes... --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is all well and good, but probably not accurate. Perhaps, once other issues are dealt with, that can be revisited. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd not advise trying to remove episodes of even the the most trivial, non-notable children's series; I tried, and there was an avalanche of frothing protest, overwhelming calmer voices at the AfD. The fanboy culture is as strong and aggressive there as it is in some parts of the music area. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim any band notable enough to have an article automatically makes every single last one of their albums notable enough for a separate article is just nonsense. Notability must be established on a case by case basis, and certainly the less notable a band is to begin with the less and less reason there would be to have a separate article for every album. Furthermore certain obscure albums of even more notable bands wouldn;t be notable enough on their own. There's no rationale for keeping this section, and unless someone can give a good, in policy reason for it, I am going to remove it. DreamGuy 10:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So...? What do we do? I agree that albums are not inherently notable if their band is. But this conversation seems to have stalled, and I want to know if the masses of just track listings and images should be AFD'd. Alcemáe T • C 04:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• If a band is notable but the album is not, merge/redirect the latter to the former. If the album is notable but the song is not, merge/redirect the latter to the former. >Radiant< 11:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So should the page be changed to reflect that?Alcemáe T • C 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Songs

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.” Each individual recording of a notable song does not usually merit a separate article; different performances should be merged into one article.

A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards:

1. Has won a notable award
2. If a song has a body of published reviews by notable critics or historians.
3. Is an official anthem of a notable state, region, province or territory
4. Is a musical standard (e.g. a pop or jazz standard)
5. Is a folk song, hymn or Christmas carol with a documented history of more than fifty years
6. There is enough information for it to be spun-off from a very long album article (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
7. Has appeared in the Top 20 chart of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country
8. Has appeared in the Top 100 chart of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country for at least six months (need not be consecutive)
9. Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music
10. Is the signature song of a notable performer
11. Is a historically notable for innovation (e.g., stylistically or technologically)
12. Helped launch a notable record label
13. Has been officially released in at least one remixed version
14. Has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network
15. Has been the subject of a major publicity campaign
16. Has been placed on a "best of" or "most influential" list from a major music media source
17. Has been downloaded a high number of times through digital download websites
18. Part of the score for a major motion picture, theatre production, radio series, or television series

I propose that we consider that the above criteria be included here rather than at a separate guideline page --Kevin Murray 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC):

I think that's a poor idea. Can we remove the list above and link to the page they're on for now? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no reason why the discussion can't continue in parallel, and it is more visible here as the proposed target for a merger. --Kevin Murray 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's more of a lousy formatting thing, but whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Radiant's compromise presentation with the proposed tag at the section. --Kevin Murray 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have refactored this discussion to make it clearer. [1] This looks like some serious and highly subjective checklist creep to me. For an extreme counter-proposal, I'd suggest this instead:

1. Two or more paragraphs of verifiable prose content can be written about it (excluding the simple sort of data you'd usually find in an infobox or table, chart positions, date of release, etc.)

If not enough can currently be written, then merge to the album until we find more sources and write more about it, unless there is nowhere logical to merge it, in which case... we just wait. — CharlotteWebb 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a pretty simple one at WP:SONG - I really wish we could keep the discussion separate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean your comment here, I'm four under par for simplicity. It helps to assume the reader could potentially be fascinated by anything we write about, as long as it's well-written and well-referenced. If you have two song-related articles of similar length, let's say one is about to become a featured article and the about to be deleted for failing "notability" criteria. If the tags are all invisible, and the average American reader has never heard of either song, how is he or she going to guess which article is which?

Not the sales figures or the historical significance or the number of cover versions, or anything having to do with the topic, no. Rather, the quality of the content and its sources would be the real hints. — CharlotteWebb 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you get rid of Criterion 1?

Seriously, this is silly. Criterion 1 of notability says:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.^[2]
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries^[3] except for the following:
     • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
     • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

That certainly should be a requirement for WP:V, but it should not do anything for notability of the band. My own band was written up in several areas of the press- it's trivially easy to get press coverage if you know the right people, know how to professionally approach them, and so on. In fact, larger indie bands have labels who buy press for their artists (by buying the back page of the mag for a full-page ad and saying "I'll scratch your back....")

Most of the other criteria are sufficient for notability, I think, but the first criterion is a joke, and should only go towards the article's verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 13

Criterion number 13 should be removed. Remixes of songs quite frequently appear on CD singles, and the criteria does not define "officially released", which leaves much lee-way for non-notable works - such as: someone records a song, has a friend create a remix, and the song is suddenly notable for an entry on Wikipedia. Seems insane. Chrisch^Talk 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Some compositions that are in themselves non-notable attract numerous fairly obscure remixes that are rarely more notable than the original version, and may well be less so. (Criteria, by the way, is plural). Adrian M. H. 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 17

How long is a piece of string? "...downloaded a large number of times" is far to vague to be an easily applicable threshold. I honestly don't consider download popularity to be of much consequence when assessing notability, but if it must be kept, can we at least make it more precisely defined, either with a threshold or set on a comparative basis? "One of the [pick a number] most popular downloads on a notable and popular download site", perhaps. Adrian M. H. 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It would likely be covered by national chart, since most major charts have a download chart. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the yardstick, then it needs to make that clear. It seems a fair yardstick, since it is (I presume) verifiable. Adrian M. H. 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Having seventeen criteria is pretty ludicrous anyway. We can probably halve that amount. >Radiant< 09:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having any such is pretty ridiculous. The whole thing looks CREEPy to me, and needs getting rid of. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is untrue. But I do have a much shorter version at the actual proposal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way does being downloaded confer notability? By analogy, does a podcaster gain notability by being listened to online by 1000 listeners? Does a freeware program gain notability by being downloaded off archive.org? I thought notability meant "considered worthy of note by reliable secondary sources". I agree with Radiant above - there are too many criteria. Boil it down to traditional notability; get rid of the charts and the MTV and the remixes and soundtracks (which are all manipulated by the record companies anyway) and only allow an article on a song if it's been written about by a reliable independent secondary source. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the things that was concerning me (still is actually) about this criterion. It raises the question of whether we can apply conventional established methods of measuring notability, which would remove this criterion entirely. Strictly speaking, I am broadly in favour of that.

I see that someone has yet again brought up instruction creep. Like it or not, it sometimes has to happen when rules and guidelines are developed, particularly when they are aimed at emerging issues. That said, I do agree with Radiant that this could and should be trimmed to some extent, provided we don't miss out some crucial criteria and later have to add them again. The problem with rules is that if you don't create one, you can be sure that it will be used as a loophole. Adrian M. H. 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Songs aren't emerging issues - they've been around for, I dunno, a couple hundred years. Wikipedia's standard criteria should work, shouldn't they? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do I connect the term "emerging issues" with songs specifically? An emerging issue is something that did not previously occur to the policy writers and therefore creates instruction creep, which was the subject of my comment. Adrian M. H. 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Shorter version (Jeff's)

Song is notable if:

1. ...has been covered in sufficient independent works.
2. ...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group.
3. ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart.
4. ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy groups repertoire.
5. ...has won a significant award or honor.

--Kevin Murray 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is more user-friendly than the lengthier proposal, but exceptions must be made for an article whose topic song meets none of those criteria, if said article is well-written and well-referenced. Personally, I think #4 sounds very subjective and will probably be a frequent source of ambiguity amid a rigorous application of these standards, which I would advise against. — CharlotteWebb 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to go with your first point, a "well-written and well-referenced" article about a song is certainly going to meet that first criteria. For #4, it is subjective, but there needs to be a way to make sure we're able to cover things like R.E.M.'s "Country Feedback," as an example. I suppose it's somewhat redundant to #1 in a way as well, though, but I'm not sure that redundancy is a bad thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• This has my vote. --Kevin Murray 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• I think #4 is wordy and redundant to #1. I'd ditch that. It has my vote too though. -MrFizyx 06:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that needs a fix. --Kevin Murray 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think #4 should be entirely taken care of by #1. After all, how else are we going to prove it's "been recognized" without providing references in "sufficient independent works"? Also, more personally, I think #2 is no good. Just because it's a released single, for example, doesn't mean you're going to find any external independent references that assert the song's notability. Same for #3 - and the "or significant" part of that seems difficult. So, why not simply accept Wikipedia's general criterion, and say "a song is notable if it has been written about with substance in external independent verifiable references that assert the song's notability"? Keep the "award" sub-criterion, of course, since I'd think even official nomination for an award is an assertion of notability. But the other stuff - why not just match Wikipedia's normal rules so that you're not begging for a showdown with deletionists? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

About the "with substance" bit I put in, above - I doubt you'll find many long essays on one single song, but you will find people writing in detail about a person's music. Popular huge artists like Beatles or Bob Dylan probably have completely independent works written about them, which probably provide at least a paragraph on a song. That should be substantial enough to back up an article. But, a fan-book written qite obviously by someone who was paid by the band's record company should never be considered a proper source, and neither should a teen mag or any music mag that's been implicated in payola (CMJ, coff coff...). Record reviews also shouldn't be considered substantial enough to demonstrate notability of one song, either. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: #2 and #3, my own personal guideline has always been to argue keep for charted singles. I don't really think that every single, nor every charted song, needs a separate article. I've always felt that an uncharted singles can be covered in the discography article/section and charted album tracks can be covered in the album article. And if there's enough independent material on the song from reliable sources to justify a separate article, then it qualifies under #1 and doesn't need #2 or #3. Xtifr _tälk 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems like a good idea, you hooked me at the end. Fork out the article after sources are found. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the list is missing an important component. An album is notable by its association to a specific musician. A band can be notable if it had a notable musician. A composer can be notable if it writes for a notable band/group. I believe that songs can be notable if they are associated with notable alblums. E.g. the alblum is a Gold/Platinum alblum, then I believe the song is by default notable.Balloonman 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Music festivals

Howdy all. I've just been participating in an AFD discussion about the article Wild In the Country (festival). For me this is a tricky area which lacks currently lacks any sort of notability guideline. Here's the link to the AFD for background info: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild In the Country (festival). In general, how should editors determine notability for music festivals or events? Any ideas? Paxse 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When there is no specific policy/guideline, surely the main policy applies? Generally, there is probably little need for a separate policy for festivals, though a paragraph pertaining to them would not go amiss. This article needs more third-party refs and a rewrite of the second paragraph, but it does appear to have potential for notability based on the acts that have appeared there. It should not be too hard to find good sources (although you won't get any argument from me if you think that the creating editor should have done that in the first place). Adrian M. H. 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Adrian. Thanks for the reply. No, I wasn't suggesting a separate policy for festivals or even a solution to that AFD (now closed as keep). The AFD just highlighted a gap in WP:MUSIC for me. I think the topic of music festivals is a tricky one and I'd like to see folks think about it, discuss and try and come up with that paragraph you mentioned through some sort of consensus. Paxse 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would probably start with a paragraph based on the main notability guideline and see how it develops. Multiple sources, independent of the subject, etc. We probably can't measure it by the acts that are involved; there are some notable festivals, for genres such as folk and jazz, that may have some acts that would be comparatively non-notable. Adrian M. H. 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that before we start proposing more rules, we shoud determine whether the correct outcome was achieved at the AfD with the current rules. If there si not a problem then why do we need a solution. Paxse states that there is a gap. How? Why? Was Paxse in opposition to the outcome of the AfD? --Kevin Murray 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading through the AfD, it appears that the article was transformed through the process from spam to a marginal keep (a side benefit of AfD). However, very little discussion focused on the concept of notability being demonstrated by third party recognition. It was more "I think" and "I like" logic. Paxse did discuss references by comparison to other articles at WP, but it seem that the logic was: this was less trivial than other entries therefore leave it alone. It does not seem to meet the standard for "significant coverage" per the references given, but I'll bet that it could with some research. In summary, this is an example of a poor AfD rather than poor rules or a poor topic. By the way, the conclusion was not keep, but no consensus, a subtle distinction. --Kevin Murray 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Kevin. To answer your questions. No, I'm not opposing anything much at the moment (War, probably, wine coolers, perhaps) - though I am interested in process at WP and how it works. My logic on the AfD was that notability criteria for music festivals were not currently covered by WP:MUSIC. In the absence of clear guidelines, I'm more inclined to keep a borderline article than delete (like you I'm an inclusionist and prefer to create than destroy :) - and not because there are more trivial articles on WP. Rather than argue about it, I also expanded the article and added some refs before voting to keep[4]. However, given the large and expanding number of articles of various shapes, sizes and potential notability in just one category: Category:British music festivals I thought an extra paragraph here might provide a guideline for editors in the future. This may prevent good faith editors from having their useful articles deleted (this is where the AFD was going when I stepped in). By the way redux, I said the AfD was closed as keep (not the conclusion was keep), which it did (and does) by default when consensus was not reached. Cheers, Paxse 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with most wars, and wine coolers specifically, but have you tried the Hooper's Hooch Brew coolers which are malt based? A splendid thirst quencher in the summer months. I agree that some benefit usually comes from clearer guidelines, but when we have too much instruction we get clutter; the benefit must be weighed against the cost. The US tax code is an example of good intentions gone berserk. Consider the tragedy of the commons in economics as an analogy to our rules sets; what is good for individual issues becomes overwhelming collectively. This is my concern. --Kevin Murray 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hooper's Hooch sounds rather frightening but I'd be willing to try if you're buying - though transporting it to me could be somewhat tricky, I'm several time zones away in Cambodia. I may have to stick to Gin. Good point about too many instructions. Overall, I'm not in favor of instruction creep - better a few clear guidelines (and a few arguments) than 6 pages of subclauses and codicils. Perhaps the case of music festivals could be included as a note to the notable performers guideline - If one or more notable artists perform then the concert/festival may also be notable. Subject to verifiability, appropriate sources etc.Paxse 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreleased albums

The guideline states that all albums of notable artists are automatically notable. Does this also apply to unreleased albums? If an album has never been released, should there not at least be a reliable reference that establishes existence? (I am thinking of two examples, see here and here. --B. Wolterding 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking only about these kinds of leaked bootlegs, and not also upcoming albums. I agree that these albums are, generally, not notable enough to justify having their own articles. My suggestion would be that these articles be merged into the artist's article in the normal way. Adam McMaster 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly true. You have instances, like The Lillywhite Sessions, where this might not be the case, but The Album Coldplay Scrapped in Favor of XY would be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say take it on a case by case basis for these. The Lillywhite Sessions would certainly appears notable enough, while ones like 15 Songs for You or Britney Spears: The Unreleased aren't. ShadowHalo 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically looks like The Lillywhite Sessions was written about in the press, since the article was sourced, while the other two haven't been written about. That's certainly a good test of notability right there. Of course, depending on what you accept as a source, you could still get 150 articles on Greatful Dead or Jimi Hendrix bootlegs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say Christina Aguilera's 15 Songs For You is notable because over 207,500 people have downloaded it from just ONE source since September 2006 [5] and there are many different sources. Many fans therefore are getting the album and the Wiki article tells them exactly what it is, where it came from, who is making it available and what songs are included and where they are from originally.

Adw uk 09:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has no non-trivial coverage by third-party reliable sources. That means that it's not notable. (And before the issue is raised again, search engines are not sources.) ShadowHalo 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not notable unless written about by someone else. I've had some of my own favourite articles get deleted because people argued the topic was "not notable", as there were no press mentions sufficient to persuade the people reading the AfD, so there's a snowball's chance in hell that I'd be in favour of allowing even less notable articles to survive. Gimme an article in reputable press talking about this Christina Aguilera boot, and I'd gladly admit it's notable. But just cos something's been downloaded means jack at Wikipedia nowadays - and to tell you the truth, given some of the articles here, I actually don't dislike that policy too much. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Any one of the following criteria!?!?!?

Who changed the language to "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"? I certainly don't see any consensus to make the notability guideline that broad, and I've regularly argued that Criteria #1 is the only criterion that matters. -- THF 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's traditionally been that way. At least since it was a guideline 2 years ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But it is more and more coming around to where criterion #1 will indeed be the one that matters, and the rest are advisory only. Quite a few already see it that way-after all, we can't have articles without sources regardless! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Criterion 1 has been slowly rejected in nearly every place its been introduced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• If this is the case, then musicians could be handled just like any other biography, at BIO. It seems that anyone meeting the criteria beyond #1 would inherently satisfy #1, making the rest true but superfluous. --Kevin Murray 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• If #1 is the essential one (and I believe that it is), then we have to decide whether the others need to be mentioned at all and whether they are just advisory or additional to the main criterion. Should musicians be covered solely by BIO, and keep this guideline for their work? That might be simpler. Maybe not simpler, but it might be more suitable. Adrian M. H. 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it isn't the essential one for notability. That's kind of the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I thought we were discussing the criterion that requires multiple third-party sources. Surely that is essential. Adrian M. H. 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not for notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• So why is it even listed there? And why do other editors say that it is the key criterion for measuring notability, not just in music, but in any subject matter? Adrian M. H. 13:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know why other editors assert it. It's been knocked down nearly everywhere it's been proposed. But why is it listed here? Because some people want it to be, really. Sources don't demonstrate notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Of course sources demonstrate notability. If something has been noted, then it's notable; if something hasn't been noted, then it isn't. By tautological definition. -- THF 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Needless to say, there's been plenty of discussion on the merits of that position, here and elsehwere. It fortunately lacks support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I had no idea that what seems such a logical way of assessing notability is so contested. If it fails to get approval whenever it is raised, then we're potentially up shit creek at AFD! The $64m question: do those against it actually have a viable alternative? Adrian M. H. 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're questioning here. Notability and verifiability, while both important concepts, are two different things: not everything that's notable is verifiable, not everything that's verifiable is notable. Often, the two intersect, but generally speaking, the two don't have to - it doesn't and hasn't affected AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm asking? I'm asking whether there is a viable proposed alternative to the current notability guideline. Clearly, it does affect AFD (and all forms of deletion) if the current guideline is inherently wrong, because one of the criteria for deletion is notability. If the definition notability is contested, then how can we make fair decisions? And I am perfectly aware of the difference between notability and verifiability. I am not talking about verifiability. Adrian M. H. 14:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)To clarify my concerns about deletion, I am an acknowledged deletionist, so I have no vested interest in saving articles that may be affected by this guideline.

No one's proposed a viable alternative to this that I'm aware of at this stage, to (hopefully) answer your question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is all that I was asking for. In that case, we are stuck with what we've got unless and until a better alternative (if it is needed, but that's a separate issue) can be found. We have to have something in place (I suppose). Adrian M. H. 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

individual songs

The discussion on Sea Slumber Song at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sea_Slumber_Song may be of interest to some of the eds. here. DGG 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC) copied from songs --Kevin Murray 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Record labels

Is there any guidance on what makes a record label notable enough for inclusion? For example, Gallium Arsenide (record label) is an indie label, and the article doesn't really cite its importance. Am I safe enough to request a speedy? - Alex valavanis 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:CORP, and it is independent sources. You are safe to request a speedy if the article does not assert its importance, or to prod. UnitedStatesian 14:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll look into it now. - Alex valavanis 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked this earlier, but why not add a criteria for labels that fits under WP:MUSIC? I realize labels fall under WP:CORP, but in the same way bands fall under the WP:N umbrella, but were separated for more specific notability criteria, so too should labels be separated and made specific for music guidelines. It would be foolish to say that bands, songs, albums, etc. fall under WP:MUSIC but labels don't. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Touring?

As I've read in Archive 5 there is some discussion whether point 4 is too easily met or not. I think Rklawton is right. I think point 4 enables wikipedians to create non notable band articles and justify them through WP:MUSIC.

Why? Touring is one of the first things bands do to get attention. A lot of non notable bands have toured in several larger countries, sometimes with a couple of other bands, sold as a ‘‘package’’ to venues. The headliners are notable, but believe me, most of the less known bands playing at such events are not notable at all, they’re just there to get attention from the media, media that is there to see the headliners.

In many cases the whole point of a national tour is to get attention from the media.

To give you an example: tomorrow I’ll be at a heavy metal event. The bands that will play are War from a Harlot's Mouth, Dying Fetus, Ion Dissonance, Through the Eyes of the Dead, Dead to Fall, Cattle Decapitation and Skinless.

Are bands like Through the Eyes of the Dead and War from a Harlot's Mouth notable (yet)? They’ve got (and will get) some media attention so according to WP:MUSIC they are. I'vee been to grindcore events where the following (touring) bands played Cock and Ball Torture, N.C.C., Gronibard, Pigsty, Ahumado Granujo, Cerebral Turbulency, Disgorged Foetus, Sublime Cadaveric Decomposition, Last Days Of Humanity, Cliteater, Rompeprop, notable bands? The majority isn't.

I could compose more lists containing bands like this. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 11:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this discussion? No opinions (expect for the discussion in the archives)? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that at AfD, this seems to be one of the more contentious (and oft-ignored) criteria. It also seems incongruous to require two albums but only one tour. There are musicians and groups that establish notability primarily by touring, but rarely with a single tour. Xtifr _tälk 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that going on "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" is far too easy to meet for non-notable bands, especially when the country is small in geographical terms (think countries like Israel). This criterion needs to be removed, or at least changed to read "numerous" rather than "at least one".--Rise Above The Vile 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a tour may add to a band's notability, if the tour reaches a large public, or if it leads to substantial press coverage. But "just touring" should not in itself be notable - say, a travelling street musician might not be more notable than a stationary. Oceanh 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC).

Genres

As far as being at the forefront of a genre is concerned, would a band that is the only of its kind be notable? As far as instrumentation goes, I mean. Tomato katsup 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a band in my area, no guitarist, but two bass guitars, I've never heard of that being done. Would it be considered a notable innovator? Tomato katsup 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough really - there may well be another band you aren't familiar with that has done that before. PUSA are pretty close. Just using an unusual combination of instruments isn't enough - they need to have some impact on the rest of the world. I think it would be best to wait for them to meet the other notability criteria before creating an article. If they're really notable then it's only a matter of time! - Alex valavanis 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• In general, no. Many new bands consider themselves the sole adherent to a novel genre. Most of these are dead wrong. Also, "two bass guitars" is really not a genre. >Radiant< 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• It's been done before; the most notable band here is probably Cop Shoot Cop, though Girls Against Boys had that configuration once. There are quite a few lesser-known metal bands too. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Green Andy was deleted as nonnotable musician. the original author recreated it claiming added more references. I am not expert to judge, but it seems that new references are equally not reputable sources. I was the nominator for its deletion, so I don't feel to nominate it again. Since this is de-facto orphan article and it will not be visible by many public soon, I decided to bother this wikipedia page for re-evaluation of the article and possibly more detailed explanation to the contributor. Thank you, Mukadderat 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs to go. It doesn't satisfy notability criteria, even with references. Have left a note on the article's talk page - Alex valavanis 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's gone :) - Alex valavanis 08:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Toasted. If you see such situations in the future, the easiest way to handle it is to tag it with {{recreation}}, which will get some admin's attention to toast it. >Radiant< 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of concert tours

I'm sure I remember reading a guideline once which stated that, apart from exceptional circumstances, individual tours by artists were NN and didn't merit their own article. Can anyone point me towards it? Has it been removed? Or did I imagine it? EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stands to reason that such should be merged to the article on the music group, in most cases. I'd suggest adding a line to this page to reflect that, IIRC that's what we usually do anyway. >Radiant< 08:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added a proposed guideline to the main page. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think your add is fine. In its absence, however, I think the default criteria for concert tours would be WP:N, which might lead one to the same conclusion. We might just do as well to list on this page music related topics that default to WP:N rather than WP:MUSIC (Concert tours, festivals, I'd even add bootleg albums and recordings not normally part of an artist's discography). This might avoid WP:CREEP issues. Again, i think your proposed criteria is fine, I'm just wondering if we can avoid adding clauses for every issue that comes up. -MrFizyx 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree, but the problem is that for very well known bands, any concert tour is likely to be subject to multiple secondary WP:RS. A perfect example is the current Police reunion tour. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Songs section

The songs section has been in place for some time without continued objections. However, it has been pointed out today that the discussion has died and perhaps that section should be removed. The pertinent question is do we need the same level of discussion to add a section to a guideline as we do to create a guideline? I don't object to the inclusion, nor do I strongly advocate the need for the section. --Kevin Murray 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I originally removed the section because the discussion had stalled and had resulted in, from what I could tell, no consensus for inclusion in the guideline. However, if we want to get the consensus to add it in, let's do it. That said, I, like Kevin, am undecided about the issue. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly rather see it resolved than removed. My only unresolved issue is the queetion of whether #2 & #3 should really be separate criteria, or combined. As I said before, "I've always felt that an uncharted singles can be covered in the discography article/section and charted album tracks can be covered in the album article. And if there's enough independent material on the song from reliable sources to justify a separate article, then it qualifies under #1 and doesn't need #2 or #3." If we can resolve that question, I, for one, will be happy to endorse the song guideline. Xtifr _tälk 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed text should be cleaned up to something like this:

A song is generally notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline (e.g. coverage by notable and reliable independent sources);
2. A recording of the song has earned a minimum "gold record" status with any established national certification i.e. as listed in Music recording sales certification;
3. It was ranked on a national or other notable music chart i.e. a chart whose article would be supported by Wikipedia:Notability;
4. It has won a notable award or honor;
5. The song is associated with a notable cultural phenomenon.

Dl2000 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer the guidelines on the project page right now. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards.

1. Has won a notable award
2. If a song has a body of published reviews by notable critics or historians.
3. Is an official anthem of a notable state, region, province or territory
4. Is a musical standard (e.g. a pop or jazz standard)
5. Is a folk song, hymn or Christmas carol with a documented history of more than fifty years
6. There is enough information for it to be spun-off from a very long album article (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
7. Has appeared in the Top 20 chart of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country
8. Has appeared in the Top 100 chart of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country for at least six months (need not be consecutive)
9. Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music
10. Is the signature song of a notable performer
11. Is a historically notable for innovation (e.g., stylistically or technologically)
12. Helped launch a notable record label
13. Has been officially released in at least one remixed version
14. Has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network
15. Has been the subject of a major publicity campaign
16. Has been placed on a "best of" or "most influential" list from a major music media source
17. Has been downloaded a high number of times through digital download websites
18. Part of the score for a major motion picture, theatre production, radio series, or television series

--Kevin Murray 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Top 100" part might need to be rephrased somehow. I mean, is Hot Country Songs a notable enough national chart, despite being a.) only 60 spaces and b.) an airplay-only chart? (Granted, just about any Top 20 country song is pretty much guaranteed to enter the Billboard Hot 100 anyway, but I'm just throwing that out...) Also, I think six months may be too exclusive of a length -- some charts move really fast (especially in smaller countries). I would change "a very long album article" to just "an album article (especially a very long one)", because there're probably many cases where the album article may be short, but the song in question may be notable enough to have its own article (see Horse of a Different Color and "Save a Horse (Ride a Cowboy)" as examples). Just letting my opinion out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Several of these (esp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and possibly 15 and 16) seem effectively redundant. (And why should Christmas carols need fifty years? That seems extremely arbitrary.) 7 and 8 also seem fairly arbitrary. I strongly disagree with 13 and 18, and am very dubious about 10, 12, 14, and 17. (Although it might be possible to merge 17 in with 7 and 8.) Overall, I would call this version an extreme form of WP:CREEP. I think the four point (or five point) versions are a whole lot closer to what we should have. Xtifr _tälk 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly concur with comments from TenPoundHammer and Xtifr. Vague items need to be clearer e.g. A song is probably notable .... The vague and POV-prone "large or medium sized country" wording was removed with respect to charts and certifications in the #Criteria for musicians and ensembles section, and should not be brought back for songs. In fact, the criteria for a song should be consistent with the criteria and approach taken with #Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Regarding 14 (music video), we could include video charts among music charts. Regarding 17, how do we define "downloaded a high number of times"? Dl2000 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about:

1. It meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline (e.g. significant coverage by independent reliable sources);
2. Has appeared on the singles charts on any national music chart;
3. Has won a major award such as a (fill in the blank); or
4. Is widely recognized as culturally or historically significant by journalists, critics or historians (e.g. a national anthem or jazz and pop "standards")

Did I leave anything (important) out? I really think that about covers it. Note that my #4 is different from the one currently on the front page: I removed "to a noteworthy group's repertoire", as I think that seriously weakens the criterion. On the other hand, I think my version covers things like "Tam Lin", "Oh My Darling, Clementine", and maybe even Hey Joe better than the current version. (Although I suspect that #4 may be redundant to #1, I think it's better to have this base covered.) Please remember that we still need sources to justify an article per WP:V, so any criteria beyond the first merely indicate a certainty that sources can be found, even if they're not immediately apparent. Which is part of the reason I object to the longer, more fiddly, criteria lists. Xtifr _tälk 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Eighteen criteria is way overdoing it. Four is far better. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. >Radiant< 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied those from the old songs proposal. I didn't mean to imply that they should be adopted. I like the shorter version. --Kevin Murray 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm kind of unsure about using chart position as a criterion, still. If the fact that the song charted is its only claim to fame, then that may not always cut it. (For instance, there's an article on Someone To Share It With by Rodney Atkins, a song that peaked at #41 -- and #41 on Hot Country Songs isn't very much at all.) However, I think it's ultimately up to the individual editors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I said "singles charts" because I explicitly meant "singles charts", which Hot Country Songs is not. The song you mentioned doesn't seem to have been released as a single, so it shouldn't meet the criterion. I think it's reasonable to allow more leeway for singles, since they are effectively separate works, like albums. It's possible that I need to rephrase to make my intent more clear. Xtifr _tälk 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • How is Hot Country Songs not a singles chart? Because it only monitors airplay? And I'm almost certain that "Someone to Share It With" was indeed a single, albeit one that didn't fare so well. Seeing as the page had little hope for expansion, I went ahead and merged "Someone To..." into the album. I did keep Honesty (Write Me a List) as a separate page, though, since that song peaked at #4 on the country charts and was also a minor Hot 100 hit. Anyway, I think that the country charts should be given more consideration, even though they're airplay only -- otherwise, a ton of artists might get screwed out of the criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, I meant because it covers album tracks. But actually, I think a charted single is likely to have reviews as a single (yes, even #41 on a country chart), while an album track is likely to be mentioned only in the context of the album. (And in this case, AMG seems to confirm that the song was not a single [6].) Remember, the goal here is to identify material where we can be fairly sure that more sources can be found. Anyway, I hadn't really thought about charts that mix singles and tracks. Now that I have, I think I prefer: "Was released as a single that appeared on any national music chart". Xtifr _tälk 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • AMG is quite lacking in that listing, then. Note that they don't list "Sing Along", "If You're Going Through Hell", "Watching You", or "These Are My People", which were (or are) all singles for that artist. And heck, those middle two songs each spent a month at #1, so they were very obviously singles! Granted, it's not always obvious whether or not a song is truly a single or not, so I would say that individual users should use their own good judgment as to a song's chart performance. And don't album cuts sometimes make the Hot 100 as well? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hi! The current proposal lists as criterion #2: "...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." I think this is far too inclusive. First, "inherited notability" is a dangerous concept in general, it just boosts the number of articles we have on bands without increasing their quality. Second, already today we have many articles on singles that just duplicate information from the corresponding album page (list of performers, etc.). There would be no information lost, but much clarity gained, if information on the single was captured in a section within the album article (which are often quite short anyway). But if "singles articles" are generally allowed for all notable bands (i.e. all in Wikipedia), all fans will of course want these articles for "their" band, be there reasonable content or not... --B. Wolterding 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Couldn't agree more. That's why I'm proposing "charted singles". Xtifr _tälk 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• The latest version is missing certification (e.g. "gold" or "platinum" record status); this is a measurable and useful criterion for song notability. Dl2000 17:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that counts as a major award. Note that a song from a platinum album would not necessarily be notable, however. Xtifr _tälk 08:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. A band can be considered notable if it has or had a famous band member. A composer can be famous by having written for a notable band. Likewise a song on a platinum alblum is by definition, IMHO, notable.Balloonman 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • As always, notability should not be inherited. If the album reaches platinum status, there will probably be enough material to write a good article about the album; but why does that imply that every song on the album is notable? --B. Wolterding 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia guidelines for other categories of notability often confer notability defacto from one's proximity to something else that is notable. For example, albums may be notable if released by a notable artist... I'd argue that a song may be notable if it is on a notable album. And platinum albums are by definition notable---multiple platinum albums by major artist increase the chances of the individual songs being notable. I think some of the songs on these albums are more notable than other things that are granted notability via relations to artist/groups (prior groups, composers, etc)Balloonman 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You seem to have a mistaken idea of what "notability" means in the context of Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with fame or popularity, and everything to do with being noted by reliable sources. Every criterion beyond the first exists solely because it's something that we can safely assume will indicate that reliable sources have written about the topic, even if a quick google search doesn't turn anything up. Albums by notable artists get reviewed, so we can be quite certain that an album by an notable artist will have sources. Songs off of an album are much less likely to be written about separately from the album, no matter how popular the album. So, no, I don't think it matters that it's a song off a double platinum album. If it doesn't have anything to distinguish it separately from the album, then I think we fall back on criterion one, and wait for reliable sources to be found before creating an article. Xtifr _tälk 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, a Song, that is heard by millions on a platinum album is less notable than the composer who wrote a song that nobody has ever heard? According to the notability guidelines, that is exactly what you are arguing! According to notability guidelines, a composer/lyracist is notable if they have written a song for a notable artist---even if said composer is otherwise non-notable. In order for a band to be notable, all they have to have is a member who goes on to become notable. ANY song on a platinum album has more inherent notability than those. Platinum albums will have multiple reviews that will give each song some coverage in the media. If a song doesn't get coverage, then the next question becomes 'why not' ---and that can be notable. Songs on platinum albums will get airplay---and if they don't... the question becomes why? But the failed band that some musician belonged to in college? The composer who wrote a single successful song for a mediocre yet notable group... those are considered notable.Balloonman 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of those other critieria sound like they have problems. I don't think a composer who wrote a song that nobody every heard of should be notable enough for an article, if that's really what's happening. But I don't see that as a reason to add bad criteria here. As you say, most songs off of a multiplatinum album will be discussed in reviews of the album, or band, or whatnot. In those cases, the song will qualify for inclusion under criterion #1! And if there's a song on a multiplatinum album that doesn't get discussed by reliable sources, then I think it probably doesn't deserve an article. For example, the intro "song" on Pink Floyd's famous Dark Side of the Moon album is little more than a few moments of sound-effects. That one has been around for thirty+ years, and was part of a record that broke records for weeks-on-chart, and may actually have enough reliable sources to justify its inclusion as a separate article, but in general, something like that would probably not deserve an article. Again, the bottom line really is independent reliable sources sufficient to meet Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:NOR policies. It's not a matter of being fair—if other criteria don't seem like they're intended to ensure meeting those goals, then those criteria should probably be reviewed, and possibly changed. As for your premise that a song might be notable for not being noted: determining that would certainly constitute Original Research, which is a violation of a fundamental wikipedia policy (WP:NOR, to be precise), and mere guidelines, like these notability guidelines, cannot trump policy. Xtifr _tälk 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They would include just about every area of notability... professional sports has a very low threshold of "played at the professional level" which includes that unknown player who sat on the bench for a single game. Literature includes the caveat of "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." I think the key with ANY notability article are the supporting sources---I do not believe that these criteria are valid. But if those criteria are even remotely valid, then a song on a platinum album has to have an equal or stronger claim to notability. More people are familiar with the least known song on Michael Jackson's Thriller than they are with the guy who played one NFL game in 1988... there is probably more written on the songs on various reviews than the guy who wrote a song for Sting. The amount of verifiable sources written on a platinum album merits the POSSIBILITY that any song on said albums have individual notability. Without violating NOR or V.Balloonman 04:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Pro sports has a very low threshold of notability. It probably comes from sports fans wanting to turn Wikipedia into their one-stop center for looking up sports trivia. So, you see how bad it can get when people start advocating for their specific criterion of interest. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Songs

Suggests adding this to the five criteria for notability of songs:

• 6. ...has been performed by several notable artist, bands or groups, over a long period of time. Oceanh 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections to the above (yet), I have changed one of the criteria listed for songs. Replaced the 'released single' criteria - which focuses on package rather than content - with this new one:

"...has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups."

Reason/argument: When several (notable) artists have performed a song, and especially if they recorded it, it's no longer natural to cover that song in a specific album article - the song probably deserves its own article.

Feel free to revert the change! --Oceanh 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

work of media that is notable

Currently it reads "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show...". To follow proper writing style, when giving examples, just one example is insufficient ("a theme for a network television show"). Two is better, three-plus best. Suggest changing to "e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or movie, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." Any thoughts? Gekritzl 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, anywhere else in Wikipedia. This criterion shouldn't be in WP:BAND. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Country size

Since when did wikipedia decide that large countries have more rights than small countries. That kind of prattle merely weaken our reputation as a decent and fair encycloepdia. its like saying if you are from the US you are notable, if you are from Belgium you arent. This is unacceptable, discriminating against small countries, SqueakBox 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The corresponding footnote either needs to be updated or removed entirely. I'll let you decide on that one.

2) Only "sovereign" countries qualify? So does that mean that countries without a clear political structure doesn't? Heh, I guess that means we can delete those pesky Somalian (and various other African countries') borderline-notable bands. Until, of course, order is restored in their countries. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, all of you. I agree, remove the discrimination. Gekritzl 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. While foreign bands might pose a verifiability problem (e.g., how can we verify an article on a Somali artist unless we can find someone who can read the local language?), I'd be very much in favour of being border-blind. I'd actually like to see much more here on music from many small nations - assuming the articles were high-quality, verified, from independent external sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent loophole

I understand Wikipedia can't become MySpace, but I feel there is a big hole in what constitutes noteworthy for independent bands/musicians. With the rise of Web 2.0, lots of notable musicians are doing it -- putting out albums on independent labels, touring, selling merch, even recording videos -- with virtually NO mainstream support. It is somewhat ironic, then, that Wikipedia -- a Web 2.0 pillar -- demands mainstream verification for inclusion of independent artists. I in no way support anyone putting up any band they'd like, but there has to be a way that legitate artists can be included w/o flooding the waters. It's like you have to either be released by a major label or have a song that charts to be included, and that feels kind of wrong to me.

For example, I know a band who has toured in Europe, plays literally hundreds of shows a year and sold thousands of CDs, yet they can't be included on Wikipedia because, basically, they're independent. I know Wikipedia isn't an advertisement, however, it's an invaluable tool, and telling me Snoop Dogg can have an article but the Distorted Penguins can't is ridiculous. I can read about Snoop anywhere. I come to Wikipedia to find information about topics I can't find anywhere else. How is it helping Wikipedia to exclude so many musicians? How is it hurting Wikipedia if The Obscure Independents are included? Lawofone 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please start new topics at the bottom of a talk page, so that the discussions are in chronological order. I moved this one for you. Second of all, as you observe, Wikipedia is not a tool for promotion. But at the same time, Wikipedia has no prejudice in favor of "mainstream" music—in fact, Wikipedia has countless articles about way-out-of-the-mainstream artists. What Wikipedia also has, though, is a fundamental policy that information must be verifiable through reliable sources. And reliable sources do have a tendency to focus more on mainstream acts. That's not our fault, but we're certainly not going to change our policy because of it, no matter how many people perceive it as unfair or "ridiculous". If you want to complain about this, you need to complain to your friendly neighborhood reliable sources. Tell them that they need to cover these acts. Once enough of them do, there will be no more impediment to inclusion in Wikipedia. Xtifr _tälk 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia obviously has a bias in favor of mainstream artists, because mainstream media is what's used for verification. That's not even arguable. But it doesn't matter, I've read enough of the archives to know I'm fighting a losing war here.

The purpose of user-generated sites, such as Wikipedia, was to circumvent "traditional" media, which had become too much the gatekeepers of knowledge and inclusion (I know, I worked in media for a decade). Now, it seems with their calls for exclusion, many Wikipedia editors are becoming as much the gatekeepers as their traditional media counterparts.

This happens anytime something gets too big, which I guess has happened. So I'll try not to put up any obscure artist articles. I'd hate for someone to accidentally look onto a page of a band they know little or nothing about. Just think what might happen then. Lawofone 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Idealism is all very well and good, but when you start facing lawsuits and dealing with a high burnout rate among vandalism and spam patrollers, more practical considerations come into play. Xtifr _tälk 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know, I'm just venting at this point. Lawofone 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several written sources that (also) cover 'obscure' albums/bands/artists. It might take a few years for a band to be included in books, but 'garage bands' with an original expression, even with low popularity, will eventually be covered. Sources for contemporary music are music magazines or fanzines.

A few random examples from my bookshelf:

• Larkin, Colin (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. ISBN 1-56159-237-4. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
• Fuzz, Acid and Flowers: A Comprehensive Guide to American Garage, Psychedelic and Hippie-Rock (1964-1975). ISBN 0-9512875-5-9.
• Cosmic Dreams At Play. A Guide to German Progressive and Electronic Rock. ISBN 1-899855-01-7.
• Echoes in Time: The Garage and Psychedelic Music Explosion 1980-1990. ISBN 0-9512875-3-2.

Similar books can be found on (obscure) Jazz, Blues, Reggae, Soul, Punk, Metal, Hip-hop, Country, etc. Oceanh 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And can I add another idea? Wikipedia's not here to advocate for bands. Wikipedia's here to provide one central place where you can access the font of human knowledge. As for indie groups, all sorts of them get lasting acknowledgement from mainstream press, over time: it takes some time, basically because the critics have to determine for sure whether the band was just some unimaginative fad, or whether they really did something. As for Wikipedia, it's probably messy for us to start having discussions over whether someone's band is "notable": I assume that's why we leave the assertions of notability to independent external verifiable sources. And, one final thing: Wikipedia is spammed to death, so you'll find very little sympathy from anyone if you suggest we be in favour of "promoting" something. I gather the central idea here is to make knowledge free, not promotion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE

I believe these criteria are far too strong. A single reference in the All Music Guide should be enough notability for musicians, songs, albums, recording engineers, anyone.

There is far too much energy being wasted deleting harmless articles on the obscure and uninteresting. Far more effort should go into finding reliable sources. Nothing should get deleted by an editor who has not checked the All Music Guide. Unsourced articles hurt Wikipedia. Uninteresting articles do not.

The goal on Wikipedia should be to have at least the same breadth of coverage as the All Music Guide. Breadth of coverage is potentially Wikipedia's greatest strength. Don't compromise it! CharlesGillingham 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I would change this:

1. It has been the subject of multiple a non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.^[7]

where it's understood that All Music Guide is enough. CharlesGillingham 05:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also these are unnecessary, because they are implied by the first criteria (as long as internet resources are available):

1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.^[8]
4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
9. 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 compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

AMG is not a particularly reliable source, nor are we interested in becoming a simple mirror of AMG. And many of their entries are utterly trivial. We need sources (not source), and we need depth of coverage to create decent articles. Not just a passing name and some guy writing a paragraph for AMG (which is more than a lot of musicians on AMG have). This is not just a music-related issue--non-trivial sources are required throughout Wikipedia. If you really want to whine about your pet band's article getting deleted, you should probably start with WP:NOTE, which is the underlying guideline. Don't hold your breath. Oh, and as for breadth of coverage: I'll bet you that AMG doesn't have a single article on Quantum chromodynamics or the History of Estonia or the Krebs cycle or even the Heavy metal umlaut. Just because we don't have (or want) an article about every two-bit no-hit band to have briefly gotten a US distribution deal (which is effectively what an AMG entry indicates) doesn't mean we don't have breadth of coverage second to none. Finally, basing our inclusion criteria on AMG would severely reinforce the problems of systemic bias, since AMG primarily covers artists with US distributors. We have articles about bands and artists that AMG has never heard of, because we are an international encyclopedia, and accept reliable sources from all over the world. Xtifr _tälk 08:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not responding to any article being deleted. My objection is more philosophical. Now that I've read a little about the political science of Wikipedia, I've realized I'm unapologetic inclusionist and an intense believer in verifiability.

My most constructive point would be this:

I think that verifiability is simply a more important criteria than notability. As I said above: articles that fail to be notable are harmless, but articles that are not verified are dangerous. I would argue that an editor's most important job is research -- finding sources. If an editor thinks an unsourced article might not be notable, his/her first move should be find sources: not mark the article and wait for someone else to find the sources.

My point is not about AMG, per se. I know AMG includes every name that's been printed on a CD cover or album jacket in the last 60 years. For an inclusionist like me, that's not really an issue. I don't mind reading about all those people, if anybody wants to write about them. I think it's interesting and harmless. I'm not interested in using AMG as a measure of notability. I'm not interested in notability at all. I'm interested in using AMG as a way to verify that's what's written in Wikipedia isn't the opinion of just one editor. I'm interested in AMG only as source.

CharlesGillingham 12:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm all for it. How can we start the conversation to get these rules less stringent? Other pages on wikipedia require verification; for some reason, musicians are held to a MUCH higher standard of, essentially, being nationally known. Overall, the point is this: If one doesn't want to read an article about a band one deems unworthy, don't read it, but I agree that Wikipedia's inclusiveness is what can set it apart. These pages serve a purpose. TribeCalledQuest 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not being held to a higher standard! In fact, the first criterion is basically the same as the general notability criterion used throughout Wikipedia. (Or it was, and I would certainly agree to updating it to match the current general criterion, see WP:N.) Everything else is here solely for cases where we can't find sufficient sources to justify an article, but still suspect that such sources must exist. Xtifr _tälk 10:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

They may well be WP:INTERESTING and WP:HARMLESS, but they're still directory entries. All Music Guide is a directory. It's very good at that. That's their function, and they serve it well, but it's not ours! This project is quite specifically not one. Generally, while All Music Guide can be semi-reliable (for the stuff on it that's not written anonymously, anonymous/pseudonymous sources aren't generally considered reliable), it's also pretty trivial and indiscriminate, since they'll cover just about anything. What needs to be present is multiple nontrivial reliable independent sources, which are substantial enough to write an encyclopedia article, not a directory entry. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your two references aren't guidelines, so they're meaningless. I, personally, am not arguing that allmusic should be good enough (though it should be), I'm arguing that I see articles which, were they not music articles, would've been acceptable. There have been several instances when I have come to Wikipedia to get information on a band only to find they've been deleted already. This is self-defeating to Wikipedia's purpose. I've seen articles that met the criteria and were deleted still. The problem is trying to quantify notability -- it cannot be done. Because what's notable to me isn't what's notable to you, and what's notable in British Columbia isn't notable in Cameroon. All of our rules have a bias toward national bands (information I can find anywhere) and U.S./Western bands, and Wikipedia is obviously suffering for it. TribeCalledQuest 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also find it interesting, in looking through the archives, that it is generally a handful of editors railing against a deluge of people who wish to expand Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusiveness. A democracy, Wikipedia is not. If power corrupts ... TribeCalledQuest 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, first of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. There are plenty of musician articles that don't meet these criteria too. Nothing ever gets deleted until someone notices it and nominates it for deletion. But the criteria for musicians are no harsher or more restrictive than the criteria for anything else. In fact, they are less restrictive than most. And yes, there are more people complaining here than supporting the criteria. That's because this is where people usually come to complain about their pet band's article getting deleted. But if you check, you will notice that the people complaining are usually new and inexperienced editors, while the people endorsing them are established and experienced editors. At WP:AFD, where these criteria are actually used, there are few complaints, and many, many people endorsing these guidelines. Further, the people complaining are often assuming that these criteria are more restrictive than Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, which is false, and therefore an invalid argument. Experienced editors know that. Throwing out these guidelines would result in the deletion of more articles, not fewer.

And no, Wikpedia is not a democracy. We have notability guidelines by fiat in order to try to cope with the ongoing stream of lawsuits. Inclusionism is a wonderful. warm, fuzzy-sounding philosophy if you don't have to deal with its consequences, but the people who do have to deal with its consequences (spam patrol, vandalism patrol and the foundation's legal team) get the final say. If you don't like that, well, you're welcome to fund your own legal team and offer their services to the foundation. That might earn you some leeway. But short of that, the complainers have no real standing to complain. Limitations on articles are better than losing Wikipedia completely, which is where it looked like we were heading before the notability guidelines were instated. Xtifr _tälk 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And to add to all of the above, you're more than welcome to download one of our database dumps, set up or rent webhosting, and run your own fork of Wikipedia, with your own rules altogether! If that prospect is too daunting, there is also Wikia, which also allows you to set up your own wiki on your own terms, and you could catalog every last finger that twitched a guitar string in a garage on that if you wanted to. If you want to run a catalog of bands, even non-notable ones, in a wiki format, there are ways to do that. It's just not something you're going to do here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Inclusionism, generally, is a nice thing, but I see yet another problem with it: it provides a cover, or justification, for any guy who's ever had a band to spam Wikipedia about himself and get away with it. Wikipedia is being spammed to death right now, and I think it's starting to make this place look like a joke. Also, while Wikipedia is certainly not paper, it still would be nice to keep the chaff articles down to a manageable level such that someday, when we run out of space because of all the very non-notable articles taking up space, we don't have to go hunt down 500,000 indie band articles.

The general notability criteria WP:N are very easy for most subjects to meet: several verifiable non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. For indie bands, there's all sorts of magazines like Exclaim (Canada) and CMJ (USA) and so on that can meet Wikipedia's rather loose notability criteria for you (though the issue of press payola impacts that), so I don't even understand why all these other criteria in WP:BAND are necessary. And most importantly - if you can't demonstrate that an article's topic meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, very few administrators are going to have pity on the article just because it meets some criterion in WP:BAND. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree about the spam issue. To answer the points in your second paragraph: the reason we have these additional criteria is that articles should be deleted for being unverifiable, not merely unverified. These criteria give us a good ballpark idea of whether a currently-unverified article topic is likely to be verifiable. In a lot of cases, sources are not readily available on-line, so we need something to help us estimate how likely it is that off-line sources exist. (Note that this is especially important for older topics--I've sometimes considered suggesting that extra guidelines like these only be applied to older topics, like, say, twentieth century or earlier.) And these are just guidelines, which means exceptions may be allowed in either direction (although since these are almost completely extra-permissive guidelines, the exceptions usually go in favor of deletion). Xtifr _tälk 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of only applying those extra guidelines to older topics. I can sympathize, that it's not good for Wikipedia to delete something that's not been verified just because it's easily verifiable - I've was involved in that sort of thing very early on here (and, well, after a DRV and some more research, the article came back).

With music, though, there should also be awareness of another important idea in WP:N that I hadn't even heard about til recently, because of how involved I've been in music AfDs - WP:N#Notability is not temporary. A problem in music is, a band can certainly go on a long tour and get lots of press. This happens because the music industry, from the bottom up, demands heavy promotion. Absolutely anybody can get a band together, set up a tour with friends he meets on the internet, and garner a load of press - but any article on him will be meaningless 5 years down the road, because he didn't actually do anything notable. It can be verified that he went on a tour, others were in a band with him, and (of course) that he was selling a CD and t-shirts and hoodies. But the verification of notability kinda falls by the wayside in many articles. Just my own little bit of venting. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, the problem with only-older-topics is that that would really only be appropriate for first-world topics. While contemporary US/UK groups are likely to be documented on-line if they're at all notable, the same cannot be said for Eastern European, African, and many Latin American and Asian groups. And we want to avoid WP:BIAS almost as much as we want to avoid spam. Xtifr _tälk 02:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And herein lies the essential problem: We end up with various rules for different parts of the world. So we have the administrators trying, basically, to keep out low-level U.S./U.K. bands while including a singer who sings in a language spoken by 300 people in the world (seriously, I saw this discussion and decision for inclusion). Verifiability is, well, verifiable. Notability is not, and trying to quantify it, we end up with the ridiculous dozen or so rules in place to determine notability -- and even they can be overriden.

Hence, I propose we eliminate most of these ridiculous rules and I back implementing CharlesGillingham's narrowed version. Let's get this ball rolling. TribeCalledQuest 12:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone who sings in a language known to only 300 people is likely to be of a great deal of interest to historians and scholars. Maybe not so much to pop music fans, but then this is an encyclopedia, not a pop music site. As Seraphimblade said, if you don't like Wikipedia's areas of focus, you're welcome to create your own site with its own rules. Xtifr _tälk 22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for shouting in the title of this section. Your comments have cleared up a few of my misconceptions and I am making a revised (and more considered) proposal in the next section. A few notes on what everyone has said:

• Seraphimblade is right in pointing out that I shouldn't have tried to argue that articles about obscure bands are WP:HARMLESS and WP:INTERESTING. Fair enough.
• Xtifr points out correctly that all the extra criteria (like "Has a gold record") are intended to include more bands, not exclude them.
• I agree with AllGloryToTheHypnotoad that these extra criteria are unnecessary, and I would add that they are misleading. (I, for one, was mislead).
• Xtifr argues that these criteria are in line with the criteria at WP:NOTE, and he's right, to a point: the first criteria is a restatement of WP:NOTE with the additional concept of avoiding a "trivial source". The extra criteria have no parallel in WP:NOTE.
• I agree with TribeCalledQuest that the criteria should be loose, but a closer study shows that, as written, these criteria aren't particularly tight at all. All that's required is a couple of sources. Is that so hard? If too many bands are being deleted, it is not because of this criteria. The problem is elsewhere -- perhaps overzealous editors who are too lazy to do research and find it easier to delete unsourced articles than find references for them.
• Do me a favor and don't repeat the "you can make your own Wikipedia" argument. Don't explicitly discourage the contributions of new editors like myself. I've written some good articles and you need my help. Accept the fact that consensus may change. -- CharlesGillingham 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An Improved Proposal

I would like to rewrite the notability requirements for musician/ensembles. Here is a draft.

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as websites, newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries^[9] except for the following:

• Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble, including websites produced by the musician/ensemble as advertising vehicles.
• Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
• An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

I believe that all of the additional criteria are unnecessary, since they are implied by the first criteria. The first criteria only asks that a couple of references exist. If such sources don't exist, how could an article possibly be verified? For example, it is inconceivable to me that a band could have a gold record and not appear in All Music Guide, never be the subject of a short profile in Mojo, Billboard, CMJ, NME or Spin.

Hitting each one specifically:

For these, it is inconceivable to me that you can't find sources:

• 2.Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
• 3.Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
• 5.Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
• 8.Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
• 9.Has won or placed in a major music competition.
• 11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

For these, the criteria specifically insists on finding at least one reference. Find one more, and you've satisfied the first criteria:

• 4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.^[10]
• 7.Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

For this, the criteria is a reference:

• 11.Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

And these two sound more like criteria for non-notability than notability.

• 6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
• 10.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 compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)

By simplifying these criteria, I hope that discussions of notability will be easier to sort out. Two references, it's notable. Done. -- CharlesGillingham 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my skepticism, but I doubt that discussions of notability will ever be easy. Even if you simplify down to just the WP:N guideline, you still wind up arguing over whether the band was really the "subject" of the reference, whether there was significant coverage, whether the reference is really a reliable source etc. I think Xtifr says it perfectly above - the extra criteria are helpful in determining whether an article is unverifiable, not merely unverified. Your proposal basically calls for the elimination of this guideline, and I'm not sure I see the problem that requires this solution.--Kubigula (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as I have said several times, the assumption that any band with chart appearances or a gold record must appear in some of the major English language media is systemic bias. I said before that Wikipedia is not a pop music guide; even more, it's not a US/UK pop music guide! We need criteria that include 12th century Arabian musicians, and bands that have made the charts in China, Uzbekistan and Zaire. I don't think the suggested changes accomplish that goal. And let me re-iterate that "two references" have never been considered sufficient to meet Wikipedia's more general notability and verifiability guidelines. If we changed this guideline to only ask for two references, it would quickly lose its status as a guideline! These guidelines have been hammered out after lengthy debates at AfD. If they don't reflect the general consensus at AfD, they will be ignored at AfD. Xtifr _tälk 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the new rules. They are much more streamlined, concise and easy to follow than the previous ones. First, by including Websites, we keep Wikipedia (a Website) from relying on print publications for verification, which never made sense to me. Secondly, by disallowing re-written press releases as verification, you keep out all the fourth-rate garage bands that editors are vehemently against; anyone can get an article printed in a community newspaper, trust me, I worked in that field for a decade.

Moreover, I feel consensus is changing. Looking over the archives, there is overwhelming support for changing the rules, despite the objections of some editors. Wikipedia benefits from inclusion, rather than exclusion.

The problem that requires a solution, Kubigula, is that in efforts to exclude certain U.S./U.K. bands and include certain obscure/foreign-language bands, we've come up with this ridiculous list of rules that, seriously, is difficult to read through without snickering. The new list will be simple and succinct -- two verifiable references. This will include and exclude all those who, respectively, should be.

The bottom line: Notability is purely subjective, and as such, nigh impossible to determine. Two verifiable references, in any medium, should be all that's required. Count me in. TribeCalledQuest 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, we're getting somewhere. I am in favor of whittling away at the criteria. The list as it stands is laughable, I saw that someone wrote that previously, and I agree. Two verifiable references will eliminate any arguments. Lawofone 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Discogs.com

Should they really be listed as a resource? Their content is basically user-submitted, isn't it? I've always avoided using them as a source for that reason.--P4k 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Define "major award"

Tom Smith is a thirteen-time winner of the Pegasus Award, the primary award in the Filk community. However, his article has been put up for deletion, and the nom asserts that filk "represent[s] a very narrow area of interest within fandom", and hence winning the award does not confer notability. So, my question is (which I see has been argued before in the archives), how major is major? If a genre is practiced by enough performers, is its main award notable?--SarekOfVulcan 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit after the fact... Not sure how major major needs to be, for awards, but in this case #7 could apply: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; -Freekee 05:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Restrictions on albums section

The album section currently says:

"If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage."

I would like to add, either in the text or as a footnote: "Demo's, mixtapes, bootlegs or promo-only records are in general not notable", since many people make articles for these with the idea that "any album of a notable artist is notable", which is definitely not true for these categories (although there are of course exceptions genre The Black Album (Prince album)). Fram 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Over the past week, I've been proding and AfDing dozens and dozens of mixtapes (I'm trying to clear out all the non-notable ones in Category:Mixtape albums). They can never expand beyond a track listing. So unless a tape actually is notable with things like sales, certifications, critical reviews etc., they generally don't warrant an article. Spellcast 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of band members

So I've tried and tried, but cannot find anything that details what makes a member of a band notable enough to deserve an article. I've had people argue against the deletion of articles about seemingly non-notable bands because of the presence of a member of a notable band. But I can't find a guideline or rule. I suppose to be specific, Dave Edwardson, who is the bass player for a notable band (Neurosis (band)), and has played with other notable acts, has been tagged questioning the notability of the subject. Are there guidelines for this? What do people think about this specific case? Murderbike 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• It wouldn't hurt adding a line. I believe what mostly happens is that short articles on band members are merged or redirected to the article on the band, whereas lengthy verifiable articles on band members stand on their own. >Radiant< 11:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• I was going to suggest looking at WP:BIO - but then I realized that page states "See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc." - so I would suspect we need something here. Does the musician have enough works written about him/her (not just the band) to flesh out an article? I would suggest merging the Dave Edwardson article for now and turning it into a redirect - the Neurosis article doesn't seem overly long yet, and the other band bios don't seem very long either. See the section on Ayabie for something similiar as a formatting suggestion. Denaar 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• I would say that if you have some info about the person that doesn't fit into the band article, you may write an article on him. With Dave Edwardson, for example, you could parenthetically list the other bands he's been in, in each of those band's articles. But if you had his birthday, where he grew up, how he got started in music, and so on, then you'd have a decent article. -Freekee 04:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is still an issue. Does it have enough support to add a line? There's been a number of AfDs for NN-members of notable bands, and the lack of clarity is causing friction. Torc2 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I definetly think this needs a guideline. One of the issues is about differentiating between an article about a band which mentions members and a specific article about the a band member as a individual. Obviously individuals in bands are going to get mentioned in reliable sources if the band has notability, but does this meet WP:BIO criteria. My belief is that a band member only needs a seperate article is a) The info is too large to go in the main band article, b) If there is relevant verified info that is not related to the band eg. solo actions or c) that there are reliable articles, specifically about the subject. What should be considered is that merging articles is not a hinderance to a user. If the person is primarily known for memership of a notable band, then it is likely that a redirect would not be confusing. --neonwhite user page talk 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Neon White's analysis; in my opinion, individual band members shouldn't have pages unless they warrant enough standalone notability for a separate article. A good example would be Brady Seals and Tim Rushlow, former lead singers of the country music group Little Texas. They split off and charted a few solo singles; Seals cut two albums for Warner Bros., and Rushlow cut one for Atlantic. Since then, Seals formed Hot Apple Pie, while Rushlow formed Rushlow (which was later re-tooled as the duo Rushlow Harris). Both men are the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources outside the context of their respective bands; therefore, they warrant their own separate pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this guideline

• It fails to emphasize enough that material must be verifiable, espesially the existance of subject.
• It repeats inclusion criteria based on coverage in secondary sources. Any coverage in secondary sources is good enough.
• It lists what might be called "subject-specific objective evidence of notability" but fails to impress that any claims of such objective evidence must be verifiable. The mere claim is not good enough. --SmokeyJoe 09:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Verifiability is a separate issue from notability. Information which fails to meet the verifiability policy can be deleted for that reason; notability is irrelevant in such cases. (Note that being verifiable is different from being verified, though.)
• I'm not sure what you mean by "any coverage in secondary sources is good enough". Good enough for verifiability, but not necessarily for notability.
• See the first point. This is a notability guideline. We already have WP:V as a policy and don't need to repeat it here.

Basically, this is a "beyond mere verifiability, what do we want to have articles about" guideline. Verifiability is a policy and is far more fundamental. Verifiability answers the question "can we have an article?" Notability answers the question "should we have an article?" If you don't believe that claims to notability can be verified, then you should absolutely send the article to AfD. Xtifr _tälk 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As a guide, it'd be a good idea to read this to see why we don't re-trace and re-tell existing guidelines. --linca^linca 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tour Page

I just come to know that tour pages are unassessed. What proper template should be added? BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles don't have to be assessed or templated, but I guess that this question should be asked at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, not on the notability pages. Fram 12:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like {{WikiProject Music}} would be fine. -Freekee 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was linca^linca who told me to direct to WT:MUSIC. With regards to the second comment, why articles don't need to be assessed? I think it's important anyway. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lincalinca probably assumed that the WT:MUSIC shortcut redirected to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music rather than here, just like he assumed that WP:AIC redirects to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep in the section above. Both reasonable assumptions, but both wrong. --PEJL 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That was i was thinking. Lincalinca mislead me but anyway, linca tried to help. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry. I have made that mistake before, too. It was meant to go to the wikiproject, not notability (though, generally, it's a good idea to add both to your watchlist). --linca^linca 03:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to sorry for, though. Your instructions led me to read some of the page. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Ilic

The links to this article seem to point to Ilic himself making the edits. There were a number of links to his website under "Audio Samples" in a few pages on specific pieces of music and links and the users User:VHFleischer and User:Hum Fleischer appear to be the same. I do not know whether this individual (as well as others for whom these users have created articles) is notable enough for inclusion and I would like to leave that up to the more knowledgeable users here. 150.135.66.29 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New essay

I've written an essay, at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Satisfying music notability guidelines, which gives suggestions and tips on satisfying the criteria here. Any suggestions and edits to it are appreciated. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd personally just tell them to read WP:N WP:RS and WP:V, and to actually use footnotes and professional media sources instead of, say, putting a link at the bottom of the article to a tiny web-only review site and thinking that's all you need. There doesn't neat to be a WP:BAND page for music notability guidelines - there just has to be an attempt to take the general guidelines seriously. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines For Discographies

An AFD conversation Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mims_discography has prompted the question what are the guidelines for discographies? Should an artist have a certain amount of notability before his discography is split into a new article, chould they have a certain amount of entries for a separate discography, or is one or 2 entires enough to merit it? WP:MUSIC has guidelines for everything but discographies, if they are allowed there should at least be a mention of them. Ridernyc 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tribute albums

I'm curious to know what peoples thoughts are on the notability of tribute albums. Just like most mixtapes can't expand from a track list, the same goes for tributes. If they can't expand from a track list, I generally favour deleting or merging to a discography. Some people think tributes are notable simply because the artists who made them are. But the same goes for mixtapes—despite the artist being notable, they always result in unanimous deletes in AfDs. About 2 months ago, there were 200 mixtapes in Category:mixtape albums, now there's 30. I think there are many pages in Category:tribute albums that should follow the same path but maybe not everyone agrees? Spellcast 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 5 - why two or more albums needed for notability?

Why not just one album for a musical artist to be notable? What do you all think?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, to exclude artists that did get signed, but were so unnoticed they got dumped after a record, without leaving any press coverage, going on a major tour, or being important to the history of some other band. Rigadoun (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If an artist really is "notable" they'll receive some sort of other coverage after one album. It's there somewhat as a safety net. — H₂O —  08:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If an artist really satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, then he's received proper coverage to satisfy WP:V and WP:N and WP:RS, and we should delete WP:MUSIC as something made up in school one day. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the case with all the notability guidelines. If an artist can pass all the core polcies they should have no problem with notability. Slowly notability is taking over, it's really a bad for wikipedia to be heading down. Ridernyc 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Songs section redux

This statement This is a proposed new section, presently under discussion on the talk page seems to be somewhat misleading. :) As long as the section has been there and gone unchallenged, I'd like to propose removing the qualifier. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How about throwing it up on the village pump for discussion if the debate has died down here. From what I see, there is no consensus to add the section in. Lack of discussion about something does not automatically qualify it for inclusion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to pumping it. It seems like it either needs to be outright adopted into the guidelines or removed, however, since the discussion is patently not "presently under discussion". :) As soon as I sign off here, I'll head over there so we can resolve this. (Edited to add: Have done so here.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is pretty relevant as we get quite a lot of song articles, with many of them drive-bys that will never be anything but perma-stubs. Accordingly, I support removing the qualifier and keeping the section, but I would suggest modifying it slightly so that the first criteria echoes WP:N (for that matter all of the subsections should begin with that familiar and basic criterion).--Fuhghettaboutit 06:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>The conversation at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_guidelines_for_songs.3B_resolution_needed was typically muddled. :) It has gone dormant. In the usual manner of conversations on Wikipedia, it immediately fell prey to conversation drift, with some evidently ongoing conflict over WP:FICT. However, there's a pretty clear consensus to eliminate the section, though one user, llywrch, cautioned that he could remember cases validating its necessity. Almost everyone who weighed in suggested that WP:N is what needs emphasizing here. BrownHairedGirl suggested merging songs into the album section & stating explicitly that any individual article on a song or album must meet WP:N. This mirrors Fuhghettaboutit's view above.

At this point, it seems that the subsection on albums should become "albums and songs". The section might be revised as follows:

“ All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting.

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

”

Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia policy discussion. :) I'm going to bring this up at WP:ALBUMS and WikiProject Songs, since those projects are obviously heavily involved. If that doesn't generate resolution, we'll see how things go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

With a few tweaks to the above, I have attempted to implement consensus in the guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD

A musician related article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Friesen (musician) is up for deletion. The project members may want to comment on it -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples of "major music competition"

For criterion 8, we have examples of "major music awards": Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award, i.e., awards from national awards ceremonies of the US, Canada, UK, Sweden.

However for criterion 9, we have no examples of what exactly is a "major" music competition.

It has been asserted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 2#Future Pilot that being a nominee at the New Mexico Music Awards (which, as the name suggests, is an award covering the state of New Mexico) meets this criteria. Leaving aside the fact that that sounds more like a music award than a competition, it would be nice to have some clarity here with some good examples of what a "major music competition" is. --Stormie 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, when I encounter musical competitions and am trying to determine how major they are, I look at them to see if they would themselves meet WP:N. If a competition has widespread media coverage, it's probably major. If it doesn't, it probably isn't. That's my own threshold, anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Would the national level of a junior competition be a "major" musical competition? Question is specifically in regard to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007, where the articles on all the national winners were nominated for speedy deletion: Lisa, Amy & Shelley, Trust (2007 band), Alexandra Golovchenko, 4Kids (group), Made In Greece. Articles from 2006 national winners include Andrey Kunets. (Personally I think these groups should be described in the article on the international competition, unless they win or achieve independent fame like Thor Salden.) Gimmetrow 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming albums

Can we somehow make more clear that (reliable) information about upcoming albums still doesn't imply that an album article should be created but that this may be more appropriately included in the into the artist's main article? I went ahead with a small extension.--Tikiwont 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you'd need to incorporate some indication of when & how to determine if an upcoming album is notable. I would be less inclined to add that information to the section you did--which is about merging existing articles--and place it instead into the section above. I might instead do something like "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; unreleased albums may not be notable without substantial reliable sourcing." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Change of position makes sense to me (and was implemented). I had indeed a merge candidate in mind. Mostly I'd like to clarify that not just an announcement of an album by a notable artist is being translated into an article.--Tikiwont 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm never too fond of running across new articles titled "Untitled upcoming album by musician X" to be sure. :) I ran into one a few days ago (with an actual title) that included such encyclopedic language as "We believe the album may be released in 2008" and "We have heard different things about the songs that may be featured." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Classical Music

How do these guidelines apply to classical musicians of the past and present and their works? Should there be articles on every single one of Mozart's compositions? These guidelines don't really apply very well to classical music; instead of songs there are movements which are parts of the work, and a composer could write far more pieces of music than any rock band could. In the past this has been noted but nothing has ever come out of it. Paiev 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, other than the 2RS rule, I'm not sure. I think if someone went to dish up some old AfDs we could reach some consensus based on that, but from what I've seen it's a (sort of) different result every time. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced Enforcement

I was livid after I created a page for a band and it was deleted ... twice. I went searching for answers on why in Wikipedia . I was sent to the speedy deletion page which never defined what notable or important meant for a band. It has taken me a week to come across this page. After reading some of the comments, I see that there is no changing the ridiculous, mainstream bias of these rules.

However, if you are going to have this notability criteria then it needs to be universally enforced. I never realized that Wikipedia had this policy because I have happily found information on a plethora of local, independent artists on Wikipedia (none of which meet the notability criteria). Additionally, part of the reason I created the band page I created, was because the band was referenced on a record label Wikipedia entry. Other bands on that list, many of whom I feel are far less notable then the band I was creating a page for, had pages - and none of them met the notability criteria.

The point is, if you are going to have these rules make sure that users know it by a) making these information pages easier to find and b) deleting ALL entries that do not meet the criteria. If other independent bands I liked were not on Wikipedia, it would never occurred to me to create the band page, I would have known immediately that Wikipedia is not a place where my knowledge is valued and I wouldn't bother coming to the site.

One other question - Is Wikipedia itself considered an independent, reliable source (assuming that the article was not directly about the band and the editor of the article or part of article was not the band itself)?

--Bmwbzz (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwbzz (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Uneven application is an unfortunate but inevitable fact, given the nature of Wikipedia. We do the best we can to maintain the quality of all Wikipedia articles, but it's a bit of a challenge, given that there are over two million articles in the English Wikipedia alone. With people constantly adding and removing content to those, monitoring can be difficult.

It would be nice if Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were more prominent for contributors, but the challenge Wikipedia faces is balancing the needs of encyclopedia contributors against the needs of encyclopedia users, trying to meet the different demands of each group. Much information about contributing can be found on the sidebar of Wikipedia's page, under "About Wikipedia" (relevant in this case, midway down the page in Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria), but I know I certainly didn't notice that when I first arrived and even if I had would probably have been overwhelmed by all the policies and guidelines if I had tried to assimilate them all at once. :) There are groups of Wikipedians who have dedicated themselves to putting "welcome" messages on user's talk pages precisely to give them access to these policies & guidelines so they avoid the difficulties you faced.

I'm sorry that your experience was so frustrating. :/ We try to avoid that. Sometimes we fail.

In answer to your question about Wikipedia as a source, one Wikipedia article is not regarded as adequate sourcing for another Wikipedia's verifiability policy indicates "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources". However, if the parent article is well done, it will lead you to reliable sources that you can use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Criteria Question

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above

I'm a little unclear on this criteria. Does this apply to anyone who has writing credits for a notable band? It doesn't seem like a lot of people who qualify under this criteria would necessarily we that important or notable. Say you contibute a limited amount of lyrics to one song on an album by a small band, does that mean you are notable enough for an article? I seem to recall a number of albums which have minor contributions from, say, a friend of the band and thus gets a credit on the record. Does that make them a notable lyricist? --Neon white (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good question. That criteria would seem to be more liberal than the criteria for musicians themselves. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the criteria should be that the work which was contributed to should be notable rather than the artist and even then it's still very liberal. --Neon white (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition"? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that can replace the entire statement that is currently there. As long as the composition is notable there's no need explain any further. --Neon white (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to be bold, or shall we wait a bit for further feedback? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this change in wording. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how you would cite a writing credit? What is a reliable source for these? I still have issues with anyone who's written or co-written, for instance, a song that charts, being considered notable. Anyone who's ever been part of a band who had one hit may have a writing credit for it, should that make them a notabile writer or lyricist? Potentially it may be the only thing a person have ever done and then you're gonna end up with a small stub article. --Neon white (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There could be many reliable sources for writing credits, including liner notes. We could incorporate some of the language below and add "Note that composers or lyricists known for one notable composition may be more appropriately mentioned in the article about that composition. Such articles should be merged if there is insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I notice that several of the criteria for composers & lyricists would benefit from such a disclaimer, though. Perhaps it would be better to introduce a disclaimer at the bottom of the criteria list like, "Where possible, composers or lyricists for whom sufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article is lacking should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to contradict WP:BIO on many points. WP:BIO says a person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. as a bare minimum yet this page seems to suggest that's optional. But obviously guidelines will probably never be ideal and are always subject to WP:IAR and common sense when necessary. --Neon white (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)