Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Mixx

Text remove. Duplicates http://www.myspace.com/bellplain; no sign of permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixxonline (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've had to remove the text you placed here, as you copied it from myspace and there's no evidence that we can use this. See our copyright policy. If the text belongs to you and you want to donate it to Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
If you're looking for input on an article you'd like to write, you may want to visit the drawing board. Some general tips: articles must be neutral and cite to reliable sources. You'll want to verify that this individual meets this notability guideline. And if you are connected to this subject, as your username suggest, you should read our conflict of interest guideline and possibly the one on autobiography. Also, please remember to write it in new language unless you can verify permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Local sources

While working with the AFD for Them Terribles, I was very surprised to discover that WP:MUSIC does not have much to say about local sources. It contains "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", but that does not really go far enough in my view. How about the local newspaper for the city the band comes from? I think it should be specifically excluded as a source of notability for a band or performer. My reasons for this are two-fold:

  • Low threshold of inclusion. Any long-lived lounge act from your friendly neighborhood Ramada Inn will be able, over the course of ten or twenty years, to get noticed twice by a local newspaper. Do we really want all of them to qualify for articles?
  • Difficulty of separating promotion from news. Local newspapers reporting about local personalities aren't particularly objective. I've been written up in local papers dozens of times, including two half-page spreads. Does that make me notable? No. It means that I was a major advertiser, so I was viewed as a good candidate for "human interest" type stories as a means of doing a favor to my business. Same thing happens with stories about individual acts as a means of promoting the venue in which they play.

I really think we need to insert some pretty specific guidance that local newspapers can be used as a source of verifiable facts, but do not contribute towards notability of the subject.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not support any such exclusions; the point of the notability guidelines is to exclude articles on subjects with insufficient coverage in reliable sources to make anything beyond a stub. If the lounge act from the local Ramada has "significant coverage in reliable sources" covering encyclopedic topics then I don't see it as justified to find special reasons to exclude it from having an article. Note for two articles to genuinely confer notability, at least one would have to be fairly large, and they would preferably be in independent publications. --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Part of it is also to avoid having our namespace clogged with garage bands and local businesses that are unlikely to be the topic of search. WP:CORP contains a caution against local sources to make sure that corner grocery stores don't get articles. WP:N/CA contains a requirement for national coverage to ensure that criminal acts that were covered only in local papers don't receive articles. Most of WP:BAND is arranged to preclude Myspace bands, and not excluding local coverage from conferring notability just seems like a loophole.—Kww(talk) 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Record Labels

Are there any criteria for notability of Record Labels that anyone is aware of? Dan arndt (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides the litmus test for notability and WP:CORP, not that I know of. OlYellerTalktome 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess I was wondering whether a Record Label could be considered notable if the musicial groups or artists signed to the label were notable or the releases that the label had issued were notable (ie charted). Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Usually it's accepted that way unless the label was a custom label (i.e. artist self release). It's best if there are multiple artists that fit Wikipedias artist standards, and even more so if you can write significant information using WP:RS. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Either artists should be used as notability bases for labels or vice versa. I've seen too many "Internet only" labels, along with the only band signed to them, created close together. Let me put it this way: if the label's only claim to avoid CSD A7 is a band, and vice versa, I'd go ahead and delete 'em both. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Its just I went through an AfD recently for a Record Label which an editor argued that WP:MUSIC#C5 applies to artists not labels and that as the label itself lacked significant secondary source coverage (even though there was sufficient evidence that releases on the label were notable i.e. had charted on the national charts) it was non-notable. The AfD was eventually dismissed but would like some clarification to the issue. Dan arndt (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
More reasons for amendment of WP core policies, they're lacking in certain areas and the established well covered areas are outdated, WP:N for example doesn't take into account zines, independent labels, magazines, bands, etc, with a terrible mainstream/commercial bias. Nick carson (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Brooks AfD no consensus, why's

I've been looking at the AfD discussion for Joe Brooks. (See Talk:Joe Brooks (singer) for more details.) The result was ultimately no consensus and it seems to me that some clarifications in WP:MUSIC could have led to a resolution. Basically much of the notability evidence consisted of internet statistics, such as MySpace friends and YouTube plays, which, while not mentioned as criteria for notability, are not explicitly excluded. It seems to me that they should be excluded because as primary sources, they are not subject any editorial process and so are susceptible to all kinds of external influences. If they are to be excluded then the policy should say so specifically. The "anything that isn't included is excluded" argument may not be very convincing to a fan who just wants to see the artist get more exposure.

Also, some mention might be made that a not notable status once given is not permanent and not a reflection on the quality of the work or talent of the artist. Fans may more easily accept a verdict of "Not notable yet but try again later if the upcoming album sells well," than a simple "Not notable."

Finally, I went through the independent sources given and it was very difficult for me to determine which sources are trivial and which aren't. For example a link was given to The Beat Surrender but it's hard to tell (for me in the US at least) if that's a national magazine or a college newspaper. There was a link given for the BBC but that turned out to be for the local Hampshire outlet, not national coverage. I realize that there needs to be some room for common sense to be applied, but it seems to me that certain minimal objective standards could be spelled out. For example, if The Beat Surrender had it's own wikipedia article, which would imply (hopefully) that it had passed some independent criteria for notability, then I would have a lot more confidence in it as a source.--RDBury (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements

If a musician has received endorsements/sponsorship from notable companies, would this fit into the notability guidelines somehow? My Case in Point. It was difficult to find many online sources other than endorsements from notable instrument companies for this particular artist. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I'd call corporate endorsements independent, self-published sources. I'd say they support the GNG, and I don't see a good place they fit into WP:MUSICBIO at the moment. I'd not have an objection to adding a new criteria along those lines. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Psycho T. Records

Pulled this one out of the db-spam queue. I'm clueless about bands; can someone walk me through how to apply the 12 criteria in WP:MUSIC to figure out whether I should AfD this band/label? (Their Myspace page implies that they see themselves as a band, but this article implies they're more of a label.) I can translate some of the German if needed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And another one that did go to AfD: Angry Lamb Studios. For music articles that I take to AfD, I'll let you guys know by adding it to the list of Music-related deletion discussions. For articles in the db-spam queue where I'm not sure if they should go to AfD, where should I drop the articles off for advice? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Interviews

Would any of these count in establishing notability of a band per WP:BAND? Not sure if the websites are notable thanks. BigDuncTalk 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's in Rolling Stone? Absolutely. If it's on a Wordpress blog? Not in the least. Anyone can give or conduct an interview, so it's really the editorial reputation of the venue that's going to determine how much weight to accord an interview. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
These are the types of websites here. Would they be considered notable? BigDuncTalk 18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing in the first few pages of that search looks immediately useful for notability purposes. Interviews, unless they include a substantial element of independent commentary on a band/artist, e.g. an introductory section, are not great sources for establishing notability, although an interview in major source such as Rolling Stone, as Jclemens noted above, would certainly indicate a level of importance.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift replies. BigDuncTalk 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tightening up Musician/Ensemble Criteria Loopholes

I made three changes to improve the criteria which were reverted without comment, so here begins the D part of WP:BRD:

Deprecate Criteria 6

This is an obvious improvement. Is there any musician, for whom the current criterion 6 is the only match in this list, for whom a non-redirect article would be kept? I can think of none, but yet I'm regularly (1/month, or so) confronted by people who think an unsourced assertion that "X was a member of Y band" (when "Y" are themselves barely notable as a band) should be enough to stave off a speedy deletion. Reading the way that criteria 6 already is worded, and the post-criterion 12 note, it's clear that there is no good reason that this should be kept as it is.

Alternatives include:

  • Deprecating #6 and pointing to the end note. (Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.)
  • Changing #6 to specify musicians who have been members of TWO independently notable bands are worthy of inclusion. I don't prefer this one, because again, why would we ever really want to keep an article on a musician in such a position who couldn't meet at least one of the other musician/ensemble criteria? Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I can't think of any cases where criterion 6 alone would save an article. In particular, the caveat that things such as "early bands" and "side projects" should be redirects excludes most of what I'd think of. The last thing I've got would be a band where one member was or became a member of a notable band, but has no notability independent of said band. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The obvious problem here, which has arisen several times, is where there is an article on band where that article satisfies WP:V but not WP:BAND (via any criterion other than 6), but this band contains members from more than one other notable band. In this case a merge to two different articles, possibly including a history and discography, makes far less sense than keeping the standalone article, unless there's very little content. If WP:N cannot be satisfied (as opposed to isn't satisfied at present based on the sources in the article), then I would generally support merging, but with this exception.--Michig (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never encountered this in a few thousand processed speedy deletion requests, but it appears you have. Can you give me some pointer? I did a brief look through the above discussion on criteria 6, but no diffs or examples jumped out at me. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The recent AFD for Black Market Hero is a case in point. This band has members of both 40 Below Summer and Flaw (band), both of which are notable (both articles need improving, but sources do exist to do this). The AFD resulted in Delete (criterion 6 obviously wasn't given much weight here) - I merged some of the content into the 40 Below Summer article - I didn't have enough enthusiasm to also add it to the Flaw one. The end result is a poorer encyclopedia in my view. If the content is going to exist, why are people so opposed to separating it out into a standalone article? For the sakes of tidiness and readability if nothing else. There are probably better examples, but this is the latest I've come across.--Michig (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) So, I went backed and looked at the high water mark of the BMH article, and I agree with the outcome. Allmusic is a questionably reliable source which has been the subject of multiple debates on WP:RSN, which I see you've participated in. Lacking any other independent, reliable sourcing, it should have been deleted--that is, merged to an article with greater notability and redirected. Actually, looking at 40 Below Summer, it should probably be deleted too--the only non-Allmusic source is a trivial mention in a partial independent sales chart that doesn't appear to meet criterion #2. The vast majority of the article is unsourced, so WP:V is at least as big of a problem for either article as WP:N. I'm mot going to AfD anything myself--that would be poisoning the disucssion--but really, what about either one of those bands merits a Wikipedia article? Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...maybe try a Google/Google News search rather than just looking at what's in the articles? Of course you would do this before taking either to AFD per WP:BEFORE, wouldn't you? This is why i put above: "If WP:N cannot be satisfied (as opposed to isn't satisfied at present based on the sources in the article)". Too many articles end up at AFD because people are too lazy to look for sources.--Michig (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Flaw's debut album (they released 2 on Columbia) apparently sold 300,000 copies according to one of the GNews results. Let's not forget Google Books, of course, which yields these 2 for 40 below Summer: [1], [2]. Both notable. Q.E.D.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear that there's more to the bands than what's in the articles. I generally don't AfD many things, myself, but yes, I would only do so after WP:BEFORE. However, having said that, if I apply the same Google News search efforts to Black Market Hero, I find three relevant RS hits from 2006. Had I been !voting at that AfD and those had been brought up, I would have advocated keeping the article. Now, having said that...
  • Would you be willing to consider changing #6 to "a musician who has been a part of at least two independently notable ensembles or an ensemble that contains musicians from at least two independently notable ensembles"? Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that would work to an extent but I see a problem here also. An individual who had been a member of two notable bands would satisfy this criterion even if nothing had been written specifically about the individial. In such cases we (in my view) wouldn't really want an article about them, but then again a redirect would have the problem of which article to redirect to. I could live with having short stubby articles on these subjects but we may see a lot of unsourced articles about black metal musicians, who all seem to play in about a dozen bands at various times. If we're dealing with bands containing significant members of 2 notable bands, the suggestion works fine. For articles on individuals who have been members of multiple notable bands, I think we'd be looking for some significant coverage of the individual as well to justify anything other than a stub with links to the bands they've been in.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ok... so what should a criterion that dealt just with bands containing members of 2+ other notable bands look like? What should be done about the musician articles? I think it should be possible to do a cross between a list article and a disambiguation article: "Joe Bassist is a musician who has been a member of band x, band y, and band z." I don't see that as being problematic, assuming Joe's presence in the bands was verifiable and the bands were notable. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The other case where we probably would want an article is a band/collaboration which includes two or more musicians who are independently notable, e.g. if Paul McCartney and Dr. Dre formed a band as a side-project. Wording could perhaps be changed to "a musician who has been a part of at least two independently notable ensembles or an ensemble that contains more than one musician who is either from a notable ensemble or who is independently notable". Could get very unwieldy.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that as a less pressing issue, since in the example you cited, the press would be all over it--think Traveling Wilburys. :-) Still, your solution does both have merit and is admittedly a bit unwieldy. How about we split them up? 6a) a musician who has been a part of at least two independently notable ensembles. 6b) an ensemble that contains at least two musicians who are each independently notable or have been member of a notable ensemble." Not a huge improvement, but if you split it out into two fully separate yet complementary criteria, it might work. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I still prefer the version of C6 that we agreed on a while back and which was reverted as not having sufficient consensus: "Contains or contained at least one significant member who is individually notable as a musician or who is/was a significant member of another 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, and that common sense exceptions always apply." This is a statement of the information that is considered notable for inclusion, with a note about whether a merge/redirect would be more appropriate with regard to structure. I know some people want these guidelines to be a "rule" that either lets them delete an article or lets them keep it, but they should always be a "rule of thumb", which is augmented by thinking through each case a bit more deeply. A band featuring, say, the guitarist from Radiohead, as long as WP:V is satisfied, should be written about in this encyclopedia. If it fits better in the Radiohead article, it should be merged. If it fits better in an article of its own, it should be in a separate article, whether or not that article includes sources showing significant coverage of that particular band. I guess what I'm saying in a rather long-winded way is that sensible inclusion criteria, and sensible criteria for having a dedicated article, may not necessarily be the same thing. The 6a/6b above would deal with the dedicated article issue, but could see either deletions or messy merges in the case of bands with only one otherwise notable member.--Michig (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
My perspective differs somewhat from yours. :) The way I remember it, we agreed on this language, but it was reverted months later with an assertion that it was made outside of consensus. Multiple editors over multiple days ratified this change, which lasted multiple months; it was restored to earlier because the multiple-day multiple-editor conversation was not "consensus"...and immediately followed by a change made by the same "no consensus" contributor based on a conversation with fewer participants that lasted about three hours. Perhaps the consensus-building process needs further definition. :) I still find that language unclear. It wanders a bit into "Party of the first part" over-complication in its first sentence. I do think, if 6 is not to be deprecated, that specifying that the member from whom notability is inherited must be "significant" to the band is a good direction, since it avoids the "played with them on stage once when he was drinking at a bar" assertions (not that I know if anybody's ever asserted that. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, your "multiple editors over multiple days ratifying the change" consisted of 7 editors discussing the change, with only two editors (including the one proposing it) agreeing with the change in a discussion lasting all of 52 minutes before it was made. Of course one of these was you, which perhaps alters your perspective :). The change that you reverted as not having sufficient consensus had 2 editors involved in the discussion before the change was made that they both agreed on. Not a lot of difference really. perhaps it would help to have a guideline for what needs to be done before we change a guideline?--Michig (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The change was ratified after the recommendation, which is well within the consensus-building process. I have no objection to the WP:BRD cycle as long as it used sensibly, but I do object when somebody invokes the "R" part of WP:BRD on the basis that the "B" had no consensus and then substitutes their own, different "B." :) If "no consensus" is invoked, the proper thing to do is "D" and find consensus...especially when the reversion is to material that has been ratified by a number of editors and remained in a guideline or policy document for months. While I don't doubt it was well-intentioned, it's rather a questionable route to take to say, "I am reverting because this conversation of 6 editors does not establish consensus" (4 of whom explicitly approved) and then to institute a change based on a conversation of three. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully we can all agree that a change that could result in hundreds of articles getting deleted needs more than a handful of editors to reach a consensus.--Michig (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest making Per Wiberg a redirect to one band, then adding a link in both band article's mention of him to the other. Regarding the wider consensus question, once there's agreement here, I'd propose a short notice of the intended change on the wp:Village pump or at least on Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music.LeadSongDog come howl 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So, what if we dropped the equivocating on the end of the current criteria 6 and made it read A musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians?

Since that last post has been there a while without comment, I'm implementing it. Just noticed now that I'd forgotten to sign it--bad me. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Tighten Criteria 7

Current Wording: "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."

Proposed Wording: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source as the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city."

The proposed wording is shorter, in line with the other criteria (e.g., #4), and doesn't have a material effect upon the meaning of the criteria. Again, it specifies that assertions of importance must be backed up by RS coverage. I've only run across this a few times, but making the wording more explicit will help avoid the "But we're influential!" argument I've seen from a couple of COI band articles; thus, the assertion must explicitly "An independent RS says we're influential!" Again, I don't see that changing the meaning of the criteria at all, just harmonizing it with WP:V and removing the explicit reference to WP:V that seems to get glossed over occasionally. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

True, the wording is shorter, but by pushing the WP:V issue of sourcing to the front of the sentence, it diminishes the overall point of the sentence; to provide a criterion under which a performer or group may be considered notable. Technically, the sourcing issue should go without saying, and I'm reasonably certain that this proposed wording will not stop any of the COI band articles you mention from getting created and disputed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Your point re: COI is well taken, but I don't think it comprehends the difference in the speedy deletion process. Anyone can assert they're notable. "Jclemens and his kazoo playing wildebeest are the most popular and influential kazoo band in Wyoming!" That, absurd example though it may be, is enough to forestall a speedy deletion under {{db-band}}. Should it really be? I would say not, and I'm intentionally advocating raising the bar just slightly, from "Band Y is Z" to "weekly X said band Y is Z". The author still wouldn't have to provide a ref to keep from getting speedily deleted, because the speedy process assumes that a source could be found for every claim, but the assertion would have to be that such a reference existed. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessarily an issue to be addressed by this guideline, rather than the CSD policy; A7 specifically says it's independent of WP:V and WP:RS and is a lower standard than notability. And either way, I'm reasonably sure your example would qualify for A7 anyway as it's not a credible claim of significance. But, frankly, I'm having a lot of trouble thinking of a case where this would make or break a subject's notability where WP:GNG wouldn't already save it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the new proposed clarity to the sentence. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - verifiabilty runs through the whole guideline - we don't need to add a "non-trivial coverage" clause into every criterion, as that's a separate notability issue. If we can verify that a subject is important, that should be enough, given that we already insist that non-trivial coverage of the artist/band exists.--Michig (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Then you would not be opposed to leaving the first half of the existing sentence as-is, and removing the second half? That would tighten it up. -Freekee (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
We already have a criterion that covers significant coverage in reliable sources. With all of the other criteria in the list, verifiability is (or at least should be) the key concern. The need for verifiability should apply to all criteria, and shouldn't need repeating each time, so yes, the second part could go if the need for verifiability via reliable sources is spelled out clearly at the top. Verifiability via a reliable source has a very different meaning to "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" - e.g. a simple list of the 10 most important Washington DC bands of all time in Rolling Stone would probably not be considered significant coverage of any of the bands in the list, but would be fine for verifiability.--Michig (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tighten Criteria 10

Current Wording: "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 article.)"

Proposed Wording: "Has performed music independently selected for a notable work of media, 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 article.)"

This one didn't get reverted as such, apparently due to an edit conflict. Other than tweaking the wording ("a work of media that is notable" becomes "a notable work of media") the key aspect to this change is independently selected--I've noted a number of bands citing content creation for Guitar Hero World Tour without differentiating between songs shipped with the game, and songs uploaded to the game's "GHTunes" user-created content sharing facility. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty sensible and seems to be more a clarification than a tightening. Seems to me that problem you identify is one of semantic ambiguity. Looking to the examples given in the current wording, it seems that the spirit of criterion 10 is that the music should be part of the notable media. But the use of "for" implies a purpose relationship. This isn't incorrect in the "in spirit" case- the music was produced for (the production of) the media- but it allows for the case you describe to work- the music was produced for the consumption of the media.
Your proposed wording is OK, but "independently selected" is kind of difficult to understand. I'd suggest "...performed music that has been featured in a work of media..." or "...performed music that is used in a work of media..." —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with those alternatives, but I'd tweak "media" to "notable media" in either case--just performing on an unremarkable camcorder tape of a local club performance or high school talent show shouldn't cut it. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of many cases other than TV shows and films where this would be a valid criterion - maybe music for a notable stage perfromance? I prefer the "a notable work of media" clause than the "independently selected" clause as it may be very difficult to demonstrate that music was independently selected.--Michig (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough... How would you handle that GHTunes issue? It could be ignored, but my concern is that will likely lead to inconsistent speedy resolution. What about leaving the wording unchanged and adding a clarifying note to the effect of: "User-uploaded or shared content associated with a notable work is not covered by this criteria"? Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not convinced that music being used in a video game is useful as an indication of notability, but I'm sure others would disagree. We probably won't, however, be able to tie this criterion down to a specific list of cases that do count, so "notable work of media" is about as far as we can sensibly go, and beyond that we'll need to look at each case. If there is a suggestion of an artist's music being used in a possibly notable work of media then that article shouldn't be speedied. Can you clarify what you envisage might be covered by "User-uploaded or shared content associated with a notable work"? I'm not sure which cases this would deal with.--Michig (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing other than GHTunes has come up yet, but the possibility for other such sharing associated with notable Internet media exists and will likely increase, rather than decrease. This is essentially the YouTube or Public Access Cable problem for music: when anyone can publish in a certain venue, without any editorial control, sales numbers, etc., it becomes clear that those free-publication aspects of such media are no longer criteria that are effective as default indicators of notability. In music, we've seen the explosion of "labels" which will never be in the business of publishing music for profit, hence the "major label" qualifier on that criterion. Ideally, I'd like to find a way that deals with the GHTunes issue, and solves the issue for similar self-publishing outlets in the future. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Home made Youtube videos would be unlikely to be accepted as notable works of media - I don't really think we need to spell this out here. Regarding GHTunes, that's a separate debate about whether that is a notable work of media. The guideline needs to be kept fairly general.--Michig (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion in a game should be treated in the same way that inclusion on a compilation album is. Of course an artist being contracted to create a piece for a film, game etc is a different case. --neon white talk 08:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(to Jclemens' initial reply to me) Actually I should have been clearer- I meant the section in quotes as a substitution for the current wording, thus "...performed music that is used in a work of media that is notable" or "...performed music that has been featured in a work of media that is notable". But after thinking about it, I agree- the "notable work of media" has less chance of ambiguity. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Criterion 10 is easily the most vague. It doesn't explicitly cover much at all, and most of its value is in the examples. Theme songs, yes. Performance in a show, yes. Compilation album, yes. Wait - what? So I pick up Masters of Metal IX, in the checkout line at Shopko, and find a song by a band I've never heard of. I look them up and write an article. This is fine? The second example says "performance in a show." So just having the song in the soundtrack of an episode is not good enough (because that's a compilation album)? What if it made it into the soundtrack, and onto an album from there? Anyway... What if you said "professionally selected", rather than "independently selected"? Other than that, I don't have any opinions, except maybe to expand the list of examples. -Freekee (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. I believe compilation album should be removed from the list. There are so many of them and then there's the small indie label releases that usually solely involve unknown artists for the purposes of promotion to consider. --neon white talk 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

General Discussion

Your edits were not reverted without comment - please see the edit summary "please gain consensus before changing these criteria". Criterion #6 has been debated above with no consensus for any particular option put forward, in contrast to to your rationale for "deprecating" it. Please gain consensus before making any further changes and please don't make claims of consensus or 'reversion without comment' which are clearly at odds with the facts.--Michig (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They were reverted without comment on the content of the changes. If you have input, please provide it. As of now, the consensus, such as it is, is 1 to 0 in favor of all three changes. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The content of the changes consisted of alterations to the guidelines without consensus, and the edit summary addressed this. Criterion #6 has several opinions in favour of various proposals above which need to be taken into account. You'll need a lot more than a majority of one to make changes here.--Michig (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks, please focus on the content, not the process. What do you think needs to change, and why.LeadSongDog come howl 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Michig, please review the WP:BRD cycle. Any change is supposed to start out with a unilateral, good faith change by one editor, which is then reverted in good faith by another editor, which then prompts a discussion of why the change was proposed and what alternatives exist. A consensus of one is clearly suboptimal, so a change will spur others into discussion on the talk page, rather than a talk page with little input resulting in a change that, once made, is opposed by other editors who chose not to participate in the prior discussion. I'd encourage you to join the content discussion by posting your reasons for reverting these specific changes. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with all of the changes recommended, but I have to note that WP:BRD is an essay and not proscriptive. :) Wikipedia:Be bold, which is a "guideline", says, "Care must also be taken when editing Wikipedia-space pages which reflect a community consensus or view...." I don't think there was any abuse or misuse or OMG! DANGER in either the initial change or the reversion here, but I do think that's worth clarifying. The policy page at WP:Consensus notes that BRD is a common theme, but doesn't by any means limit the consensus-building process to it. It's perfectly acceptable to start change by proposing it on a talk page, particularly on a policy or guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Bold changes to a policy or guideline would never seem to be a good idea to me.--Michig (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC) See the discussion of criterion 6 above, for instance where consensus among a small number of contributors to a discussion here was not deemed adequate to make a change to the guideline.--Michig (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not necessarily the most comfortable process in the world, to be sure. Not the caveats in it about "experienced wikipedians" being better suited to use it. That is, those of us who are used to being reverted and not taking it personally. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Validity of Youtube as a Source of Notability

I recently came to Wikipedia for the first time to discuss whether or not an article for Molly Lewis (The AfD page can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Molly_Lewis) should be deleted. The general overview of the discussion taking place is that supporters, such as myself, believe Youtube has brought enough people to know of her that it should be taken into account, while those arguing the article should be deleted cite that according to WP:MUSIC, Youtube bears no weight in the argument. Other points have been brought up here and there, but it's mostly just going around in circles; Supporters keep pointing out just how many people have seen her on Youtube, and those that feel the article should be deleted keep pointing out that Youtube is looked at as irrelevant. Very little real progress has been made in the debate, and so I've decided to bring the core of the issue - whether or not Youtube should be looked at as irrelevant or not - here, where some sort of a conclusion can be reached.

I propose that, to a certain extent, Youtube should be accepted as a valid source of notability. I feel it important to clarify that I am not proposing that every musician on Youtube be given an article on Wikipedia. I am proposing that guidelines be set in place so that once a certain level of exposure through Youtube has been obtained, that exposure is not simply ignored as it currently is. While Youtube allows anyone to use their services, I feel it is absurd to claim that large amounts of Youtube hits bear no weight at all when discussing notability. Using Molly Lewis as an example here, Youtube has allowed for her musical content (including montages, covers, and original songs) to be viewed a total of 1,515,058 as of this writing. Should she release a song through Youtube right now, 13,786 people - her subscribers - would be notified of it. While Wikipedia does not currently acknowledge these numbers, the fact is that Youtube has allowed her to share her musical abilities with a very large number of people.

Molly Lewis is not the only person that has a large number of viewers on Youtube. Hank Green is one half of the Vlog Brothers. Together with his brother (John Green (author)), the channel has gathered 80,543 subscribers. While the channel is first and foremost a video blog, Hank releases songs through the channel on a very consistent basis. The most notable of these songs is Accio Deathly Hallows, which has, at this moment, 1,110,884 views. While this is the most viewed of his songs, there are many, many more songs on the channel, and I'm not even going to try and go through the massive number of videos they've made and get a total count of views. To give an idea of how much of a presence Youtube has given Hank Green, DFTBA, a song uploaded to Youtube yesterday already has 32,765 views. I would again argue that these numbers should be notable enough to get him an article on Wikipedia, and yet no such page exists.

Hank Green and Molly Lewis are not the only successful Youtube musicians, they are simply the ones I know of, and I imagine there are many, many more musicians on Youtube that have experienced these levels of success. I ask that new guidelines are added that would dictate just how many views or subscribers a Youtube musician has to have before Wikipedia would view them as notable. In doing so, artists that gain success and sizable a fan base through Youtube would gain a spot on Wikipedia, while also making sure that every random person that decides to upload a cover of a song onto Youtube doesn't get an article of their own. People can build, and have built, reputations as musicians through Youtube, and it seems unfair to these musicians and their fans that this reputation is all but worthless in the eyes of Wikipedia. As long as an artist makes music and a large amount of people listen to that music, why should the outlet matter? Certainly if they gain levels of exposure where their content is viewed over a million times through Youtube it must mean something. The addition of some sort of guideline as it relates to Youtube would give a fair chance to musicians that use Youtube as their outlet, and that is all I ask.

68.1.165.244 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Youtube is already accepted: To the extent that a non-self-published source comments on the views a topic on youtube (a la Susan Boyle), it's legitimate. Raw statistics themselves, however, are of questionable value absent such commentary. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The raw statistics are more what I'm concerned with here. If the numbers provided in those statistics are high enough, why shouldn't they be looked at as legitimate? 68.1.165.244 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Being on YouTube is, at best, akin to being on an independent label. Being signed to a label isn't sufficient to be considered notable, either. It's the press and coverage that matters. If you could show me a YouTube artist that had received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, or won a Grammy, or any of the other tests, I would't hold it against them that they used YouTube as their only outlet. Failing meeting those tests, I'd treat them like any other band that was signed to a label but had not been covered in media outlets: non-notable.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know of too many independent labels that could put out a single and have over 30,000 people listen to it in 24 hours like Hank Green just did through Youtube. Youtube presents opportunities of notability just like any other method of music making. 68.1.165.244 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You miss the point. It's coverage that generates notability, not the distribution channel. Giving away one song is as good as selling 10 million if both events get press coverage in independent sources. People sell a lot of songs on iTunes and CDbaby, too, and they don't get Wikipedia articles based on that. They get an article based on being covered in independent sources.—Kww(talk) 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You mean to tell that no matter how high the number of viewers, no matter how much people listen to the music, and no matter what the size of the fan base, no musician has gained any sort of notability at all until they're given some sort of press coverage? That seems like a bit of an outrageous claim to me. It seems to me that the numbers are what would determine notability. I find it hard to believe that a musician that has 10 people listening to their songs is somehow just as notable to someone that has 10,000 people listening to their songs. 68.1.165.244 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Outrageous or not, it's how things are done on Wikipedia. Notability is based on the existence of coverage in reliable sources, and precious little else. What exceptions there are are based on the idea that given what we've already found, there must be reliable sourcing out there we haven't found yet. There's nothing about YouTube popularity that makes me believe it would be one of those exception cases. WP:POPULARITY explains it in simple terms. You should probably read WP:N and WP:RS as well ... even if an article was created, without coverage in independent reliable sources, there would be nothing you could say.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason Youtube hits are not considered is that they are unverifiable and have no reputation for accuracy, for all we know, all the hits could be the same person and i'm sure vote stacking both officially and unofficially is rampant unlike chart sales which is verified by a professional organisation. You have to consider verifiability. If there's no coverage to base an article on it's going to be a blank. --neon white talk 08:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

record labels

Is there a notability guideline for articles covering record labels or is WP:CORP to be used instead? Also, WP:MUSIC uses the term 'major label' a few times. Has this been defined more specifically anywhere it is it totally subjective consensus at work here?--RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding deletion discussion notices to prod pages

Check out the discussion here; Fabrictramp mentions that it's always been possible to add deletion-discussion notices to proposed deletions. I'm going to try the following procedure for a few days on music-related articles tagged for A7 (notability) speedy deletion: I'll do a Google news archive, books and scholar search (the ones that show up in {{prod-nn}}). If those don't suggest notability, but notability seems to be asserted, then I'll remove the speedy deletion tag, add the prod-nn tag, add a notice on the article talk page, and list the page in the Proposed deletions section at the bottom of the relevant WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting page. {{subst:delsort|Music|~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page, which produces:

(or "Bands and musicians"). My thinking is that this will make it easier for anyone, but especially for admins, to participate in speedy deletion work without having to sit there watching the speedy deletion queue and without having to wade through a bunch of pages in the speedy deletion queue that you don't care about. just check WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Music#Bands & musicians Proposed deletions (I'll add these pages manually to that list until the bot is written). I don't know much about music or bands, and if you do and you want to either speedy or decline the prod, feel free. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 14:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There were different section titles on different deletion sorting pages; for now, I'm standardizing as I find them. This link is now WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music#Proposed deletions. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying WP:Article alerts for these notifications now. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Esser

I'm relativley new to wiki, and please push this to the correct place if I have come to the wrong one, I would like authorisation to create the above named page, It was deleted due to this rule. I now beleive this act has significant importance now, after this BBC Music review and being signed to Warner Bros Records on the Transgressive Records label. Mikebromfield (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and create it, and if you have any problems with anyone doubting notability, the following sources should deal with that: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. If you demonstrate in the article that this sort of coverage has been received then the article should be fine.--Michig (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which tag?

The problem with downgrading a speedy deletion to a prod in order to give wikiprojects time to look at it is that I have to know the right tags, so: if there's not enough information in a band article for me to know what kind of band it is, which tag to I use to attract attention to the prod discussion? Would {{album}} work for you guys, if an album is mentioned? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding the "album" template isn't likely to draw much review even from the album project. I know my group. :) That said, if isn't specifically an article about an album, the album template isn't appropriate. There are a number of music-related projects, which you can see at Template:WikiProject Music/Related WikiProjects. Each of them has its own project tags, and some of them actually may monitor such concerns. I suspect you'd get good results from {{Wikiproject Alternative music}}, for instance, as it seems to be a very active project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interviews

Recently I've seen "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising" cited more often in deletion debates. I clearly remember that not being in the guidelines before, so it was snuck in somewhere in the last 2 years.

Reprints of press releases and advertising are obvious problems, but I don't understand why publications where musicians talk about themselves are a problem. A writer would only have to rewrite a piece to completely hide the fact it was in fact an interview and it wouldn't actually change anything about the reliability. Also, it completely discounts the idea of editorial control of the publication. I'm more inclined to believe an interview in Rolling Stone Magazine over one on a random website.

This wording needs to be altered so that the reliability of the publication gets some weight. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most magazine interviews will contain a large element of a journalist discussing an artist/band, and those should be fine as both reliable sources and evidence of significant coverage. Some interviews, however, consist solely of a band/artist's responses to preset questions without any independent discussion, and I would tend to exclude these. A change of wording to "other publications consisting solely of the musician or ensemble talking about themselves" should suffice. The reliability (or otherwise) of the publication should be treated in the same way as it would for any other type of article/coverage in my view.--Michig (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Purpose and Potential of Wikipedia:

"How does one quantify notoriety?" It comes back to a very fundamental disagreement over the importance and utility of Wikipedia. I see Wikipedia as the ultimate alternative source for reliable information. To me, it is not about how many millions of people will read an article. Rather, it is about providing a reliable article for the few who cannot find reliable information on this subject anywhere else. Chances are, if an article is generating thousands of hits per day, an interested party could easily find reliable information throughout the web - therefore, Wikipedia is neither displaying its full utility nor its full potential as an alternative reference forum. Best regards. Abtmcm (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm

I totally agree. This is a slice of some overall discussions I've been trying to encourage. WP has evolved beyond it's early encyclopedic format and into one of a source of truthful, factual, reliable, comprehensive information, where reliability or factuality is in question, readers can easily see via tags if anything is contested or suspect. These policies must be amended to reflect the progression of WP, without progression and amendment, WP will dissapear into obscurity to be replaced by a successor that progresses and evolves where WP may not. Nick carson (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that while both of you note some of the good things about WP, you're a bit vague about the improvements that could be made. What, specifically, do you have in mind? -Freekee (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
These requirements are flat out ridiculous. Gold album status? Really? Do you know just how many well known (underground) bands have never had a gold album? If you were to properly follow these guidelines over 90% of the bands on Wikipedia will need to be deleted. What are we doing here? Isn't Wikipedia about being a place for information? Why would we want to exclude anything...ever, especially in the name of notability? Are you guys just hurting for disk space? It's text for gods sakes! The attitudes of the current administration who run Wikipedia make me sick and I desperately hope to find a competitor to put you guys in your place one day. --Zephyrxero (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This comes back to the general WP:N being misnamed. The test is whether the subject has already been noted in reliable sources. If it has been noted, it is obviously notable. If it hasn't been noted, then you are doing original research that belongs elsewhere. There are loads of other places to do original writing, but that's not what WP is for.LeadSongDog come howl 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What qualifies as "multiple non-trivial published works"? How many is multiple? What is constitutes non-trivial? If there are going to be qualifiers for exclusion, than the qualifiers for inclusion should be be detailed and consistently applied.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I am agreeing with Abtmcm and Zephyrxero when I opine that the notoriety standards for music are way too stringent. As a result, they detract severely from the utility of WP.
If I wanted to know more about a band that I hadn't already heard of, the first place I would go would be WP. Yet the notoriety standards pretty much ensure that WP will include only info about blockbuster bands. Info about these bands is already generally available on the internet. Thus, WP doesn't really add anything of value. Who needs to look up the Rolling Stones?!?
I got into this whole discussion because I tried to look up Honor Society (which is opening for the Jonas Bros. on their summer tour). I discovered that there had been an article about them, but it had been deleted because they failed to meet the notoriety standards. But that is exactly the kind of band that people need to look up!
Actually, I do understand the nature of the problem: You don't want garage bands promoting themselves by writing their own WP articles. Nevertheless, this could be dealt with by having SOME notoriety standards -- just much looser ones. VaneWimsey (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Question re a song's notability

Would this song [9] be considered notable enough? Multiple covers by notable musicians, mention in Time magazine, some book refs. Ry Cooder's recent re-release is extremely popular, but don't have a reliable ref for that. Input welcome, Novickas (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object on a notability basis. Terribly short, though: I'd flesh it out a bit before I moved it to mainspace if I were you.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for quick reply. Problem is, you Google it, it's got thousands of hits, because Ry re-released it on Youtube - hard to sift thru the hits and find reliable sources. I was hoping it could stand more or less as is. The idea is, if it could never be more than a stub, it shouldnt be an article? I think it could be de-stubbed but I don't really know what music sources are RS, if I were to try and sift thru the Ghits. It looks like it's already present in a couple other WP articles, if that counts in its favor... Novickas (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It certainly can be destubbified, so I wouldn't let my hesitance stop you.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Open Grave Records

If there's no Wikipedia article on a record label, is that a pretty good sign that that an album released on that label doesn't by itself establish notability? - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability for singles/songs

I have a question. This article states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

  • What's the difference between "future-single" and "future-album"?

See WP:NSONGS - Just change the word album to single. Quote: Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the "future-album" tag. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it.

The tag "future-single" should be comparably with the tag "future-album". If songs and singles are the same thing then the tag "future-single" is useless. For what is this tag "future-single" standing for? Just for cosmetic purpose?

{{futuresingle}} {{futurealbum}}

217.237.149.206 (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Future single" should be used exceedingly rarely. Normally, there isn't enough information about a future single to justify an article: if all that is known is a release date, it should be covered in the parent album or artist article. Very rarely, there is enough discussion and information about a single prior to its release to justify a stand-alone article. Albums are a bit different. Usually in the months before its release to build something a bit bigger than a stub: a tracklist, a release schedule, interviews with the artist discussing the album's direction, etc.
99% of the time that I find a "future single" article, I wind up redirecting it.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of labels

I could boost the number of music-related articles I handle in the speedy deletion queue if I had a list of "notable" labels, per: "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)." List of record labels isn't a list of notable labels (in this sense), is it? - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say unless a label has two or more notable artists (circular references disallowed), it's not notable. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Would someone like to make a list of the labels with two or more notable artists? If we had that list, then the people who patrol the speedy queue could handle a lot more requests. (Of course, if you guys would rather make these calls, I don't mind bringing the labels I don't know over here.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
None of this is relevant to an A7 speedy. All it takes to avoid an A7 speedy is a claim of importance. If an article claims the song or group is important, it has to be PRODed or taken through AFD. AFD is the only time where meeting this guideline is going be be discussed.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is "I've released my album on the Dogcrap label" an assertion of notability or importance? How about "We're the greatest band in the world"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither counts. An assertion of importance is an assertion that, if supported sufficiently to meet WP:V, would meet the GNG or an SNG, like WP:BAND. An assertion that a single has charted staves off speedy; an assertion that a single has been published does not. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

←Agreed. I don't really have a point of view on this, I only want to find and execute consensus on how Wikipedians want A7 to be handled for band-related articles, because they're the most frequent type of A7 article, the hardest to make the call on, and the kind of article that it's hardest to get help with by asking around. If you can give me and others a list of which labels count as an assertion of whatever needs to be asserted, it would make life a lot easier for people at AfD, since not as many articles would get dumped there by mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a question with regards to the notability of netlabels. Netlabels are fast becoming a popular way for musicians to promote and establish their music to more listeners. A page was set up for "Rack and Ruin records", I am the site owner, and had no idea - I just came to add this today, only to find that the page was created, and later removed. Two of the artists "Dublin Duck Dispensary" and "The Macadamia Brothers" have Wikipedia entries, and the label is one of the most active netlabels around today (with over 130 releases), our artists/tracks have appeared on radio shows, podcasts, blogs, physical magazines, and even short film soundtracks.

At present, Allmusic does not list netlabels - only labels that produce physical goods, this format is new, but highly exciting and I feel that it does have a place on Wikipedia. I wondered what could be done about retrieving the said article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynci (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The criterion 5 loophole again

Last time I was here, discussion got sidetrack'd. OK, here's a potential problem. Suppose:

  • There are artists A, B, C ... G, all of which have released 2 or more albums on label X.
  • None of them satisfy any other notability criteria.
  • There are no other artists on label X.

This quickly becomes circular logic - either:

  • all of A-G are notable, because they are on an important indie label; X is an important indie label, because there are a number of notable artists on it

or:

  • none of A-G are notable, because they are not on an important indie label; X is not an important indie label, because none of the artists on it are notable

Now, the most obvious solution would be to tighten the criteria so that an important indie label is required to have artists on it that are notable thru some other criteria. But I'm not sure if this is what should be done. 2-3, 8-12 are very tight criteria; while 6 and 7 are potentially capable of just reiterating the logic loop (e.g. artist A is a member of band H, and band B features member I! But H and I are part of a similar ambiguously notable setup of artists H-O on label Y…) That leaves 1 and 4, and the latter of these is basically a stricter variant of the former.

Would requiring criterion #1 (or stricter) from its artists be an OK definition for "important indie label"? Or is there any possibility that a cluster of artists that hasn't even been covered in independant media could be notable enuff? If yes, what specific extra conditions should be specified then?

I can provide a variety of real-life examples (ambient netlabels, generally speaking) if you think this question is too academical.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What about 1-3 or 1-4? Even if a label has bands that meet #2 somehow without making #1, they'd seem like a notable label. I can see your point about circularity.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It all falls back to WP:V. If there are no independent, reliable secondary sources that attest to any of this, the house of cards collapses. You can't be a "major label" if no news outlet has ever written about you or your artists. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course not. But can you be an "important indie label"? Either criterion #1 is identical to verifiability, in which case it should go without saying, or it isn't, in which case we might run into this loophole.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I may have run into it today while addressing copyright concerns. Are The Sissies notable? They have two albums on Plan-It-X Records. Are Plan-It-X Records notable? They release albums by bands like The Sissies. Maybe they are; maybe they aren't. I haven't got time to investigate. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Google News shows nothing in mainstream media, except for coverage about one incident where a band's sticker caused a bomb scare. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The label article has no sources but there seems to be enough coverage (Google News) to indicate that the label is notable. Does that mean it's important enough for criterion 5? Maybe - it's been around for about 15 years with lots of releases. I would like to see some coverage of The Sissies for that article to be convincing regarding notability - we need to use WP:BAND as a rule of thumb but add our own judgment - it doesn't work if we try to follow it to the letter.--Michig (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles like this one make me question criterion 5 altogether. Of course, with niche music, it might be very hard to document notability in mainstream media. Plan-It-X does seem to have coverage at blog site http://www.punknews.org/. That site publishes stories submitted by the public and notes: "Don't worry if the label is not listed. You can submit the story and we'll add the logo later." But maybe these bands truly are notable in the niche community. I don't know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deprodded, so I AfD'ed it. We'll see what the community thinks of it. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It's looking like there are likely enough sources for this. I'd say it's probably sufficiently notable, and it looks to be SNOWing keep, which I won't protest since it is garnering footnotes to places other than the label's own website, if slowly. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Classical music

I'm curious as to why it doesn't seem to be mentioned. Is it just assumed that WP doesn't suffer from fans of obscure people inserting them? Peter jackson (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The notability criteria apply to composers and musicians of all genres, including classical - other genres are not mentioned either, as the criteria are not genre-specific.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Time is the great sieve. Either something has been written about in multiple reliable secondary sources by now, or it has been forgotten. Not so with most of today's forgettable music. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the notability criteria apply to all types of music, but those criteria are already given in the main notability page. The purpose of this page is to give more detail, which it does entirely in terms of pop jargon: bands, songs, singles, albums.
Actually, people are still writing new classical music, & rediscovering forgotten stuff. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, winning a competition is a criteria tailored to classical musicians. There aren't any major international competitions, for, say, bass guitar. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Michig revert

I see that a good deal of my work was reverted despite the fact that it was intended to be a clarification of language and not a policy change. Could we have some identification of what, in particular, was objectionable?

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1. First of all, I reverted this edit as the change made would allow a label with no releases by notable artists to be considered sufficient to confer notability via album releases on another artist. We discussed this recently and agreed on the wording.
2. The changes here removed the important clarification that failing WP:MUSIC is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion and that any assertion of importance or significance is sufficient to make speedy via A7 inappropriate. Such inappropriate speedy-tagging of music-related articles is a constant problem.
2a. The change also suggests that musicians who "only have a local following" are not notable, which could well conflict with the agreed notability criterion of "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city".
2b. This edit also removed the clarification that this guideline is a "rule of thumb" rather than a set of rules that should be slavishly followed, which also addressed a common problem.
3. This edit substantially changed the section about "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" to only include press releases and material published by the artist(s) or associates, thus suggesting that interviews with no independent content other than simple questions could demonstrate notability.
This guideline page is very widely used in deletion discussions (in arguments both for and against deletion) and changes that could give weight to arguments in those discussions really need to be agreed via consensus before being made.--Michig (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
note: I refactored Michig's responses to include numberings so that we can discuss them in shorthand
My responses:
1. I don't see how that change makes that difference. Multiple notable artists are required by both wordings.
2. I view this as a desired change, but you knew that based on our recent disagreement. That is, asserting something that meets one or more parts of this SNG is not too high a bar to set, and deleting articles that don't even meet that low bar is a good thing.
2a. I can't see this being an issue, with criterion 7 being intact. If anything, criterion 7 sets the minimum threshold for area notability, which is just fine, and the introduction specifies that things below that threshold don't merit inclusion.
2b. Not sure why that's all that important, given that WP:IAR is still policy.
3. That might be a problem, but I think it can probably be rectified by a rewording. I don't see it as a particularly large one, since AfD'ers can suss out RS'ing, and anything without editorial oversight wouldn't pass muster on that count.
Thanks for providing a prompt and detailed set of issues that you perceive in these changes. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Re. 1. This is a subtle change, but if several artists on a label can be demonstrated to be notable, that is slightly diferent to the whole roster being notable, which is how the change could be interpreted.
Re. 2. The change is slightly inconsistent with WP:CSD policy, and if someone comes along with an article that asserts importance in a way not covered by these guidelines, the article should not be speedied. Criteria for notability and criteria for speedy deletion are two separate sets of issues, for a very good reason.
Re. 2b. The old wording was important because many editors often fail to use these guidelines simply as a rule of thumb. Given that some AFD discussions only have a handful of contributors, a few editors failing to understand this distinction can give us serious problems.
Re 3. It is probably best to discuss the sort of coverage that would/would not be accepted as significant independent coverage and spell this is out as far as is possible in the wording of this criterion. The revised wording excludes anything not issued by artist(s) or their agent. If we don't feel that we can be this prescriptive, let's leave this as a more general statement.--Michig (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The goal of my changes was to make the policy more understandable. The problem that I see when I perform page deletions based on tags placed by others, is that people who come here just to add their favorite band to the encyclopedia don't understand the policy after reading this page. Therefore, they struggle unnecessarily. A major goal of my current participation at Wikipedia is to make it more welcoming to newcomers, which is why I work in deletion -- often the first place newcomers get stuck. Broadly, I'm more sympathetic to the argument that we are now deleting too much stuff than I am to the argument that AFD is too much work, and so it's certainly not my goal to expand the speedying of music articles. On the other hand, the policy page serves newcomers as well as administrators, and having a bunch of counterexamples to try to rein in the administrators also serves to give false hope to the newcomers creating an article on their favorite band.

The two major misunderstandings that I see among newcomers who write band articles are these: 1) they believe that the "played in two or more independently notable ensembles" and "had two or more independently notable members" provisions carry far more weight than they do or should; and 2) they come away from the page thinking that they only need to satisfy enough criteria to save their article from a speedy when in fact the "speedy or not?" question is merely one of venue and process. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I haven't seen as many disagreements about criteria 6 (two notable members) since the last wording change. That's simply anecdotal, of course, but I'd like to think the wording change we hashed out here a few months back may have helped.
As far as speedy deletions being too much work, that's really beyond the scope of this page. What I can tell you is that I often see 100-200 pages pending speedy deletion, and typically 2-10% of them are bands, the same percent athletes, and a somewhat larger number other people tagged for A7. It is relatively rare that I find a page tagged for A7 that clearly asserts notability meeting any SNG, but many have some sort of assertion of importance not rising to the level of GNG or an SNG were they sourced--people more so than bands, interestingly enough, hence my favoring a bright line of an assertion of GNG/SNG level notability for retention. 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I regularly find articles on bands/musicians at C:CSD that with a few minutes searching online can be sourced to a level where deletion at AFD is unlikely. The two biggest problems I see are editors who believe that a band merits an article simply because they exist (I doubt that many of these editors read this page before creating such articles), and editors who seem to search out as many articles as possible to tag for deletion, without considering the potential for those articles to be improved. Editors should only have to put some basic assertion of importance or significance into articles to save them from speedy deletion. The guideline under discussion is here to be applied after those articles that have no hope of reaching an acceptable standard have been filtered out by speedy deletion. If we change the guideline to allow adminstrators to summarily delete articles that they think do not meet a notability criterion, that is both in contradiction of the speedy deletion policy and detrimental to the project. It is common in AFDs for an article to be kept because there is consensus that the subject meets the notability criteria, despite an individual administrator believing that it doesn't - such articles that would be kept at AFD could get deleted by these admins if the revised wording was followed. The problem of editors citing one criterion such as C6 as a reason that their article should be kept are misunderstanding the fact that the guideline is a rule of thumb and that (often arguably) passing one criterion does not automatically mean that the subject is notable, which I believe was clearer in the pre-changed wording. --Michig (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)If the speedy userification tool ever gets developed, I'd be happy to use that on A7's of all stripes. Failing that, though, there's simply no way with the current administrator staffing (such as it is) to go through {{db-band}}-tagged articles with that much thoroughness and keep the speedy deletion queue short enough that other issues can be dealt with in a timely manner. I wonder if it's possible for someone to code a speedy disposition timer, to see how long it takes articles to get dispositioned? I know I've seen articles left for more than 24 hours on a couple of occasions. Increasing the burden on speedy deletion evaluation simply increases the risk to Wikipedia from defamation and copyvios, which I judge a much larger risk than potentially losing an article on a band that will be eventually written again if it is truly notable--WP:TIND applies to articles, not to the regulatory world in which we live. I realize this may range a bit, but I'm not advocating "WP:BAND or dustbin" simply because I don't like music, but because I view it the lesser of two evils. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The original intent of the cleanup tags was to deal with that. The idea was that something that didn't get cleaned up in a reasonable period of time would be speedied or go to AFD. This line of reasoning was a victim of its own success, because articles needing cleanup arrive at a greater rate than responsible editors can perform a thorough analysis as you describe. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not an adminsitrator, but I do spend a lot of time checking articles tagged for speedy deletion to see if they can be rescued, which is probably a lot more time than it takes an admin to go through deleting them - I know some admins do some checking before deleting but others don't. I don't see the backlog of articles tagged for speedy deletion as particularly problematic, nonetheless, and certainly not as problematic as the speedy deletion of articles on notable subjects, and the discouraging effect that this can have on new editors. I agree that articles with copyvio or other legal implications should be dealt with quickly but this could surely be achieved by simply flagging these particular CSD categories for more urgent attention. An article tagged with A7/db-band hanging around for 24 hours or longer really isn't a problem. Discouraging inappropriate speedy-tagging would be another approach to reducing the workload. This article on this band, for instance was tagged with an A7 within 20 minutes of being created (I just removed the tag), and Quasar (band) would probably also have a good chance of being rescued. --Michig (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

C6 Again

I have reverted the change. I belive this new version is a long way from the consensus. It appears to not reflect the most recent discussion (a short discussion from the few who were watching at the time) but also disregards other recent discussions.
Restarting discussion for a needed change.
My understanding from the problems with C6 is the domino effect. This change does not address that problem. A change that asks for important or significant members of notable band would. A change that requires bands from notable members/bands to have actualy done something would.
More Later. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but consensus did change, and you're reverting almost three months after the new consensus wording has been in place with no opposition or issues. At this point, it's proper to term your modification a proposed change, rather than a reversion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but reserve the right to "R" per WP:BRD if a good explanation isn't forthcoming. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
... and I've reverted your bold edit. So, feel free to expound on the problem with the current consensus. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I can not see where consensus changed. In the discussion from April I only see one person agreeing with the change, another agreed a similar changed may work but prefered another version. The other four appear to have made no comment on the specific change. That in my eyes if far from a consensus. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems the best approach here is to explain why you don't like the language and see if others agree. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Two significant changes were made. It change from being one member to two and from a member to independently notable musicians. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1) One notable member in isolation has never been sufficient under C6. If you read the footnotes and qualifiers in your preferred version, one notable member makes the band a redirect to that member.
2) I don't understand why you believe "member" to "independently notable member" is a significant change. Again, the intent was simply to incorporate the footnotes and qualifiers.
As far as consensus goes, consensus is not just numbers, but also the fact that none of the participants saw fit to contest the change: change+no objections == new consensus. There's no specific time limit on that, of course, but ten weeks is quite a long while in Wiki-time. Jclemens (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1) One member could be sufficiant, often most appropriate is not always. Application in AFDs suggest that is the way it is often interpreted.
2) To independently notable "musician". The new version reads to me as requiring someone who has independent notablity outside a band. A change from the previous version.
I prefer Michig's take on consensus in such areas, "Hopefully we can all agree that a change that could result in hundreds of articles getting deleted needs more than a handful of editors to reach a consensus."[10]
My prefered version is one that says something along the lines of "Contains or contained at least one significant member who satisfies the general notability guideline or who is, or was, a significant member of another band that satisfies the general notability guideline; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply."[11]. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I fail to see how that wording will keep any articles that would be deleted by the "two or more" wording. Do you have an example of any current article that meets criteria 6 as you prefer it, doesn't meet the "two or more" version, and doesn't meet any other notability criteria in this SNG? If not, could you explain a plausible scenario where such an article would be created--again, meeting your preferred criteria, not the "two or more" wording, and no other WP:MUSIC criteria? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for an example. A scenario, AnOldBand led by Joey Bloey is notable, band breaks up, Joey Bloey creates ANewBand which releases a full length album on a major label. The are old bands from somewhere with not much old press moved to the internet. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of the new band meeting 1, 2, 11, or the GNG, it shouldn't have an article yet, but could easily be a redirect to content in Joey's section in AnOldBand. Really, we're talking about the presence of independent articles, not the presence of the material in Wikipedia, because Redirects and WP:NNC can accomodate a lot of not-quite or not-yet notable content, while at the same time precluding a lot of self-promotion. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Why should it be a redirect when they meet (the old) 6? They are halfway to meeting the album criteria so they have done something significant. The answer to that question is where the old and new 6 differ. Your change gave an answer to that question without addressing it. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
They don't meet the old criterion 6; it said explicitly that such things should usually be a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it said "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects". Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Back to what has been missed in the recent discussion (and the main reason for me questioning this change). 2) The change from "once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" to "notable musicians". I see this as a major change. Notability for band members favour members who have done something else but were a relativly small part of a band over a member who was the driving force behind the band, whos name = the bands name. The reality for band members usualy falls inbetween but notability often favours the wrong end. This change reinforces that bias. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that as a major change, too, but for the better, since it helps avoid John Rightplace, who toured with Notable Band for six weeks when their regular back-up vocalist was out with the Swine Flu, from being the sole assertion of notability for Garage Band, which he formed with a group of his bowling buddies in Bovina, New York. I'm also not inclined to believe that if Joe Whoever joins Formerly Popular Band after it hits the nostalgia circuit, any future acts to which he belongs (after Formerly Popular Band reaches the point that it can no longer even get prom bookings) are automatically notable. If a band doesn't meet the notability criterion in itself but is instead riding the coattails of its members, those members ought to be notable enough to carry them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it fixes that problem (and I think asking for significant members would do that too). It also stops articles Super Group with the main members of Notable Band and the main members of Another Notable Band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If Super group is really Super, I tend to think Rolling Stone might take note of them, making them qualify under other criteria. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So we've heard from three editors, one who doesn't favor the change, and two who do. Now is a good time for other folks to weigh in and give their opinions on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll chime in again. Quite simply, notability-by-association is bogus. If no RS has noted a member's role in a band, we don't know they were in it or what role they played in it. Period. LeadSongDog come howl 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify; now we have four editors: one who doesn't favor the current text; two who do; one who wants different text altogether (or the complete elimination of criterion 6). Is that right? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Make that two that argue for complete elimination. Notability by association or inheritance is always bad.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with that solution also, so I'm willing to put my lot in with either (a) current text or (b) elimination. I'm just not okay with reverting the current text to what we used to have. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I would also support the complete elimination of criterion 6, but I believe that to be a much larger change than the disucsion between wordings we have going on now. In a practical sense, all I see the elimination of criterion 6 as doing is making speedy deletion decisions easier, because LeadSongDog is right that WP:V must be met, and the chances are vanishingly small that anything taken to AfD would have V met for criterion 6 (and ONLY criterion 6) without meeting any of the other criteria. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A distinction should be made, though, between WP:V and WP:N. To use LeadSongDog's example, a member's role in a band can be verified to a self-published source under existing policy, even as that self-published source does not help in building a case for notability (in the sense of having independent sources write about the band). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I still prefer the version that we came up with a while back, which was along the lines of "Contains or contained at least one significant member who satisfies the general notability guideline or who is or was a significant member of another band that satisfies the general notability guideline; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply". A band is notable if significant coverage exists, not whether we can find it on Google. Going back to 1980s and earlier, there are loads of bands that certainly received significant coverage but for whom a Google search may not find any. If Criterion 6 plus WP:V is satisfied, there is no reason we shouldn't have articles on these bands. If the verifiable content fits better merged into another article, fine, but if 2 members of notable 60s band A and 2 members of notable 60s band B went on to form a band and released 2 albums, with at least a good chance that they recieved enough coverage, it seems a bit of a nonsense that we simply delete an article about them. We are allowed to use our judgment and delete articles where the previous bands were not 'sufficiently notable' (e.g. band A containing the drummer of marginally notable band B), or where a side project didn't do enough to justify inclusion, so the existence of this criterion shouldn't be a problem. No article should be either kept or deleted simply because of the existence of these criteria - we need to use them as a guideline rather than a rule, or we end up with a poorer encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"... and released 2 albums" means criterion 5 applies, and they're notable. We'd not delete an article in the situation you just described even if criterion 6 went away entirely. I'm agreeing that if merging doesn't make sense, and we have reliable sources to meet V, there's a good chance we'd want an article on such a band. It's just rather hard to find--or even invent for argument's sake!--examples where criterion 6 makes a difference for whether an individual band article is kept or merged. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Criterion 5 wouldn't necessarily apply unless it was a major or important independent label - many independent labels from the 70s and 80s were sufficiently important for criterion 5 but this would be difficult to prove from sources now readily available. If they released one album, or released 5 singles and toured the UK it's just as likely that an article would be justified, if the two previous bands were sufficiently notable. One example off the top of my head might be Bay (band) which included a pre-Arab Strap Aidan Moffat and Will Heggie of Lowlife (band) and Cocteau Twins - released 2 albums in the mid-90s on a label that probably wouldn't be important enough for criterion 5 but the band is definitely worth covering here. Significant coverage on the internet will be hard to find even though they would almost certainly have received coverage in the music press at the time, but I have sources to satisfy WP:V, and criterion 6 would 'allow' the article to be created without someone hooked on deletion tagging it with a CSD after 5 minutes.--Michig (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I'd urge care in reading what Paul Erik says above. When Joe's Garage Band puts out a press release about their indy recording we get the ability to verify what their wording was, but that gives no incremental reliability to the statements made. It is still a self-published source and inherently unreliable for any statement more authoritative than "A press release attributed to Joe's Garage Band claimed that ...". Hardly encyclopedic except perhaps in the context of narrating a step in a publicity campaign that is itself notable. (Here I'm thinking of Will It Blend and such).LeadSongDog come howl 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The part of verfiability policy that I was thinking of was not WP:SPS, which you linked to above, but WP:SELFPUB, which says that a band's own self-published material may be used for sourcing something neutral about themselves, e.g. who was part of the band when. An example of a featured article that used self-published sources for many of its citations is Opeth, and you'll see that there was no need to add caveats like "according to the band's own press material..." Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not the way I read SELFPUB, Paul. If Joe's Garage Band says that Joe toured with the Rolling Stones it can hardly be seen as a RS, they would gain a measure of notoriety by the association. Conversely, if the Rolling Stones say Joe toured with them, SELFPUB would apply.LeadSongDog come howl 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, with that sort of scenario I would agree with you. I'm going to try this again because I know I was not being all that clear. What I was trying to suggest is that there are potential scenarios where criterion #6 is met without meeting any of the other criteria, but still without running afoul of WP:V. The scenario goes like this: a band member of a well-established band has much material written about him, but most of it is the band's own self-published sources; the third-party sourcing is not quite enough to establish his notability separate from the band. A redirect may be fine in many cases. But in some, it may be better for the encyclopedia, for issues of readability and the like, that all the biographical material—and, perhaps, a solo discography—about this band member be put in a stand-alone article. I think this is especially so when someone is a member of two or more notable bands. We can even take out the whole issue of self-published sources: The band member has much written about him in multiple sources, but always in connection to one or the other band. His WP:N notability is always connected to one band or the other. Where do we put the information about him (and where do we direct the redirect)? Best to have it in a separate article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to bring an example into this. (I am the only non formatting/spelling editor so no one elses significant good faith effort is at risk). The Last Kinection are a band made up of half of Local Knowledge (band) and one of two from Shakaya. The coverage of this band may be seen as close to the edge of what is enough for C1. Some would say yes, some may say no. Let's assume you say not quite good enough. Are they notable. None of the individual members are "notable musicians". Both bands they came from are notable. All three are major parts of their previous bands. They have recieved national attention. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that would be a factor in evaluating C1, not necessarily reason to require an "or" criteria. Let's try another example. It's a Beautiful Day was a notable band in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Their guitarist, Hal Wagenet, is now part of a band called "Ugly Knights." (See [12]). Ugly Knights "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Indeed, he was a significant member during its notable period. So far as I can ascertain, Ugly Knights plays weddings. Do they get an article? What if Wagenet gets his old buddy, Mitchell Holman bassist of It's a Beautiful Day, to join in? Is Ugly Knights notable then? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That answer touches to me on something I appear to have yet been able to clearly state, I'm not suggesting an in/out clear ruling, it should be looked at they have technically passed C6, is there any other critera they are close to and is their level of passing C6 good enough for that close enough to be called more than appropriate for a redirect. (Ugly Knights to be looked at later) Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That would seem to me to be a footnote of C1 then, not a separate criterion which does imply that C6 is all it takes. The header of the guideline says, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" (italics removed through sheer laziness). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no major objection to changing to footnotes. Other criteria would also need a footnote. My opinion is Fix the wording, change to significant/important member, say the band has to have done something or needs to come close (verifiable) to another criteria. Non internet coverage can be presumed were appropriate. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
From the quick look at Ugly Knights you have provided, I see nothing (with consideration to the rest of WP:MUSIC to suggest that this is not a case that is not most appropriate to use redirects. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Suppose Hal Wagenet recruits another significant member of another notable 1970s band. Who do you redirect to? Criterion #6 automatically bestows notability on non-notable bands, imo. It should either be jettisoned altogether or limited as it is now so that at least the musicians must themselves be notable, not simply a part of something bigger than them. If you want to propose considerations for C1, that's one thing. But notwithstanding that you are not suggesting an in/out clear ruling, the guideline itself indicates that's what these criteria are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above scenario I would say redirect to Hal's band, the lead of the new band. This type of question is where common sense is suggested. The old Criterion #6 does not automatically bestow notability on non-notable bands. It say that redirect are often appropriate. It suggested use of common sense. That common sense is not common enough is a reason to fix the criteria, not remove it. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
And where in the article on It's a Beautiful Day do you mention Hypothetical Singer from Other 1970s Band who is now performing with Hal? Ugly Knights fans deserve to know. :) One can't codify common sense; by the same reasoning, we shouldn't need to say, "Oh, yeah, if a band is borderline C1, we might want to default to 'keep' if the members of the band are notable for other things." I'm sure we could each come up with examples of bands that meet C6 on both sides of hte notability divide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In the biography. "After leaving It's a Beautiful Day, Wagenet formed Ugly Knights who later recruited Hypothetical Singer from Other 1970s Band". One is not asking to codify common sense, one is not asking to codify consensus. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Currently, consensus is to deprecate C6. I suppose you'd like to give it more time for others to weigh in? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No such consensus exists. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll take that as "give it more time for others to weigh in." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll change that. I have yet to see a consensus, I'd like to see more time for others to weigh in. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Allow discussions in AFDs to go beyond a because rule 1.734 subsection b. Allow people to make judgements based on idividual cases. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not want to see criterion #6 deprecated. To reinterate some of what I said further up in this discussion: there are times when there is a fair amount of verifiable information about a band member, but the material is always connected to one band or another that they were a part of. In such a case, the WP:N notability is not really separate from the bands. If it is a single band, it may be possible to incorporate the biographical info about the person into the band article (and have a redirect in place). But if the notability (and the material from the third-party sources) is connected to more than one band, it often makes sense, from the point of view of the reader especially, to have this material in a separate article about the musician. Issues of article size sometimes are relevant in these situations as well. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are describing, Paul, is a band member that no available WP:RS thought was worth noting. Why should we use C6 to substitute our own judgement on the matter in direct violation of the basic thrust of WP:N? LeadSongDog come howl 04:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If I am understanding you right, the same can be said of any of the criteria other than #1, or any of the subject-specific notability guidelines in cases where WP:GNG is not met; we are substituting collective judgment about what is "notable" in the absence of multiple independent sources that address the subject directly in detail. C6, which has been consensus for years in this guideline, is also helpful with regard to WP:PRESERVE, which is part of policy, and has helped us when there are multiple merge targets for the verifiable information. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Paul Erik, can you provide a real example of such a marginally notable person who would be deleted if criterion 6 were removed, but kept if it were retained? Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to find the perfect example, but of course now that I need it it's hard to find. :) Some of the ones I was thinking of, like Fredrik Åkesson, have not yet had citations added to them. This is a recently closed AfD that rested upon C6. Here, here, here and here are others. This one demonstrated the issue of not having a single merge target. This one that resulted in delete shows that yes we do need still to meet the requirements of WP:V. And Jclemens, you may recall our discussion of Girlsareshort which you speedy-deleted because at the time it appeared to meet no criteria other than C6. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Side question: pre-Internet sourcing

I see another issue here--the lack of internet sourcing. This is something that plagues all sorts of things of "moderate" notability that happened outside the mainstream media's notice before the Internet. Wargaming championships comes immediately to my mind, and I'm sure many other editors can think of things that in a similar vein. Why do/should/are bands expected to get extra criteria in their SNG to deal with such things? Do any other SNG's? Not a challenge so much as a question of consistency. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, offline resources are acceptable. Harder to find, obviously. I run into this problem sometimes with the old guys. Take the album What'd I Say, for instance. Gold record. Charting album. Launched Ray Charles' first top 10 hit. Available information? Not so much. :/ The notability criteria like the verifiability policy does make it a bit harder with some materials to meet standards, but I don't know that there's really a good way around those standards given the whole "anybody can edit" thing. If Editor X comes in sourcing a band article with a ton of off-line resources, we might have to address plausibility issues through AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I see this as a failing of other notablity guides, not a benefit for bands. If it can be verified in independent reliable sources that something has been done or achieved that whould under normal conditions to have received significant coverage then that should be considered. Current coverage is very easy to find. This tends to lead to assumptions of older coverage. eg, The Australian edition of Rolling Stone is not online. Old issues articles normally can't be found online and the coverage in major Australian library search facilities is limited. Most people do not have easy access to the few libraries which keep the magazine. Assumptions from some thing being online or easily accesible seem to suggest others are. An above suggestion of a magazine making note of them, coverage probably would exist but that does not make it easy to find. Yes they probably would have covered them but without direct access I can't show that.
I would also suggest that the awards making people notable is a similar extra criteria in many other SNGs. (unless I've misread what you said). Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

CD Singles

I know that in Japan and other countries, they still release almost all of their singles on CD format, and they precede the albums, rather than in American where they are almost all re-cut singles, and even then, are usual only in digital format or have new music videos. CD singles however, more than often have several tracks (A-sides, B-sides), remixes, instrumentals.

The question I pose is whether or not we should treat those CD singles in Japan as albums (give them premature articles when there is enough information) rather than as songs (don't give them a page until they chart, hence are 'notable'). It's just that there is a problem with some users constantly redirecting unreleased singles to the page, and then others bringing them back up again in full. I don't think they should be treated as songs, since they are normally more than just one song, and they are not re-cut singles.

Should you wish to see one currently being redirected then restored, see Sunrise/Sunset (Love Is All). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaexeaus (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What level of reliable sourcing is available for the contents of such CD "singles"? Is this info generally available pre-release, at release, once a single has charted, or at some other time? Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There is pretty much always reliable sourcing. About a month or two before, they will announce the single. At the latest, the full tracklist is revealed on the artist website or record label two weeks before the release of the single, often a bit earlier. At that time, I think it can warrant its page (the more popular artists anyways). Glaexeaus (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Then my general answer would be such an album (since it sounds like they're essentially EP's) should appear in the artist's article as soon as there is a reliable source for its impending release, and once multiple independent RS's cover them, they should be treated as if they were separate albums. This may be complicated by the artist's own notability, since if we cound such things as albums, they might make it easier for artists to claim to meet WP:MUSICBIO by virtue of these CD single releases. Jclemens (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the singles that are released in Japan are maxi singles (that's why they contain more than one song) and should not be treated as album or an EP, because they are not. If they were they would chart on the album chart in Japan not on the single chart. MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A maxi-single is the same thing as an EP. I don't see why they should be treated any different to albums - if they satisfy the requirements for having a separate article, we can have a separate article, otherwise not.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
How is it the same thing? Because it contains more than one song? A maxi single is a single, just with added tracks that doesn't make it an EP. And the article that brought up the whole thing doesn't satisfy the requirements since there is a lack of coverage. All the page has is a track list, a release date and covers. That doesn't really meet the requirements set. MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of singles contain more than one song. An EP is a single with "Extended play", that is more than the standard two tracks. Maxi-singles were originally vinyl 'singles' with more than 2 tracks, the only real difference between them and EPs was that maxi-singles were generally 'named' after the lead track, while EPs at the time were generally given a name in the same way that albums are named.--Michig (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Michig on this one. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I would too. I can understand why songs shouldn't have a page unless they are notable as stated. But singles have more information to them, and people generally like to see that before release. And what is the problem with having a premature page? Most of the pages that User:MS redirects are ones that are sure to chart and be "notable", since the way Japan works if different than the US. As a sidenote, I apologize for my lack of knowledge about EP's and maxi-singles. I'm not used to hearing those at all.Glaexeaus (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Songs

The notability guideline currently states: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts ... are probably notable." What exactly is a "national or significant music chart"? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Bout Tha Stax (Intro). U.S. Billboard is national, but what about Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles? Which charts are generally considered proof of notability? I couldn't find the answer at WP:CHARTS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Laruso

From my talk page: "Hey, I was wondering if you could do a history undelete or a userfication of the Laruso revision you deleted in May 2009. Thanks, Gendralman (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)" Previous versions of this article were deleted by 4 different admins including me, and I'm not comfortable making the call; anyone want to take a whack at it? - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_11&oldid=1144713012"