Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Userspace rework of this Guideline

I have started redrafting the Guideline in my userspace: User:Jubileeclipman/Notability (music). So far, I have restructured NALBUMS—hopefully without losing the original sense but rather strengthening the points it is trying to make. The most radical change has been to widen the meaning of the first sentence of the second paragraph in the present version of this document to include songs as well as albums: see my point 2, "Remembering that notability is not inherited..." I feel that the original words imply that songs are included in the advice but acknowledge that I might be wrong. Hopefully, my reworking of that sentence still retains the meaning of the original even if its scope is widened; again, I might be wrong! Feel free to play: treat my user space version as a sandbox. If this goes horribly wrong, I can always Speedy the page... and we still keep the original document intact. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Drum and bass / Jungle music pages

All of these pages are in a confused state and need more attention. Also why was Nerve Recordings deleted? --TylerDurdenn (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dom & Roland Productions (DRP) should probably be moved to Dom & Roland Productions as it doesn't really need the shorthand DRP in it. --TylerDurdenn (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Moved to Dom & Roland Productions. The redirect could probably be deleted but I'll need to think of a sensible rationale other that "not needed" as that's usually rejected. I'll look into the other stuff for you soon. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 17:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of bands is the dumbest thing you could do

Moved from Wikipedia:User experience feedback § Deletion of bands is the dumbest thing you could do

I've noticed that you have deleted lots of DIY punk bands. Some like Misery meet your criteria, profane excistence records has been around since 1989 and haas a large lineup of artists.

But thats beside the point, Your new noteriety criteria is erasing a lot of the history of music. A lot of these bands deserve to here, many have turned down labels because they dont need them. The minneapolis punk scene was a large one and its presence should be know, not ereased.

If your criteria does not change I will call upon all the punks and hardcore people for a ban of all things associated with wikipedia, the nazis tried erasing jewish history and now your doing the same. SHAME ON YOU, YOU FACISTS

Ted B

MPLS MN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.149.36 (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FACISM!!! --TylerDurdenn (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dom & Roland versus Dom and Roland

The wiki has:

• No Strings Attached (Dom & Roland album)
• Chronology (Dom and Roland album)

What is the standard form: "&" or "and"? --TylerDurdenn (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Every Pink Floyd song has an article?

This seems to apply to several other bands as well. After a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs seemed to agree with this guideline, I went ahead and redirected some obviously non-notable song articles to the parent album articles, as the guideline suggests. This is currently controversial to some, and I have nominated at AfD one article whose redirection is contested. Question; if there is no longer consensus for this guideline, does it need to be rewritten? The only logical argument I have spotted in favor of keeping articles liker this is that the fame of the article and/or the album makes every song inherently notable. Seems like a stretch to me, and it seems like it would apply to an awful lot of bands if the decision is left in the hands of fans of the band (as apparently is the case here). What do others think? --John (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The key line from WP:NSONG is a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. If there is enough verifiable material for an article to be expanded beyond a stub then an article can exist. Mega-successful bands like Pink Floyd, the Beatles, and Led Zeppelin have so much written about them that yes detailed articles can be written about virtually every one of their songs. J04n(talk page) 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I take the point, but what does "reasonably detailed" mean in this context? Seems to me that in most cases it will consist of the song name, credits, recording details (all already available on the album article), possibly some OR about the song's "meaning", and a list of bands nobody has heard of who have covered it. This seems not to match our usual understanding of notability. --John (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Using "Breathe" as an example which you nominated for Afd: The article has a sourced section detailing the song's authorship and composition. It has also been covered by the London Philharmonic Orchestra arranged by Jaz Coleman (both pretty notable I hope you would agree). I agree that Sea of Green may not be notable, but I think that's now kind of irrelevant given the other information. "Reasonably detailed" will vary from case to case, which is to be expected - every article must make it's own claim to notability. --JD554 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"..performed independently by several notable artists ..."

A question on this language from WP:NSONGS: do we truly mean "performed", or do we mean "released as a recording by"? It came up during an AFD where the song had been performed live by another artist, but not released. Does showing up on a concert set list truly lend towards notability?—Kww(talk) 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Its got to be released/recorded unless a live performance of the song garned lots of independent coverage. simply performing a song could easily be written on artist's tour page etc. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favor of changing the language to read "released as a recording by" or something similar. J04n(talk page) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with that clarification. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

the above comments by J04n and Jclemens are a good solution. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree also with that clarification --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and made the change per Kww's proposal. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as a "clarification", I see it as a significant change to the rules, and though I appear to be rather outnumbered I still want to say for the record that I support the previous version and oppose the change. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with CMP that the wording change is a 'significant change to the rules' (a change that I agree with BTW). We should allow time for others to voice their views, particularly since much of the discussion occurred over the weekend. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So according to CMP what would have been done in the AfD situation described by Kww? Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that depends how important the performance is. If it was just part of their band's set in some concert as part of a tour somewhere or other then that performance is not really that significant; if it was performed as part of some major commemoration for some poignant reason (say some minor anti-war song was performed at a 9/11 concert at Ground Zero by Eminem but he never recorded it officially), then that performance might be highly significant. We would need the coverage in RSs as ever, though, to justify inclusion of the fact and then that fact might just elevate the song to notability. Case-by-case, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, although I have a hard time imagining a situation where a song in that situation would fail every other criterion--we only need it to pass one. I'm open to further clarification of the text--a change doesn't mean the discussion can't continue. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's true: the song chosen would hardly be some third rate song written by a couple of 6th-graders after school! The point I was making, though, is that live performances need to be contextualised if they alone are to raise a song to notability. An official recording, OTOH, takes time to plan, record, produce, market, etc etc, so an important artist like Eminem recording a song is far more likely to be an indicator of notability than his performing it live (possibly off-the-cuff, possibly highly planned and fully rehearsed as part of some major event) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of singles

User:Prosperosity recently did an overhaul of Superfly (artist), and in the process removed redlinks for two of the group's singles because they "did not chart notably enough to warrant articles". My understanding of this notability guideline is that if it charts at all, the song is notable for inclusion. Both are singles released by the group, both did not get above #50 on the Oricon Charts, and the other charts were made after these particular singles came out.

So basically, would they get articles?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The other criterion in WP:NSONGS is that there has to be enough material to create more than a stub. If all people can source is the infobox and an article that basically repeats the infobox in verbiage, that's a stub in my book.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Derek Murawski

Sorry to trouble you, but I'd appreciate some comment on Derek Murawski

On one hand, this is the worst sort of COI self-promotion (albeit innocently GF). Recent creation by user:Dmurawski (who appears to be the subject, not a spoof or a label's PR shill) and a heavily promotional tone, before an upcoming release. He's a musician, but when the article itself describes the subject as a "minor internet celebrity" and has to qualify even that as "minor", then we're clearly on the borderline of WP:N. It does attempt to claim notability, but by relying on such phrases as, "has been subscribed to by many popular & influential YouTube users", which is a pretty weak claim.

He has released a single. It has been downloaded. Some web sites listed it. Is that enough? Are those sources anywhere near adequate?

I'm tempted to AfD it for the COI issue (a slippery slope we really mustn't encourage), but I'm unfamiliar with the music guidelines and would appreciate other's opinions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's now up for speedy deletion on the grounds of blatant COI promo, and the fact the article was deleted before. Dl2000 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now deleted: This is Derek Murawski's third go at getting his vanity article on Wikipedia (lots of sock puppetry going on too). See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DMurawski (deleted May 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Murawski twice (deleted December 2009 and June 2010). Memphisto (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Both pages should be WP:SALTed if this guy keeps recreating himself (in more ways that one) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this new modern age!

So do we even have "albums" and "labels" and such anymore? I am trying to figure out the notability of Megan and Liz. On the one hand, by the typical old standards they are not notable. But the fact that they have fan sites in various countries makes me wonder. One of their YouTube videos reportedly has 1.2 million hits. Is that a lot or a little? Does it convey notability? I have no idea. Should we add an "x number of YouTube views" or something to the standard? Also, they have an "album", sort of, but it doesn't physically exist (I don't think), so it doesn't have a "label", either minor or indie (I guess); but is available to be "bought" from itunes.com and amazon.com, which seem to me to be notable entities. I don't know if sales from these entities are reflected in any chart. Do we need to update the standards? Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

An album is an album and a single is a single, however they are sold or physically manifest. Sales charts are objective reality. Airplay is objective reality. Youtube views don't represent any editorial control, so they're not RS, but RS lists of online sales are valid RS. The one thing that hasn't (and probably won't) change is the press: online press covers as much as print press does, so as long as we're giving a fair shake to "new media" sources which meet our RS standards, we should be fine. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your reply. What you say is lucidating. But one passage I don't understand: "Youtube views don't represent any editorial control" and so are not reliable. Does this mean that these numbers can be gamed, or faked, or edited by YouTube? Or what? Because it may be that one important way the young people consume music nowadays is through YouTube views? (I'm not sure if this is so, but it seems it may be.) YouTube views are free, but so is listening to the radio... I'm just... what if these kids Megan and Liz are being watched/listened to by scores of thousands of fans or even hundreds of thousands of fans or even millions of fans, we would never know this, right? It would pass right under our radar... I just don't want Wikipedia to be passed by... Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The numbers could be faked by YouTube, although I don't think that's likely. I think the tradition of industry press summarizing the goings-on is a good model for us to follow, even though the Internet is cutting out middlemen left and right. YouTube, Pandora, etc. can actually give us listener statistics, while the "Top 40" and other charts focused on airplay, with little or no respect to whether or not anyone was actually listening. :-) So, the analogy is inexact, but probably a reasonable compromise for the moment. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with YouTube hits is that they tell us neither about how many people have watched the video nor for how long. 1.1 million "hits" could be 1.1 million people watching the whole video or 1 person watching part of the video 1.1 million times... or anything in between (most likely). Charts are more likely to reflect individual sales (though people do but multiple copies of songs etc for various reasons) and airplay is more likely to reflect the demand from the public to hear the work (though, again, this isn't perfect either). As Jclemens says, the best indicator of notability remains the coverage and independent critical analysis in newspapers (reviews of concerts, songs, albums etc, editorials and articles about the band, album, etc). These are increasingly online, though there is no guarantee that an article will stay at the same URL and finding archives can be difficult so we have to constantly chase the sources around the net! Herostartus makes a good point about online releases, though: will there be a time when charts are no longer viable since bands simply promote their works through social networking sites, YouTube, etc, cutting out the radio stations and publishing companies altogether? Possibly. Will the newspapers stop writing about these "virtual bands"? Possibly. What then? ... --Jubilee♫clipman 15:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If the music industry is, in the future, based primarily on social networking sites and YouTube, then there will probably be music charts to monitor the popularity of music artists on those sites as opposed to sales of traditional recordings. And the artists who attain the most popularity on those sites will be covered in newspapers, just as the artists who were popular on radio and on records in the past were. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is showing its ugly head again.

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I'm noticing that more and more of the work I'm doing cleaning up music articles surrounds the notability of songs and albums. Take "You Lost Me (Christina Aguilera song)" and "Love All Over Me" both songs which clearly failed WP:NSONGS but because they are by recognised artists and because there are fans willing to edit war over it both have had to be taken through WP:AFD. To me it seems silly when the NSONGS guideline has been applied with common sense as suggested on the page's header. I thought the whole point of policies and guidelines where to provide guides and rules. But it seems to me that if there are enough fans supporting the article a AFD seems more important and more overiding than actual rules and guidelines. I ask is not inappropriate for articles like "You Lost Me" to be created when NSONGS clearly says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I might review the notabilty guide in the same manner as I have reviewed the MoSes soon. There are all sorts of strange anomalies on this page. I would favour adding something to the effect that just because the artist that performs the song is notable this does not necessarily mean the song is automatically notable. I would also personally favour not allowing an article until the single has actually charted unless there is very good reason (and, therefore, we have a great many sources). BTW, there are still no guidelines for classical compositions! Is Spiegel im Spiegel notable, for example? No idea... though I do know that it is very well known among classical music lovers (and that the article is bl**dy awful...) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that another criteria such as "is there worthwhile anything to write about?" should apply (as with any other "sub-article")in addition to notability. To take a most-extreme example for illustration purposes, if a multi-platinum cupcake produces a platinum ear candy song, it is probably "notable", but the subject (the song) has little or no encyclopedic content for a separate article. Maybe just enough for a paragraph in the article on the artist. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense and is exactly what Lil-unique is saying, I think. The present guideline is rather fudged, actually. Or rather, there is so much blurb to read and digest that the main point is ultimately lost in all those words. We definitely need to look again at that section and make it much clearer --Jubilee♫clipman 14:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup you guys have hit the nail on the head here. Rather than the guideline asking about notability you should first consider if tere is a worthwhile article to be made for a song i.e. is there enough information to warrant a seperate page. THEN look at whether the song is notable. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea of having "enough information" to write an article is also being discussed at WT:BLP, though with regard to people. The principle that you need a certain amount of information about a topic to write about it moves us away from box ticking -measuring column inches, Google News hits or tallying other criteria- to really considering what the sources available tell us about a topic. Fences&Windows 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Something like that I would definately support. I'm not sure exactly what the new guideline should be but im certainly feeling the new vibe. The old guidelines and current culture amongst editors (particularly less experienced ones) is that oh "XYZ" song has charted therefore I can make an article with 2 sentences and a chart table. I also find that we need more emphasis on independent coverage. A lot of song articles are created but then their parent album reviews (which might mention the song) are used to try and pad out the article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For example look at Libra Scale and its current AfD as well as its past AfD. It's a clear breach of policy yet it is probably going to get rammed through. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines need to reflect community consensus. If there is a consensus to keep the article in question it would make no sense to alter the guideline to say that community consensus is wrong. In fact the opposite is true - if discussions show a clear consensus for keeping articles in contradiction of what the guidelines state, then that would suggest that the guidelines need changing. In this case I personally don't feel that the guideline is wrong, just that the album in question isn't yet notable and hasn't received enough coverage to justify an article, but this project operates on consensus and if the consensus is to keep, so be it.--Michig (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Recording studio

Are there any notability guidelines for recording studios? BTW, please leave me a talkback template on my talkpage when you reply. Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 16:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG will apply but it has to be in context of the music industry too. I would say that a recording studio is notable if:

• It recieved independent coverage e.g. from the media, from industry recognised magazines etc.
• If it has been used by notable and recognised recording artists (with reliable sources)
• If it has produced recognisable and notable songs (with reliable sources).

Is there a particular article in question? or are you wanting to create a new one? Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly, by the way. I was just wondering whether Studio 880 the studio of band, Green Day would be notable. I was expecting not but would still be interested to know. Thanks again, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Scratch that, it was wrong, sorry. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Record label notability standards

Why is the notability standards for record labels covered under WP:CORP instead of here? I was recently involved in a deletion discussion about a Christian subsidiary (Essential Records (Christian)) for one of the major U.S. record labels (Sony) which shocked me that someone would nominate for deletion using CORP or WP:GNG. It's very difficult to find sources for some subsidiaries like this one, especially in Christian genres. The mainstream press avoids Christian music topics except in extreme cases. All of the label's artists are notable to very notable, many singles/albums charting high on Billboard (including Top 10s on the Billboard 200 such as Revelation (Third Day album), Wherever You Are (Third Day album), Jars of Clay discography), Grammy awards, etc. Royalbroil 05:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

People can nominate anything for deletion at any time. Whether it will actually be effective or not is an entirely different matter. A Sony subsidiary label that boasts multiple Dove-winning artists? Clearly a notable label. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need separate criteria for record label notability. Record labels that have long histories, several releases by notable artists, or are key labels in a particular genre should have articles, even if we can't find 'significant coverage' specifically of the label, as in these cases some basic facts about the label and details of the releases would benefit the encyclopedia. WP:V generally isn't an issue in these cases as music releases are well documented.--Michig (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Flamin' Oh's"

Recently, drummer Bobby Meide died. He belonged to a band called The Flamin' Oh's. I'm curious as to why there is no page for this band. Giordano Adams(talk page) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Giordano,

I'm interested too. That's sort of what wikipedia is about. If you think something is interesting, try creating an entry for them. It's not necessarily easy to create an entry that won't get deleted, unfortunately. However, that's part of the learning process as to how new entries are created and reviewed by the community. Scratchsamples (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because something is "interesting" doesn't mean it should necessarily be added to Wikipedia. You have to take into account factors such as notability and verifiability. If there are no sources for an article for which you want to create, then the subject fails verifiability (and in that vein, WP:GNG also), and that goes hand-in-hand with notability. If something cannot be verified, how can it be notable?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Albums, singles and songs proposal

I'd like to add the following language to this section:

A song is also likely notable if it can be shown to have been used a as wake-up song for a spaceflight such as the Space Shuttle or International Space Station.

This practice dates back to the Gemini program in the 60's and each song used is well documented by NASA. Song selection is deliberate and is related to the mission, the astronaut's alma mater or a selection by a family member. The wakeup songs are often covered other reliable sources as well. Any thoughts?--RadioFan (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this would apply to too small a number of songs to be worth including in a 'rule of thumb' guideline to notability.--Michig (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Its too specific and per the comments by Michig it applies to a limited number of songs. Plus it isn't actually an event related to music. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This kind of suggestion is what gives subject-specific notability guidelines a bad name. That's ridiculously specific. We have rules of thumb to avoid us deleting a category of song for which there are almost certainly sources available, not to ring-fence an editor's favourite topics. Fences&Windows 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If NASA wakeup songs are covered by other reliable sources, then the song would meet the GNG. If you ever run into trouble with such a song at an AfD, come post on my talk page and I'll go canvass enough people to get it kept. :-) Seriously, the number of such songs which aren't already unquestionably notable are likely vanishingly small, and I think we can get by without that level of minutiae in this SNG. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Echo what others say plus i'm not sure that would make a song notable. --neon white talk 10:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Live performance

There's a small hole in the guidelines as far as I can see and that is for bands who repeatedly perform live, but don't satisfy the other notability criteria.

So, for example, if a band were a regular on the festival circuit, but reasonably low down the bill, then their work would be regularly exposed to large numbers of people. However, if they weren't near the top of the bill chances of them being written about in a substantial way would be quite low. If they didn't have recorded music then they'd fall out of the criteria. If you take the early history of an artist like Seasick Steve you'll see the kind of person who would fall through the net.

Jpmaytum (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the criteria are more geared towards releases and sales, surely an artist that appeared at several major festivals would have been the subject of significant coverage, even if it doesn't jump out of Google? We used to have a criterion that suggested inclusion for bands that had undertaken national or international tours, since they are very likely to be sufficiently important and of sufficient interest to be included, but this got changed somehow to requiring significant coverage of the tour. Many people seem to want everything reduced down to the General Notability Guideline, which is unfortunate. Importance plus verifiability should be enough for inclusion, and bands that play high enough up the bill at multiple major festivals (*) are in my view important enough. Musicians are not all careerist capitalists geared towards record deals and chart placings, and bands and who don't release much but play lots of gigs are just as worthy of inclusion. I can think of one band who used to play around 300 gigs a year, to a combined audience reaching five figures each year, but there isn't a lot on Google. Contrast with the latest crappy singer to get hyped by a major label, who has done nothing but appear profit-generating to a corporation, and sell a few thousand singles, giving them a top 20 hit. *How high up the bill and how to define a major festival are open to debate, of course.--Michig (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue there is that we verify info using sources, the majority of which write about commercial music, there are publications that write about non-commercial music also but if an artist is mentioned in neither, then they simple haven't been noted. Simply put you are more noteworthy if you are commercially successful. --neon white talk 10:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability from reliable sources isn't the same as multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Verifiable importance and sufficient reliable sources to create an article should be enough, which doesn't always require coverage that some would count as 'significant' (though interpretations of 'significant' seem to vary between 'small article' and 'thick book'). Tens of thousands of people seeing an artist play live in a year should carry as much weight as a 200-word article prompted by record company plugging, if not more. I really don't understand why we're moving (via the apparent desire to reduce notability criteria to the GNG) to a situation where clearly significant artists get excluded because we can't find examples of 'significant' coverage on the internet. I'm not suggesting that we include unverifiable articles, just that we should aim to include all verifiably important artists.--Michig (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't write sn article without something to write, if there are no sources there can't be an article regardless of how many people witness. We have to have some way to verify that fact. --neon white talk 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific definition of "a country's national music chart?"

Do all of the various Billboard charts each qualify for this criteria? Would appearance of one single on one of these charts be enough to establish notability of an artist? Specifically, I'm wondering about the Top Heatseekers chart, which seems to me (who knows very little about the music industry) that this chart would do the least to establishing notability. Even more specifically, I'm wondering about the artist Brantley Gilbert; to me, the very limited coverage in only 2 local papers, along with the single chart entry on Top Heatseekers is not enough to establish this artist as notable. Gilbert almost certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG; however, my lack of knowledge about music in general and WP:MUSIC specifically makes me wary of prodding this. Help from the more knowledgeable appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So...no opinions? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say any national chart that is based on sales should definitely be included. Some countries may have or may have had in the past more than one of these. Charts based on airplay or play in clubs seem quite dubious to me as they are potentially easily manipulated, so I'm not sure about a lot of the Billboard charts. They almost seem to have enough charts that any single released will get into one or other of them.--Michig (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Members of notable bands are redirected" -- developed in error

This is regarding:

"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."

Hello all,

I've been researching the history and development of this statement on the notability page and believe it was developed (to some degree) in error. The talk section that generated it, in general, suggested a redirect to the main band page might be useful, except where the biographical material was considerable, possibly helpful to a user, and/or potentially out of place on the main band page.

The statement in its current format seems overly restrictive, and oddly out of place and overly-emphasized by having its own distinct and italicized section. In its current format it leaves no opportunity for any potentially helpful band member pages, and it seems to have had (and has shown to have had) the opportunity for auto-deletion/redirection of otherwise potentially helpful biographical articles.

Some of the suggestions in the originating talk section said "I would say that if you have some info about the person that doesn't fit into the band article, you may write an article on him ... you could parenthetically list the other bands he's been in, in each of those band's articles. But if you had his birthday, where he grew up, how he got started in music, and so on, then you'd have a decent article"

A follow up was "My belief is that a band member only needs a seperate article is a) The info is too large to go in the main band article, b) If there is relevant verified info that is not related to the band eg. solo actions or c) that there are reliable articles, specifically about the subject. What should be considered is that merging articles is not a hinderance to a user."

This resulted in a brand new line (in italics and on its own line) "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." I believe that the talk suggestions up to this point did not warrant what seems to be a rather draconian ("are not given") interpretation of what seemed to be what called for a more general and flexible rule that incorporated the other elements of the talk suggestions.

The updates to this new line were really simply additions to the theme, rather than I believe fixing the problem itself. On July 16 2008 it was changed to: "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."

In this case once again the rule seems to be that individual biographies are automatically deleted and redirects are used. There is no flexibility in the equation "are redirected ... not given individual articles".

This was later updated to "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.

Once again the entire line is on its own separate line and in italics, making this seem like a rule that cannot be overcome, the "golden rule" so to speak. This seems to be in direct contrast to the notability guidelines that state that these are guidelines that should be "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"

In conclusion, I feel that the wording and intent of this section needs to be changed. I have seen good individual biography pages deleted and the only reason being "no notability outside band, redirect per WP:BAND". I believe that a good biography of an individual musician is helpful to many users, particularly musicians and researchers, and that a full biography of a musician is often not appropriate on the main band page, particularly in instances where the band is large or the biography (or biographies as may be the case) is long (or both).

Scratchsamples (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about adding something like: Artists with enough verifiable information, independent of the subject, for a reasonably detailed article can have their own page; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about their parent bands? I work with a lot of musician biographies, and often suggest merges to their bands' pages, and what I often see is that if they have references, the references are MySpace pages, fansites, or the bands "official" websites. J04n(talk page) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this highlights one of the main problems with this guideline. This, like several other sections, is (or was) just giving people an idea of what tends to happen rather than stating that this must be the outcome, but so many people come here looking for a black-and-white rule that can be followed. I agree with scratchsamples a, b and c criteria for separate articles, by the way, but formulating common sense here tends to get voted out. I could live with J04n's suggested wording, but bear in mind that some will insist on interpreting it as a rule/arguing against it because they interpret it as a too-inclusive rule. --Michig (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what a guideline is supposed to be, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"? --neon white talk 11:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you J04n and Michig, I appreciate your thoughts and it does seem like we are in general agreement that a re-wording would be useful. I'll wait and see if we have more input. We haven't necessarily addressed the concept of notability, as this may not actually really be pertinent to the discussion, but assuming it might be, my thoughts might be the following: a rapper (Ice-T for example) or solo musician (Wynton Marsalis) would commonly have his or her own site, detailing their "band", and most likely having considerable biographic content. A two person band might likewise have a similar page (Simon and Garfunkel), for instance. This page would likely (and does in this case) have much less biographic information on the individuals, which seems appropriate. However, the biographic material is not necessarily any less important because they are a duet rather than a solo performer. It is certainly useful encyclopedic information that people who are interested in the group might find helpful in their research and learning. But the moving of the biographic material to separate artist pages makes a lot of sense in this case. Similarly, as bands get larger, the removal of specific artist biographical material (which is still important from an informational purpose) to separate artist pages makes even more sense. When one reviews the elements of a biography of a single artist, common contents might be: 1: Early life 2: Education 3: Early career 4: mid-career 5: Political views 6: late-career / Death. As soon as two or more artists collaborate, doubling up (or more, as would be necessary) this information makes no sense to be on the main page.

Further following up on this, some exemplars worth considering might be Keith Moon, the drummer for the Who. Although Moon had some other minor musical endeavors, he is mostly known for his role as a drummer for the Who. If he had never done anything other than drum for the Who, I still believe he would deserve his own page. Likewise, Pete Best is mostly known as the original drummer for the Beatles. If he had never done anything else in his life, I still feel he would be someone who should have his own page. Similarly, I believe there are thousands of musicians whose only real contribution was as an artist for a single band, and perhaps only for even a portion of that bands life (they died/left the band/replaced a member, etc.) yet many musicians, fans and musical historians are definitely interested in their particular biographical material. Similarly, if I was a fan of an actor who only appeared on one TV show, I would still want to be able to read their biographical material, not be redirected back to the TV shows main site. I'm not sure if there is a similar rule governing actors, that they don't get their own page if they have only appeared on one TV show, but that's another story.

Anyway, a possible re-wording that might address some of Michig's concerns while still adhering to J04n's thoughts might be "It might be useful to redirect members of notable bands to the band's main page, unless their is sufficient biographic material, independent of the subject, for that person to have their own page. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about their parent bands?" This might be a possible middle-ground, though I am not unhappy with J04n's original wording either, which I actually probably prefer as it is more inclusive ... Certainly an even more inclusive proposal might be (very roughly) "Biographic material (independently verifiable, etc.) for a solo artist should be included on the artist's main page. Biographic material (likewise verifiable, etc.) for band members of multi-member bands might more appropriately be placed on separate artist pages, assuming their is sufficient such material. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged (or redirected) to articles about their parent bands. If an artist page does not exist for a band member, but a link to that member is required (i.e. from another page) than a redirect to the band page is appropriate." Scratchsamples (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the flexibility you're looking for is actually in the concept of the guideline itself, it's not set in stone, it merely guides and doesn't supersede general notability guidelines which allow notable individuals an article. The idea behind the note was to tackle the massive problem with fancruft band member articles that read like fan pages and contain little to no useful or verifiable information. It's not really a 'rule' which is why it doesn't have a number, it's a reminder about the concept of notability by association, it doesn't stop the spinning out of lengthy well sourced articles to multiple pages. --neon white talk 11:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that this wording is problematic and overly restrictive. Guidelines are meant to follow usual practice, not be prescriptive. This wording is used as an iron rule, even if that isn't the intention. I propose instead the following wording:

Members of notable bands are generally redirected to the band's article, unless there is significant coverage about the individual band member in multiple reliable sources. Members of two notable bands are generally, but not always, notable enough for their own article.

Fences&Windows 20:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But that misses out the key concept of independence in notability, the whole point of is to get people thinking about notability as not inherited rather than saying "but they must be notable they are in x group" --neon white talk 15:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"that misses out the key concept of independence in notability". No, it doesn't. What do you think "significant coverage about the individual band member in multiple reliable sources" means? Fences&Windows 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it doesn't mention 'individual notability' which is the key point here. There are many sources about individual band members, interviews etc as part of a particular group, the point we need to get across is that it doesn't necessarily make a person notable if they are discussed or interviewed about their participation in a notable group. --neon white talk 13:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Single or album

Should "Wildflower & Cover Songs: Complete Best 'Track 3'" be counted as a single or an album? The artists label and every source out there says single, but I'm not sure. The "single" is planned to be released consisting of 3CDs. The first CD contains four songs with "Wildflower" being the first song. The second CD consists of covers the artist has done in the past, and the third CD contains one acoustic song. To me, it seems as if this release should be classified as an album rather than a single.

I'm asking this because something similar to this was discussed not to long ago. 夢追人^YumeChaser 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If every source says single then we should call it a single, calling it an album would be original research. J04n(talk page) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Session musicians

The article for Chester Kamen is rather poorly sourced. He appears to have worked with a large number of clearly notable performers, however that was in his capacity as a session musician. It's not obvious whether he passes the general notability guideline but clearly the page can't just be redirected to a single band either. How should MUSICBIO be interpreted for successful session musicians? TheGrappler (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

allmusic

I am curious to the notability of this site, if an article is only sourced to this site is it enough to establish notability in afd discussions? VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the reliability of the site? Allmusic is a reliable source - the bios and reviews are written by professional writers. If an artist/band has coverage at Allmusic they will generally also have coverage in other sources. If no coverage exists outside of Allmusic then establishing notability may be difficult, but Allmusic being the only source cited in an article doesn't mean that other coverage doesn't exist - efforts should be made to look for coverage elsewhere (before an article goes to AFD).--Michig (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do they have a notabillity requirement like we do here. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt they have documented criteria for inclusion, but like most music sources, they will write about bands and artists that they deem interesting enough to write about. Allmusic seems to be very album-oriented, so artists without albums don't seem to get much of a look in. For recent rock and pop artists, they seem to cover a large proportion of what would be considered notable here. For older artists and artists from less mainstream genres there are a lot of gaps there. Treat it as a source like any other rather than an arbiter of notability.--Michig (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Christopher

Hi. Sorry for writing here if it is the wrong place - I am trying to understand if a musician like Ted Christopher, who went platinum and #1 in the UK once but never had any more outstanding chart results, would be enough for notability. I have found a certain number of sources about him (and he is mentioned in several articles already on WP, although I am aware that this is not one of the criteria to establish notability). Thanks. McMarcoP (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See criterion 3, achieving a gold record or higher meets the guideline. You'll want to find a more reliable source to verify the certification, but that shouldn't be too difficult. J04n(talk page) 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Will sure find one, shouldn't be a problem - I had that page handy because I was reading about it. Thank you, will start working on the article presently. McMarcoP (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He was part of a one-off group that recorded a very successful single - I think the group/single would certainly be notable (and is already covered in the Knockin' on Heaven's Door article), but I would be looking for significant coverage in reliable sources of Christopher himself to justify an article about him.--Michig (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for a new CSD category for yet-to-be-released singles?

Before I take the discussion to WT:CSD, I'd like to gauge feelings on a new CSD category: "yet to be released singles" which would read something like "An article about a song or single with a release date set in the future." I'm just getting tired of AFDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only Girl and the like. It gets worse sometimes, like the history of "My Life Would Suck Without You", where fans repeatedly created the article under different titles, doing so over and over until it makes your head spin. Such articles never contain useful material that won't fit in the parent artist article or parent album article, and are magnets for gossip and rumor. Making it a CSD category would make dealing with this problem much faster and simpler. This wouldn't quite bring it up to WP:NSONGS, which insists on a chart position, cover, or award, but would at least reduce amount of gun-jumping.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see articles deleted on singles that are due for release within a few weeks and which have already received sufficient significant coverage, so I think this would be problematic. With the more notable artists, singles are often notable up to a few weeks prior to release, as promo copies, a promotional video, etc., often generate a lot of coverage. I agree that both singles and albums shouldn't have articles until there's enough coverage to justify them, but this will sometimes be prior to release. If an article is created a few days prior to a single's release, I would suggest adding appropriate maintenance tags and waiting until say a week after release to see if the coverage is there - at least at that stage if there isn't coverage or a chart placing one can be fairly sure that deletion will stand. I find both early creations (usually unjustified and inadequately sourced) and AFDs started a few days before release (often unnecessarily time-consuming as by the time they've finished the single has been released anyway) to both be a little annoying.--Michig (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that WP:NSONGS makes no provisions for future singles at all. The question isn't whether is will be released (which is frequently, although not always, predictable), but whether it will chart, which is well into WP:CRYSTAL territory. What "significant coverage" is ever available on a single in advance of release that won't fit in the album or artist article?—Kww(talk) 17:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're suggesting the information should be in the album or artist article, then surely merge is going to be appropriate rather than speedy deletion? Charting is not the only measure of notability, and indicated at WP:NSONGS. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The only other mechanisms are winning an award (not possible before release) and being covered by multiple notable artists (not possible before release).—Kww(talk) 18:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, those are examples of indications that a song will likely be notable, but this doesn't mean that a song/single has to meet one of those to be notable. A single that has received sufficient coverage for a reasonably detailed article without meeting any of those three criteria could still justify an article.--Michig (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Substantial coverage is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the guideline to be met. Those aren't given as examples, they are given as the only three mechanisms, and even those are not sufficient. To meet WP:NSONGS, you have to have coverage, and then have met one of the three conditions. Certainly articles are sometimes kept that don't meet the guideline, but the guideline is pretty explicit.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we interpret the guidelines differently. Either way, there will sometimes be exceptions to these three criteria where an article would be justified, but we're digressing, I think, from speedy criteria here. Articles about future singles with no reliable sources I could possibly go with as a potential speedy criterion. --Michig (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Too fuzzy for a CSD criteria, so I'd have to put you in the "oppose" column. As a CSD criteria, it would have to be pretty crisp.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of some mechanism, but I'm not sure what. I think that an article could exist about a song for a while, in like a potential article category, because there is lots of publicity prior to a single release(or even none release) and hence lots of editors trying to create the article/are looking for the article and sometimes they get to critical acceptance before becoming a single. By the way the whole idea of a single is really not useful in these days when a song is sold via downloads and it can be number 1 without being a single and even without being released. But in answer to the original question, yes, it would be a good idea, but I have no idea what process you could make so that it happened. For an example of real Wikipedia chaos see Alejandro_(song), this articles was created six times and salted multiple times also until an AFD got opened with an eventual keep result. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Article Incubator seems to be what you are talking about.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If a release doesn't at least pass WP:GNG but is sufficiently close to release that there seems a good chance that it will within a reasonable time then incubation seems a good approach to me - this seemed to work quite well with Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) - incubated at AFD in May, worked on until July when it was restored to mainspace. It at least lets the fans have somewhere to work on the article without the drama of constant deletion and re-creation. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about deletion prevents incubation: it's always possible to incubate a deleted article as long as the issue wasn't copyright or licensing problems.—Kww(talk) 18:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem, I would have thought, is that if we had a new speedy deletion criterion then the article would be deleted and incubation wouldn't automatically happen and would require restoration to the article incubator to be requested, which with the sort of editors we're talking about would probably be unlikely and would likely lead to multiple re-creations and deletions as we have now. Maybe we could have 'speedy incubation' in such cases if the artist is notable, but I doubt we would get agreement for that.--Michig (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick question regarding notability

While looking for references for Star De Azlan I could find no substantial independent coverage and considered sending it to AfD. She does however appear to meet criteria #2 of WP:MUSICBIO in that she has had a single chart on a national chart (#51 on Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart). Is that sufficient to avoid an AfD discussion? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but no. It's a fairly low placing for a specialist chart. It makes a discussion worthwhile as that level of achievement may indicate that coverage exists somewhere, but personally I don't see it as enough on its own. I did find these however: Houston Chronicle (I think) and impre.com (which may be a reliable source - I'm not familiar with it).--Michig (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Chronicle reference, I have used it in the article. Although it seems to be a bit of a case of "not quite notable yet", I won't take it to AfD given the additional sources you found. Thanks for the help! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Important discussion about Mixtapes!

There is a highly informative discussion about mixtapes going on here. Please join the discussion and get involved because we are on the crux of agreement that NMUSIC needs to be updated to clarify wikipedia's stance on modern mixtapes. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Album Notability Standards

I think that the album notability standards are a bit unclear. The first words are (My emphasis added) "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The next paragraph states "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. This makes me think that this states that many albums "Inhert" notability. The final sentence flips it back to where RSs are needed. "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." I am a new page patroller, and I redirect album and song articles frequently. This comes from Hoyos en la Bolsa, an article that I redirected to the main band's page, and which the creator, another experienced user, said that the band was notable, so the album is too. So is that (and other articles in the El Tri discography) notable, and if not, does the wording need to be changed? Perhaps something like this would be better:

All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Articles that do not have any third party reliable sources and consist of little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged and redirected into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then one may be able to find reliable sources to confirm notability for individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

--Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I reverted this is because inline with other discussions we've had in the past about album standards you're edits removed too much of the notability standards. Though I agree that the standards need re-wording your edits removed key important parts of the guideline without really replacing them. Through BRD is usually a good way to edit... it shouldn't really apply to editing policies because then someone my create an article based on a new ammendement which maybe undone. It seems like you have a specific issue with a spefic artist/discography so rather than trying to edit the guideline it would be best to discuss why you think the said subject(s) are notable. However if on a general level there is agreement that the guideline needs clarifying it needs doing stage by stage. What in particular do you think is confusing? Try and be explicit about which words/phrases need clarifying,... (note I have previously had issues with this guideline so I'm trying to see if we're on the same wavelength ;-) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My main issue is that the current sentence (and someone has made some minor changes to help this) that says "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, then their officially released albums may also have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." In my opinion, this seems to imply that albums "inherit" notability from a notable band. It would be better to change the word "notability" to something like "references to demonstrate notability." I would also change "In general" to something like "Often." The only reason I instituted WP:BRD here was because this post did not get any replies for two weeks. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles (hopefully) have references, albums have (or have not) notability via significant coverage, chart placing, sales certification, etc. If we're considering an album that doesn't have an article here it may be notable but it won't have references until we write an article about it and put those references in. We could have (and certainly do have) articles about clearly notable albums with no references in (although they should be added). It's not about inheriting notability - releases by notable band generally receive sufficient coverage in the form of reviews. I think that's all it's saying.--Michig (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup I agree with Michig. The current guidelines don't suggest that any old release by any notable musician automatically has notability yet it does suggest that such a release is likely to get independent coverage. Both the artist and album must be notable. Even if an artist is notable ... the release itself has to stand alone on notability. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are both apparently confusing the published references (in reliable sources) with the citations of those references (in a putative Wikipedia article). The references must exist before they can be cited. The notability of the subject rests on the references, not on the citations. An article with no citations can survive challenge by the simple remedy of adding citations, but an article with no references to cite is doomed. Its topic will never be notable until someone writes and publishes those RS references. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. If we immediately say that notable band = probably notable album article we are undermining the current Independent WP:RSs/References = probably notable article system, and leaving inheriting notability very open to interpretation. That's why I suggest saying Notable band = Probably RSs available = Notable album articles. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• The confusion is, I think, in your wording. 'Reference' is usually used in WP to mean a reference to a published source, i.e. the same as a citation. It's confusing therefore to have 'reference' in the guideline meaning something else, i.e. coverage. When people say that an article 'has no references' they usually means it includes no citations, and this is what the 'Unreferenced' template means - neither mean that coverage of the subject in published sources doesn't exist. We need to ensure that the wording of the guideline doesn't encourage people to judge notability by simply looking at the content of a Wikipedia article, which would be the consequence if we have something that states 'no references = not notable'.--Michig (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While the usage on WP is often casual about this, we need to be more careful of terminology in guidelines and policies. Although I may have an entire library of published reliable source books at hand, few if any will be pertinent to a specific topic. Only those few could be considered potential references (or as you say sources) for an article on that topic. To establish wp:N we need at least one RS reference that we may use and cite. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that most articles have a 'References' section containing citations, we need to be careful to make sure that it is clear what the guideline is referring to. If we mean that 'coverage in reliable sources' is likely to exist then it's better to say so rather than referring to 'references'.--Michig (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, most articles have a References section containing citations of the references used to support assertions in text, hence the section title. Now, either the RS references already exist or not. Saying they are "likely to exist" only clouds matters. Editors should take the trouble to look for them, not assume that someone else will do the work to find an RS for them. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if you're right and most WP editors use the wrong terminology, that doesn't make your suggested wording any less confusing.--Michig (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is merely the word 'refereces' that is confusing you, then why don't we say something like "reliable source coverage to have sufficient notability for an individual article on WP" --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So is there any problem with changing "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" to "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, then their officially released albums may have sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate notability for individual articles on Wikipedia"? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unnecessary in my view. The guideline is fine as it is.--Michig (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Point 2

"Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." This has been called into question twice in the past month regarding an appearance on Hot Country Songs. At least two editors have argued that low peaks on a single-genre chart aren't enough to pass WP:MUSIC, which I disagree with. I would think that a peak, even if low-ish, on a single-genre chart would meet criterion #2 just as obviously as would a peak on, say, the Hot 100. I would also think that this would apply across the board; i.e., even a low peak on Hot AC, R&B/Hip Hop, Mainstream Rock Tracks, etc. should be sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, a low placing on a specialist chart may equate to something outside the top 200 on the all-singles chart, which would likely be seen (and often is) as not sufficient on its own to establish notability. The current top 30 Country Songs includes singles that have not placed in the top 100 overall, and this is the case with some of the top 10 Latin songs. Some genres don't have a specialist chart, so singles in these genres could considerably outsell others that do have a specialist chart without appearing on any chart - surely a single that is, say, the 120th best-selling in the country is a better indication of notability than a single that wasn't in the top 200, but scraped into a specialist chart somewhere? If we're going to have this as an 'if it meets this it's almost certainly notable' criterion, then I'd say top 75/top 100 on a recognized national chart based on sales of all singles is about the level to aim for.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with it placing outside the all-genre (which is Hot 100; 200 is albums) being an indication of insufficient notability. For instance, Matt Kennon had "The Call" get to #33 on Country Songs but didn't come near the Hot 100. His album and EP also showed (low) peaks on Top Country Albums, and the album got to #116 on the top Albums chart. Would you call that not notable? I could understand if it were case like Waycross, who got to #54 with a cut in 2007 but turn up absolutely NOTHING — no News hits, not even anything on CMT except the video — or Joanna Cotten, with a single week at #60 and only one relevant hit in Gnews. Compare Stealing Angels, currently at AFD. Their song is at #48 on the charts, and the article has citations to CMT and The Boot — both clearly reliable sources. I would think two reliable sources is (barely) enough, plus the precedent that it doesn't have to be a Top 40 hit or a "main" chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, charting anywhere is enough to keep self-promoting garage bands off of Wikipedia. If they've charted, but STILL fail the GNG, I'm OK with that getting hashed out at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@TPH: You're missing the point - not meeting the 'charted' criterion is not an indication of insufficient notability, it just fails that one criterion. As you have shown above, a chart placing on one of these charts can happen without significant coverage in reliable sources existing - if that coverage does exist, then the charting criterion doesn't need to be passed anyway. If someone can get a low chart placing on Country Songs without any significant coverage existing, then that's a good reason to have those charts excluded from the criterion. These are inclusive criteria, not exclusive - if they're met then we have notability, if they're not met we may still have notability, but by some other means that will need to be demonstrated.--Michig (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I get that someone like Joanna Cotten would be non-notable. But how does #48 peak + two reliable secondary sources = non-notability? That one I'm not seeing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If the secondary coverage is 'significant' then notability should follow. The 2 secondary sources linked in the Stealing Angels article look like pretty much the definition of trivial coverage, but it looks like the Country Weekly one may be sufficient. It looks like the AFD is heading for a keep, which would mean that that group is notable. Whether Stealing Angels would be considered notable if none of this coverage existed and all we had was a #48 Country chart placing is another matter, I think - bear in mind that the guidelines suggests that meeting any one of the criteria is sufficient, so it's right that each one in isolation constitutes a reasonable 'bar' to get over.--Michig (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Interview

One of the people who participated in this deletion discussion claims that an interview with an artist is not by itself a proof of notability, because it falls under the "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" clause.

That seems like a very wide interpretation of that clause. I can understand how it applies to an artist's own website or an autobiography, but does it really include every interview with an artist? If an otherwise established independent publications chooses to interview an artist and to publish that interview, isn't it a sign of notability? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone is interviewed in Rolling Stone, they're notable. If someone is interviewed for an independent podcast, that's zero contribution to notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The source in question was an interview on a website of a popular music newspaper.

Since a similar question already came up here once (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 12#Criteria for musicians and ensembles), maybe it makes to add a footnote that says that it doesn't apply to an interview in an otherwise notable publication. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think it adds up to saying that the EXCLUSION does not apply to a RS that is not created by/ dedicated to that band. Except for the one specific college paper exclusion in wp:music.  ? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Professional symphony orchestras

It seems to me that the notability criteria in this guideline are in the main geared towards musicians and ensembles from the field of popular music. On the occasion of the deletion discussion for the article on Long Bay Symphony Orchestra, it has become clear that a substantial professional symphony orchestra which has been covered in hundreds of newspaper articles still finds it difficult to clear the hurdles of this guideline.

I would like to include a notability criterion which covers this situation: under WP:BAND, insert:

13. Has a history of regular performance seasons and consists of professional players.

Discuss. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. There should not be any problem coming up with reviews and write-ups for any self-respecting professional orchestra. Blehfu (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with Michael Bednarek's proposed criterion. I had been working on something much wordier myself but this seems very fair and would do the job. Opus33 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. It seems inherently obvious that such standing professional groups would have received enough coverage to meet the GNG, but it seems appropriate to have BAND expanded in such a manner. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unconvinced. As it stands the proposed criterion might cover anything, maybe even the house band of my pub, self respecting professional musicians with a regular season that they are. In general we should try to avoid linking professionalism and notability. But before refining the wording: what problem are we trying to resolve?

The occasional AfD on one hand does not seem to be a major problem. Maybe the nom gets bashed for nominating some clearly notable orchestra, or some sources are added to make a less obvious one pass, or it turns out that in the end the only coverage for some resort orchestra comes from their faithful local newspaper. Being a professional symphony orchestra asserts on the other hand already sufficient importance to avoid being speedily deleted as in this case. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Newport (Ymerodraeth State of Mind)

I can't decide whether or not this is notable. It had plenty of news coverage. —Half Price 16:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The main criterion barely parses

"Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable."

This is incredibly poorly worded and difficult to parse. Reading "...works whose source is..." sends my writer's ear into spasms. If we are staying away from the current GNG and going with this older formulation, why not emulate its much better written form? I suggest:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

As a side note, "reliable" should probably be updated to link to WP:IRS rather than WP:SOURCE.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds better to me, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

C6: Group with notable members; person in notable bands

I'm troubled by criteria six which says:

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

By having this, we're steering this guideline too far away from the GNG. A person can meet this criteria yet have very little sources on them. The two groups that a person has been a member of can themselves just scrape notability, and in these cases, the individual members are even less notable. Also, it can lead to things being circular, in which musicians and ensembles all support each other using this criteria, creating a walled garden. So, let's just erase this swiftly. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it can't. We've discussed this before, and it would be in the archives somewhere--there must be RS'es which establish the notability of the entities on which dependent notability is claimed. The previous consensus was that you can't use infinite regress; if X relies on Y and Z to establish notability, Y cannot in turn rely on V and W to establish its own notability. If there's been an abuse of this, I'll be happy to go remedy it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean; "independent" already excludes one of my concerns (I need to learn to read). I'm proposing to remove the whole criteria, though, because a person satisfying it can still fail the GNG by a large margin. For a person who's been in two independently notable bands, all the sources on that individual could be in relation to the bands, and the sources that establish the two bands' notability might only give passing mention to the individual, so that an article satisfying this criteria could feasibly say nothing more than "is a member of X, previously a member of Y". In this case it fails the GNG by a wide margin. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So if the person is in two notable bands, where are they going to be covered? Just in each band's article? That gives no context to the topic of that individual. Consider Ricky Phillips as an example of someone who might be denied an article if the criteria were removed. Does it really hurt anything to have an article on someone like him? Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmm...I did not know the wording had changed. In regards to "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" appears, at face value, to make it somewhat harder to meet but would also allow for a lot more debates on why an act was notable. That brings back the whole circular argument - "If band D is a notable band than certainly band A was notable because it was the start of the singer in band D's musical career, and that means the singers other bands, band B and C, are also notable. And given that the drummer in band C was also in 5 other bands those bands should be notable as well because the guitar player in one of those bands went on to be in band Y, which is most definitely a notable act." There is already enough of that sort of thing, especially on the indy circuit, or with musicians living in Hollywood. We had a lot of discussion on it when it read thusly: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. I see one of the important parts missing now is that "most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Just for some "real" world examples - Because Meldrum was notable is Linda McDonald notable because she was in Phantom Blue with Michelle Meldrum? Or is Linda McDonald notable because she is in the tribute bands The Iron Maidens and The Little Dolls? If those bands are notable on their own does that also now mean, as she has been part of/is part of "two or more independently notable ensembles", Wikipedia will soon have article on her other projects? "Crabby Patty (I’m So Unclear !)", "Unholy Pink" and "Valley Dolls"? Will the fact that Linda played with Carina Alfie now allow Carina to have a Wikipedia article as well? And the Federico Gironelli says she is an influence so does that make his article more legit even if she does not yet have an article? And what about Xavier Moyano whose article has a section about "Notable" performances that says "in 2009 he performed with Carina Alfie"? And the Dario Seixas article says that he, in 2006, "records female Argentinian guitar sensation Carina Alfie's album Electric Fuzz" and that "This album included Linda McDonald from Phantom Blue." Using the circular rationale Carina should have their own article. Again, not saying this is acceptable, just saying I think the wording is less clear now than it was before before. (For the record I think Phantom Blue was notable but all of these former member tribute band offshoots that have articles with each album having it's own article *and* each member having their own article is a bit too much. A good web PR machine at work is what I think is behind it. Is Kirsten Rosenberg really notable for being the singer in a tribute band or for being the co-owner "of Sticky Fingers, an all-vegan bakery in Washington, D.C. and an advocate for animal rights"?) I agree with what Christopher Connor suggests is a problem being a problem. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All this is really quite confusing and more complicated than I thought. For simple cases, it should be easy to determine if the other band member/band is independently notable. Say person A has been part of a fully notable band B, and A is also in band C, which has two band members--A and a fully notable person D. A and C would then fail criteria 6 because the other individual/band isn't independently notable (I hope I've got this right). But in more complicated scenarios, in which there's lots of people and bands and connections in between them, it can be difficult to determine whether anything is independently notable. And all this is beside the fact that the criteria allows articles to be created that fail the GNG conclusively. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So can you find any entity that conclusively fails the GNG--that is, we try but fail to find reliable sources--but yet would be allowable under criterion 6? If it's just a theoretical problem, that really limits the amount of fretting we need to do over it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at what I said above for some examples that clearly aren't "theoretical". Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Humor me: pick one article, show me explicitly where the chain leads and explain why it's the wrong result. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends on where you want to start the "notability" chain. You pick one and follow it per what I said above. Depending on where you start you may reach other articles I have not found yet. Is Meldrum the start? Is Phantom Blue the start? Is Linda McDonald the start? You decide. :) (This can become Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon too - except with "notable" musicians) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Have it your way. I've tagged these three for their obvious deficiencies: no reliable, third-party sources, for the most part. Want me to keep going? Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am confused at this point what you are wanting? Chris had a concern that the criteria can lead to things being circular, in which musicians and ensembles all support each other using this criteria. I agree and that one "source" is exactly that type of thing I felt they were getting at. It really can become Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - that is why I said you can pick the starting point. Just keep clicking and see what you turn up. Is it Six degrees of Phantom Blue? If it is than, as I said, I personally feel that while Phantom Blue is notable the further away it gets from that band I start to wonder "Why? How?" I thought, from what you said, you felt/pondered "So if the person is in two notable bands, where are they going to be covered?" My question is "At what point does the "notability" wear off?" And at what point does every member of every following band stop being considered "notable"? In the past it somehow seemed more clear than it does now. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to reply to the edit conflicted items. My slant is, and always has been, how much material is considered? In other words there may very well be sourced articles that say something such as "Person 54 used to play in Band C before they joined Band D" but is that alone enough to warrant notability? I feel "no it isn't" but before you say "No" consider this: I was in a discussion a few years ago about a small indy label that failed notability guidelines for businesses but it was argued that because one of the acts on the label was notable per this guideline than the label itself was notable. In all the research I did I found little that met the acceptable guidelines, I did find that the band was notable as an indy/underground band but I still feel the article was/is about a record label - not a band. What was presented? One indy act that had record reviews (the always mention the label) and an interview where the singer said something to the effect of "Yeah we have a single out a this label. The owner is really cool." In the same vein I don't feel an article on a musician or a band should be based on a passing mention in a live review or an album review. In these types of discussions I like to point out the Peter Criss was in several bands after he left KISS but they don't have their own articles, even though most of them were more than likely covered in the press to some degree. I also think there is a world of difference between musicians like Waddy Wachtel or Ricky Phillips and Cary The Label Guy or Matt Lee (musician) in terms of what is acceptable. I feel the examples given at Notability (people) - Notes work very well here. Just substitute the word/s "Album", "band", Singer", etc where appropriate. Number 4 - A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not. ; Number 6: A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. ; Number 7 - An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. ; Number 17 - The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable. External arguments via a talk page or AFD debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the existence of the information on the article page itself. And beyond that I have suggested in the past that this guideline should fall into line with the wording on some of the other guidelines. Look at the intro to Wikipedia:Notability (books) and see how that is laid out. Compare that to this music guideline. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a practical side to this criterion also. If Joe Blow is in the notable band The Rockers but he has no other claim to notability then we can redirect his name to The Rockers and anyone looking him up can read the only notable thing about him, being a Rocker. On the other hand, if he is also a member of the notable band The Rollers what do we do with him? One band means he's worthy of a redirect, two bands and now nothing? Someone who manages to be a part of multiple bands that have met our criteria of notability have done enough for at least a stub. —J04n(talk page) 01:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What you speak of has happened. See Jack Off Jill, of which Robin Moulder was a member. At one time, because of her being in Jack Off Jill a stub was created for "TCR" and that was rolled into the Robin Molder article, based in part on the old wording of C6. Another similar thing happened when Gilby Clarke got into Guns N' Roses, up until that time he was just another local Hollywood musician that had been in a lot of bands. Up until that point he had minor success with Candy and than he had a lot more success, on the local Hollywood scene anyway, with a band called "Kill For Thrills". However that was rolled into the Early music career (1985-1991) section of his article. Candy appears to meet this criteria because of being on a major label, Kill for Thrills doesn't (didn't) because they were just another unsigned local Hollywood band. (As a related item there is Electric Angels, which, aside from being unsourced, I am not sure they really meet the notability requirements beyond a band that formed out of the ashes of Candy, released one album on Atlantic and, if you use the circular concept, they are notable because "The band split in April 1992 when Roxie returned to Los Angeles to become the guitarist for Alice Cooper". And if you go beyond that than the other former Candy members went on to form "The Loveless", and maybe they should have an article because they released one album that, according to the article "is well loved among fans of the power pop music genre.") Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Music criticism

I've noticed that much of the press regarding musicians looks as if it were lazily drawn from a PR release. In short, it looks like hype. All positive, no negative. Aaronchall (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Contrariwise, independent sources are more willing to offer criticism of music than the establishment will. Well followed independent blogs should be considered reliable sources for critical opinions regarding the content of music and other types of art. Aaronchall (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Record Labels

I cannot find any guidelines about notability of independent record labels & companies. Can anyone point me in the right direction please? --Electronic Music (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) WP:CORP seems to be the one for independent labels, is that correct? --Electronic Music (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the short answer is that we don't have any guidelines specific to record labels, although I believe we should. WP:CORP/WP:GNG is about all you can go by at the moment.--Michig (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

• No More Idols (AfD discussion)
• Hitmixes (AfD discussion)

Two albums (one an EP, technically). Two (presumably) notable artists. Two articles with cover art, release date, infobox, tracklisting, small amount of prose, and sources. One AFD discussion forming a consensus to delete "per WP:NALBUM" and one forming a consensus to keep "per WP:NALBUM". It might be worth thinking about why this is. Uncle G (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Different editors contributing to the discussions seems to be the main reason. Neither discussion shows much appreciation of this guideline. We can't force people to read and understand the guideline, or think for themselves for that matter. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So they're both getting the criteria wrong? That's a surprising conclusion. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily getting it wrong, but I don't see much evidence of understanding the guideline, or that it is simply a guideline (that suggests likely notability for albums by notable artists, which is the case in both). This section has been hacked about with so much that it has become almost redundant to WP:GNG, without an awful lot of community involvement. The bottom line should always be the question of whether deleting the article will improve the encyclopedia, and I see little to suggest this is the case with either article, and little to suggest that this question has been considered by many of the people taking part in the discussion.--Michig (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lockwood (guitarist)

Is Michael Lockwood (guitarist) notable by these criteria? As far as I can tell he isn't but I was hoping that someone more experienced with music notability could help here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The person has notability as a result of coverage in major newspapers (multiple mentions in NYT) and is augmented by his celebrity marriage (which is not a "music criterion" for sure). General criteria apply where the specialized criteria (which are intended to provide notability to people who otherwise would not meet the general guidelines) fail to cover a person. Collect (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect I was asking for an expert opinion here. Can you please leave it be for someone who frequents this entry to answer? If the article goes to AfD then please by all means make your argument, but right now I just want to know if they are notable as a musician. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow - I have not even looked at the article but I can say if it presented correctly (Which, based on this thread, I take it is not) he 100% meets the criteria. He was in lions and Ghosts, who release an album on EMI. He then went on to join a band that was part of a label bidding war, but disbanded before they were officially signed. He played and recorded with Barron Jive and Syl Sylvain. He went solo for a bit playing acoustic shows before becoming a solid sideman touring with Susana Hoffs, Aimee Mann (Also acting as her music director) and then becoming Lisa Maria Presley's music director before they "fell in love", got married and had twins. He has played at the Grammy Awards and at the Academy awards and there is a lot of little side things going on in there as well - but certainly notable beyond being LMP's hubby. Having said all that I will now go check the article. EDIT: Doh - I forgot about some of those other tours, Fiona Apple of course.. But - Ok, having viewed the article it does need to be expanded but it does for sure, assert his notability. Problem is, as with so many of the Hollywood musicians of the 80's and 90's much of the coverage they received is not on the internet. Lions and Ghosts got a lot of press for example - I did a quick search and the issue of BAM they were on the cover of in 1987 is for sale at a ebay like website. They also had a song on the soundtrack to Modern Girls. Here is some info on Baron Jive, who at the time got a lot of press because of Lili Haydn and Phil Parlipiano, who was playing with Rod Stewart at the time. ANyhow - for sure Mike is notable enough to have an article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC

OK so can you explain what criteria he meets then? I'd like to know for next time something like this comes up. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how you want to look at things: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely not helpful. Before I asked the question I looked at those. I can't find any evidence of #1 (it requires he is the subject and not just trivially mentioned), #2 is something I'm not very adept at investigating but I'm assuming this doesn't mean being a studio musician or manager, but the primary recording artist, ditto for #3, for #4 I also could not find anything but again I'm not very adept at music research, for #5, as you pointed out yourself he only released 1 album on a major label, for #6 this is something I also don't understand ... what does it mean to be a member of an ensemble?, for #10 I am still assuming he needs to be primary recording artist but again have little knowledge of how to conduct the proper research and for #12 I certainly found nothing of that nature when I looked. Can you please explain a bit further why he meets at least one of those. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated - as with a lot of musicians who first started to, or did, get press during the 80's and 90's it is often hard to find informaiton on them solely via the internet. More so when you start off as one thing and end up as another, Mike started off being "notable" via Lions & Ghosts and than as a side player and now, for better or worse, tied to the coattails of Lisa Marie. But take number 5, for example, Lions & Ghosts released two albums, not one (my bad). He has also played on other albums - Fiona Apple, Lisa Marie, Carly Simon. As a songwriter you can check out some of his credits at ASCAP. I am not going to do all the research, you can start at his own history page and go from there if you want. That should at least help you to see he meets more than one of the criteria. As for the specific question regarding "this doesn't mean being a studio musician or manager, but the primary recording artist" - as I said "Depending on how you want to look at things." I think the article on Waddy Wachtel is an excellent article on one of the top studio/touring musicians out there. However I feel the Victor Indrizzo article is severely lacking as an article on one of the top studio touring musicians out there. (And as a reference take a look at a deletion discussion from 2009 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rojas. At the time, because this person was a background player on some tracks from a high selling album/s, and involved in another that was on a soundtrack, it was argues he more than met these criteria) As for Mike I can say there was a lot of press about him long before he met and married Lisa Marie but I certainly do not have every printed piece of info on him at hand. From the L.A Times here is one: Lions & Ghosts: Roar of Two Styles from 1987. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is valuable information.Griswaldo (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Song notability

User:Kww has recently nominated the article for the song Suga Mama for deletion (AfD), despite being a good article, stating that it fails notability guidelines. The user says that because it has not been on a chart, won an award, or been covered by another artist, the article should be deleted. No where in the guidelines does it say that a song must have done any of those. It is well-cited and it is a good article as well. This user needs to be informed that songs like this are notable and deserve to have articles here. The user plans to nominate Slug (song) as well as many other articles in the future all for the same reason. I have been having a conversation on my own back-and-fourth this evening but it does not seem to be getting anywhere. I would appreciate some more input. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Polar Music Prize

Template:Polar Music Prize has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Label criteria

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" -

I am wondering why "indie" labels bear higher weight than "major" labels? Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't bear higher weight. "Two or more albums" is what's needed on a label, indie or otherwise. (I think you might have misread "one on the more important indie labels" for "one of the more important indie labels". Perhaps it would be clearer if we changed it to Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels ...?) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is clearer...J04n(talk page) 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a link to Record labels#Major vs. independent record labels? Two releases on two different indie labels also meets this requirement. Argolin (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For the lonest time, I was held up on this requirement; believing that an independent artist had to have two album releases to satisfy WP:BAND. One album release (subject to criteria 1) will also meet WP:BAND Argolin (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-criteria for musicians and ensembles?

• Because of this comment (I have seen this kind of statement listed all over the place for a while but this is the most recent usage I've come across), I think there should be somewhere mentioned in the guideline that just because a musician has an album available for purchase (or download) at a place like iTunes or Amazon.com doesn't mean that the musician is automatically notable. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough as the guideline stands. The problem here it seems is that the people making these sort of statements are unaware that these guidelines exist. Pointing them towards WP:MUSIC should be sufficient, I think.--Michig (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for indie record labels?

Notability for artists includes "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 whom are notable)." (emphasis mine, obviously.) Presumably an indie label that meets these criteria is itself notable? Is there a definition of notability for labels that I should be looking at elsewhere, or should I just work off that? For instance, I notice that GMM Records shows up in lots of existing articles about notable bands etc but doesn't have its own page (yet). Edited to add: ditto Silver Sprocket which is perhaps more notable/well documented, as another example. --Skud (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Chart notability

Given that an article for a song should be a significant hit on at least one music chart, where do we draw the line on what constitutes a significant hit? Top 10, top 20, top 40? I would imagine anything below this (on only one chart) wouldn't be significant enough. But perhaps it's time to consider where the line should be drawn - or perhaps it could relate also to number of weeks on the chart? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Songs don't need to be chart hits to be notable.--Michig (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Michig is correct in that awards and multiple cover versions are sufficient to clear WP:NSONGS as well. The charting test in WP:NSONGS is a nice bright-line test, and, with very few exceptions (apparently songs by Beyonce, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles are immune to the test), everyone seems to generally agree that uncharted songs don't get articles. If we try to muck around with it, all it will do is cause more fights and won't actually change much. The only charts that people seem to informally agree aren't enough to count are the Bubbling Under and Heatseekers charts, but, if there's a decent article to be written, you won't get far redirecting or deleting articles about singles on those charts either.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of other criteria that allow songs to have articles of course, but given that a charted hit is one of them - how well does it have to chart? I'm guessing that agreement probably wouldn't be reached, but I have noticed one editor (in the archives) say that he doesn't create articles for anything below the top 20, which I think is maybe about right. This is of course assuming the song doesn't meet any other of the criteria.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Everybody's free to have higher personal standard for when it's time to create an article. I, for example, don't create articles about singles because I don't think there should be articles about singles. Trying to reset the general line won't go anywhere productive.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Any chart position on an an official national chart is fine. However note that there should be sufficient information to make a detailed article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reinforcing what Lil-unique said, for example if an album track charts from digital downloads/airplay, it probably does not warrant an article unless it was supported by artwork/video/performances etc. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Any chart position on an any official national chart? How about number 98 on the chart from the Republic of Malta (pop. 416,333). Also, what if studios start releasing chart positions down to number 1000 – is a song that charts to 998 for a month in the UK notable? I don't think it's a good idea to just have a blanket statement that 'if it charts, it's notable'. We should stick with the criteria 'multiple reviews from independent reliable sources'. LK (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Malta doesn't have a chart and the UK chart doesn't go as high as 998. For genuine charts see WP:GOODCHARTS. There are other criteria to songs and WP:NSONGS does quite a good job of summarising it. Something that does chart doesn't automatically become notabilty(think charting songs that has no or little other media covers) and something that hasn't charted isn't automatically none notable because it may still have a high cultural impact(think traditional songs before charts, unreleaased songs from big albums, national anthems etc). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

I just created the article for Patiently Waiting and i'm not sure if it is notable enough for its own article. It was charted on the Billboard charts, but it wasnt a single, so i'm not sure if that is enough for notability. So can anybody tell me if it is? Thanks.--Yankees10 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, but it depends whether you can find coverage in third-party sources. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find material to expand it significantly, it shouldn't be a stand-alone article.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Album reviews

It was brought to my attention in a AfD that a review of an album or song is enough to establish the significant coverage criteria, in that case I'm sure most if not all music is reviewed so how does it establish notability? Mo ainm~Talk 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the individual album. Most, if not all studio albums by notable artists are themselves notable. Other albums are notable if they meet the WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. Reviews are some of the best sources we have. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this page meet criteria?

I just created a user page and was about to make into an article. Before I do, please review this page and tell me if it meets any criteria. --Djc wi (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it meets notability standards. Jesusfreakhideout can't be the only source with coverage. And some of the links aren't direct references. For example, you use this link as a reference but all it is is a page summarizing the tournament. It shows nothing about the band winning said tournament. And the tournament itself isn't necessarily notable. :T I don't mean to rain on your parade, but...I can't see this article being kept. SKS (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your honesty. --Djc wi (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

They're on a national tour though. Doesn't that count? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What might help is if you used more third-party sources. It seems easy enough to find them. Like:[1][2][3]. Avoid using things like the band's MySpace as a source. Start quoting what others have seen fit to publish about the band and the awards, albums, and tours will appear to be more notable to other readers/editors. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Tooth & Nail Records count as a third-party source? --Djc wi (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link to Wikipedia:Third-party sources and you can read about "non-independent sources." Due to the business relationship between a record company and an artist, I would not consider that to be a third-party source. That does not mean that their information is not reliable or usable, but another editor/reader might expect the source to come with some bias in favor of the band. However, the fact that a notable record label has signed them may help make your case. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Does a song...

Does a song need to chart or receive an award or get covered by multiple artists to receive an article within Wikipedia? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends on who you ask. What it all boils down to is coverage in third-party sources; if you can write a decent article about it, it is probably notable. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless an article looks like this The Way You Love Me (Keri Hilson song)(without charting) then a song must chart in order to get a page. WP:NSONG is crystal clear. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Unless a song has charted or won something like a Grammy then it doesnt get a page, even if it has charted the article must not be a stub in order to get a page. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than simply saying no, let me bounce the question back: Under what circumstances should non-charting song should be covered independently, rather than just as a part of an album article? Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A non-single may be notable if it has been ranked on several charts or been performed by the artist quite a bit (see Monster) or it has a music video. At the end of the day, it comes down to how much coverage in reliable third-party sources (ie meets the WP:GNG). Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Charting aside, there needs to be enough information for a detailed and reliably sourced article. An article should not be created until that exists. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 10:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NSONG is inclusive, not exclusive. That is, WP:NSONG is crystal clear that a charting song is going to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article (because of the ease in locating reliable sources documenting that chart position) but it isn't so clear on a non charting song. WP:NSONG really doesn't do much to help here and we must use WP:GNG instead. The Way You Love Me (Keri Hilson song) is an excellent example, another more recent one is Perform This Way which hasn't even been released for sale but controversy about it generated plenty of press in reliable sources making a decent article possible.--RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Concert tours

Any objection to adding the following to the concert tours section?--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Individual tours which cannot be sufficiently referenced in 3rd party sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article. One tour that meets notability guidelines does not make all tours by that artist notable.

 Done - no comments here after several days, text has been added to guideline.--RadioFan (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 5 of WP:BAND, elecronic music bias

Criterion 5 reads: Has released two or more albums on a major label or on 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 whom are notable). Currently, artists who release large numbers of singles on notable record labels are excluded. This seems quite unfavourable to electronic dance music artists, where the scene thrives on singles/EPs and albums are rather rare to come across (unless these are compilation albums). I am not sure how I would word an update to this criterion, but I would be interested to hear what other editors think. doomgaze (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Those artists can still meet notability guidelines should those EPs or singles chart. WP:NALBUMS puts emphasis on the albums (from a notable label) because this indicates a level of commitment from the labels, presumably a reliable source. The level of commitment necessary to put out an EP or especially a single, especially today just isn't comparable. --RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are many other criteria these artists could meet, you're quite right. Just referring to this one though, it seems rather arbitrary that albums should be the only releases counted. Having the threshold at 2 singles would be silly, but if it was set to let's say 10 singles (2 songs per single = 20 songs, roughly the same as 2 albums) I think this would show the same amount of commitment from a label as releasing two albums. doomgaze (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... do you have any specific examples, Doomgaze? Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)