User:UnexpectedSmoreInquisition/sandbox

Who's joe?

span style="background-color:⏎#800000; color:⏎#FFFFFF;"

The below article is my new favorite comment chain.

I am curious on how to approach revisions

Significant editor effort has been spent explaining to an editor with a financial COI why a band with three monthly listeners on Spotify and no media coverage is not notable just because it is on Spotify. Further discussion would be an unproductive use of editor time. Clarifications to WP:NBAND may be proposed at WT:NBAND. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)^{Clarified per request 21:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a 53yo retired military person and familiar with several writing styles such as official correspondence, educational training courses, standard PowerPoint briefs, instruction manuals, award submissions, and a few other documents. I am currently trying to put up a reference page to account for a musical band. I have reviewed several other Wiki pages for musical acts and feel I have captured the main feel and reference points required, but the article was denied by “ARandomName123” and the suggestion made to utilize the “Teahouse” for assistance to accomplish “needed changes” for the page acceptance. I am requesting assistance from the team here to achieve success. I am unsure if anyone here has the ability to review the Draft:Chaos Warehouse . Thanks in advance for any assistance to help move forward.

Very respectfully, Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lucien, of the two notes the reviewer left on Draft:Chaos Warehouse, the one about sources is the bigger impediment to the draft being accepted for publication. See the notability guideline for bands, which will explain the sources you will need to add for it to be accepted. Some general copy editing and style adjustments (e.g. removing inline external links) would also help, but they're less critical. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lucien, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have taken on an extremely difficult task, for which I suspect little of your writing experience will prepare you. The issue is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

Obviously this is difficult to achieve when the article is about yourself: that is why writing about yourself is so strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Generally, you should not include anything at all in the article that cannot be verified from a reliably published source totally unconnected with you. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The two sources cited in Draft:Chaos_Warehouse are both Wikipedia articles (and therefore not reliable - if WP regarded everything anyone has added to it as reliable it would soon turn into garbage), and neither of them mentions Chaos Warehouse. Therefore neither does anything to establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolucien, I quote: The music has an aggressive punch with melodic interlude and chorus textures, mixed in with some ferocious leads. The blend of progressive and thrash styles can be felt throughout the album and is an explosive introduction [to] the heavy metal scene. In the opinion of which reliable source(es) (NB "reliable" as defined by and for Wikipedia) is the punch aggressive, are the interlude and chorus textures melodic, are the leads ferocious, can these styles be felt throughout the album, and is the introduction explosive? For each claim, either add a reference, or delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I deleted all that. Do not restore unless - per Hoary - that content comes from reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI - Teahouse Hosts are generalists - what their expertise is about is format, style, referencing requirements, etc. There is no requirement that Hosts (or Reviewers) have music career experience to review a draft. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have left the changes you made and applied content to support the Wiki:Notability reqs with WP:Band. The album is currently in worldwide rotation/distribution with Amazon, Apple, Pandora, Spotify for major networks and SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango for minor networks. I did not put external links to the actual album on their sites, but it can be found and verified on each one.

I appreciate all the input and assistance you all have provided, Thank you very much.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, nothing you have posted here or written in the draft seems to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. There are 12 criteria listed - which one(s) are you saying this band meets? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, you need to declare as a paid editor per WP:PAID, since this seems to be your band and your album. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

...

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music and Amazon Music are MAJOR worldwide music listening networks and Chaos Warehouse is on all of them as well as the minor(but also worldwide) platforms SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation, and Jango.

I believe I have edited my USER page with the Paid Editor template, it was a little confusing and hope I have made the correct adjustments.

The band currently does not make money and is only me paying into it right now, the initial submission for the page is just a statement of current facts- A. the band does exist and is named as such. B. It is a completely solo performance for art, music, recording, production and distribution. C. It is an internationally recognized band by the major music platforms and is registered with ASCAP and GS1.

Thank you for the assistance and I look forward to all information that will lead to successful completion.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, those platforms do not count as major networks, since they allow self-publication without editorial oversight. It sounds like your band is not yet notable. My advice would be to focus your efforts on attractive coverage from media outlets. Once that happens, it'll possible to have an article. But without those sources, there is nothing that can be changed at the article that would make it acceptable for Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and Apple all have a curation process and require review and oversight by their curators before they reach a rotation status just like NBC, ABC, or Fox for TV. I did not submit directly to them as all submission to them came from my Publisher (CDBaby - Ref[2] on the page) who also provides oversight and review before THEY do the actual submission to those Networks. The minor networks SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango accepted self-submission without review. I will also look into the media outlet coverage. Revolucien (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, those are music streaming services. I think you'll find that they do not qualify as major radio or music television networks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a definition provided for "Major" ? In the first Quarter of 2023 Pandora had 46.7 Million listeners in the US alone https://www.statista.com/statistics/190989/active-users-of-music-streaming-service-pandora-since-2009/ , and Spotify for the same time period had 210 million worldwide paying listeners https://www.statista.com/statistics/244995/number-of-paying-spotify-subscribers/ These are not just major, they are the new way that people listen to music and have far more reach and listeners than ANY air broadcast network. Revolucien (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, the fundamental point is that we require reliable sources to have taken note of your work in order for it to warrant a page here. There are a million works on Spotify etc. that do not meet that threshold, so we are never going to accept appearance on Spotify as sufficient for an article. Bluntly, see WP:GARAGEBAND. You are not going to shift consensus on this by arguing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue or change consensus, just ask for information- What is the definition of “Major”, so that I may provide facts as to the largest/Major musical platforms.

If it is not facts that decide the decision of what is “Major” and it is a consensus, then I accept that answer as well, but I have provided facts and numbers from an outside source to show major share of listeners on the planet utilize those platforms and only asked for the deciding factors of what constitutes “major” for Wikipedia.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The rules on Wikipedia are decided by consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have to say it feels like more weight is being applied to the WP:GarageBand blurb that WikiPedia "Bluntly: states "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously." and "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." , rather than the data that was provided.

I will say thank you for the assistance provided as it was an education in the operation and standards used, and very much appreciated. I feel I have learned quite a bit in this initial page write and will use that information moving forward.

I will leave you with this as a small return learning piece for the status of the music business and TV regarding streaming vs broadcast and which is is larger.

" When “Drivers License” bowed at No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot 100 — which determines songs’ popularity based on a combination of sales, radio play and digital streams — it drew 8.1 million radio audience impressions, not bad for a song that’s new to the market. But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 76.1 million streams the song clocked in that same week." Variety Magazine https://variety.com/2021/music/news/radio-signal-fading-streaming-1234904387/

and this one from Forbes regarding TV- https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/06/17/nielsen-streaming-video-audience-share-is-higher-than-broadcast-tv/?sh=31133f82c0e3

Thanks to all in the TeaHouse who participated in this conversation.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times a song has been listened to, if it hasn't been written about in reliable, independent sources, then we have no material to base an article on, Revolucien. That's why the notability criteria exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response and refer to the criteria being met under # 11 of the WP:Band requirements for notability. The only question that was left was, “What determines a MAJOR network?”. I feel I have provided the data to show the networks it is played on ARE the MAJOR networks, but in light of data showing where the MAJORity of listeners are, the consensus by the team has decided in opposition to the evidence provided. I did not write the rules for notability in WP:Band, nor was I part of the consensus to apply them, I was just attempting to adhere to them. I have already accepted the decision of the team here and understand that these are the operational standards that will be utilized. I appreciate the response and information provided.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I would however like to recommend to the team that they may possibly want to rewrite the WP:NBAND notability requirements to meet the current consensus point of view and ensure smooth sailing moving forward. A simple change to WP:NBAND, instead of “may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria”, perhaps it should be changed to “they must meet two of the following criteria to satisfy notability requirements”. This may put other pages in jeopardy, but it would satisfy the current views of the editors who have spoken.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

'Major networks' are things like MTV, VH1, iHeartMedia, Cumulus Media. These are traditional broadcasting type arrangements where all listeners are hearing the same thing at the same time. Streaming services are not networks. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie,

MTV and VH1 are TV.

Air broadcast is not what is major for listening anymore, those platforms will try to pitch that because they still want your advertising dollars, but here is some independent research from non-affiliated Edison Research - https://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2020-from-Edison-Research-and-Triton-Digital.pdf

You can start at page 39 for "Audio Brands" and scroll down to see where IHeart Media stacks against Pandora, Spotify, Apple Music and other networks. Listeners do not need to hear the same thing at the same time for a station to have a major audience. I refer to page 48 in particular titled "Audio Brand Used Most Often" .

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

NBAND#11 refers to rotation. Following the link, read the first sentence: In broadcasting, rotation is the repeated airing of a limited playlist of songs on a radio station or satellite radio channel, or music videos on a TV network. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, bluntly, Wikipedia writes about topics that have historical significance. Your band does not have a significant audience that has attracted critical attention (it doesn't even have a single song with more than 1,000 streams, if I read the lack of play counts on Spotify correctly), so it does not come close to meriting an article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the link provided, Rotation describes that it is in a placement of rotation for repeated airings, the amount of "spins" or plays as in measured airplay is not a stipulation, and no quantifiable number of spins is associated in WP:NBAND #11. A quantifiable number of plays may be part of one of the other criteria, but not criteria #11.

You say "Again, bluntly", but nothing is more blunt than the very clear first line of WP:NBAND " Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least ONE of the following criteria." and the criteria #11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."

I have provided the data and references from independent sources to support that, and I also accept that you choose not publish the page in light of the information provided.  I do not mind continuing conversation regarding the adherence and validity of the guidelines or the supporting data, but again I would recommend making changes to the WP:NBAND requirements for clarification and to meet the current viewpoints of the editors.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest clarification changes to the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with the current writing of the Notability requirements in WP:BAND since the outside sourced data I have provided shows in detail that my page meets the requirements as it is currently stated. My recommendation is to prevent the team here from being contradictory to the current guidelines- when the rule doesn't meet your needs- rewrite the rule to meet the needs of the consensus.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Again as has been said before Streaming services such as spotify etc. ARE NOT major radio or music television networks for WP:NBAND. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

...which seems like an outdated approach. There's nothing special or magical about a radio DJ choosing to play a song, and radio DJing is a dying medium anyway. Streaming is overwhelmingly the "major" means of music dissemination nowadays, radio and "music television networks" are minor players in the space. NBAND's distinction between streaming and radio might have made sense in 2005, but not in 2023. I'm agnostic on whether or not Mr. Levasseur's proposed article merits inclusion, but if the only thing holding is back is that Spotify, Pandora etc. aren't "major" - I'd agree with Mr. Levassuer that this policy should undergo further independent discussion. Pecopteris (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not fond of the modification of WP:NBAND as I believe it supports my current page admission, but a rewrite would clarify and support what seems is a current consensus. I would say that changing the number from "ONE" to "TWO" criteria requirements from WP:NBAND would most likely resolve the present challenge, but it may also negatively impact a significant number of currently approved pages.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The team here has stated on more than one occasion that the data must be outside verifiable from unaffiliated sources.  I have provided that data with links showing that the Streaming sources are indeed "MAJOR" and larger in some cases, and presented by outside verifiable sources.  You and a couple others, have said they are not major, but have not provided anything to show they do not possess a market share, presence or audience that is considered other than major in comparison. Revolucien (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this debate is missing the point. Wikipedia articles have to summarise what independent, published sources have to say about a topic. Do independent sources discuss the article topic, Revolucien? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No, but that's not the question. They do discuss what is a "Major" music platform, which is the current item of contention.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, but if there are no sources that discuss Chaos Warehouse then there can be no article. Hopefully you understand that now, Revolucien. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Notability requirements in WP:NBAND state the eligibility of the Chaos Warehouse page. The only point of contention was the definition of "Major" in Criteria #11 of WP:NBAND. I have provided the data from outside sources to show the current networks meet the definition of major.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes but as WP:NBAND states "no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed". You could have the wording of the criterion changed, but if there still aren't sources to base an article on, there still can't be an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No exemption is being requested, the reliable sources ASCAP, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and other sources listed are all searchable and will be found holding the data showing Chaos Warehouse.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What "data" will you get from those sources to base the article on? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just looked up Chaos Warehouse on Spotify and it says the band has three monthly listeners. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That Chaos Warehouse is curated and in their catalog.

There is no requirement for number of listeners, but I believe if you look at the Spotify process monthly listeners are people who have actually created a station based off that band, this does not constitute any claims I have made for the inclusion of the page. What the page does claim-

1. The band Chaos Warehouse does exist.  (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

2. It is a truly solo project. (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

3. It is available on major music platforms. (Verifiable on Spotify, Pandora, Apple, Amazon and meets WP:NBAND criteria-without exception)

4. It is registered with ASCAP and GS1. (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

None of this helps satisfy WP:GNG, I'm afraid. As I've tried to explain, articles have to be based on in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, things like newspaper articles about the band and album reviews are the sorts of things you need. Without those, you're wasting your time. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.