Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

National Tour

What exactly is a "national tour"? I've seen a few articles about novice groups/artists with (maybe) one album from an indie label claiming notability because they went on a "national tour" promoting their album. This criteria appears to allow artists/groups at the very start of their careers an article in Wikipedia. Can other editors suggest some revisions that might make this criterion clearer? Rklawton 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already not as simply as having a national tour. WP:V requires reliable (read independent) coverage, to verify that the tour occurred. So, while a band can easily play gigs in different states, its not so easy to get coverage of the tour in reliable media (e.g. which doesn't include promotional material). --Rob 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That still seems pretty thin. So if I load up my minibus with my sleeping bag, beer cooler, and pan flute, visit a half-dozen cities from coast to coast, and get a few local papers to document that I played a gig in their town, then I can count this as a national tour and have an article in Wikipedia? Rklawton 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You nailed it. It's not nearly as thin as you think, I'd personally rather it be a regional tour, but I haven't gotten much traction on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable assumption with a tour, is that your are not paying for it. Others have chosen to hire you, and others have chosen to write about you (ergo, they noted your acheivements, as they deemed you noteworthy, as in your notable). If you, entirely on your own, do what you say, that's not a "tour". That's tourism. This guideline isn't designed to require fame and fortune. It's designed to include the notable, and exclude the non-notable. It helps stop autobiographies, but not noteworthy biographies. I think the existing guideline, interpretted with common sense, isn't so easy to pass, as suggested. --Rob 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about "promotional tours" for first-release albums? The folks footing the bill aren't the fans but the producers trying to make a profit. I've seen several cases where bands, albums, promotional tour, and Wikipedia articles have all occurred within a few weeks. Rklawton 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say, that in such a case, if its a national tour, covered in reliable media, then yes,they probably should get an article. To clarify my comments above, what counts is the band itself are not paying their own way, and most importantly the coverage of the tour is fully inndependent. And of course, as with any article, is must be written from a netural point of view. If somebody makes an article on such a band, and it is neutral, and fully verifiable, I see no great problem. Because the band has been covered by independent sources, Wikipedia is not introducing them to the world, as they've already been "discovered". --Rob 04:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between the band paying their own way and the band's producers paying their way? Also, just because something is independently verifiable, doesn't make it notable. Given the level of difficulty in achieving any of the other criteria, this one seems like an easy hurdle for anyone with a bankroll (but not necessarily talent or a fan base) to overcome. Rklawton 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference is, that somebody is not deciding they are notable themselves. I really don't understand why you think this is so easy. By your logic, we shouldn't include bands with two albums on a major label, since such a label, could ignore profits, and produce the albums with no hope of sales. After all, you're arguing that somebody with a bunch of money is blindly going around bankrolling bands, sending them to city after city, across the country, with no hope of commercial success. Anyway, I have to get back to the whole issue of independent coverage. You can't buy reliable sources. Of course you can buy media, but media which is easily bought doesn't count as a reliable source. I want to emphasize, Wikipedia, by following reliable sources, is not giving anybody a free intro the public. We're only covering what others (independently) have covered. I'm just not clear on what the harm is here. Can you give me an example of some band(s) that have a national tour, covered in reliable sources, which you feel don't warrant articles they've been given by this "lax" guideline. --Rob 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about the national tours criterion. If an artist has two albums under a national label, they already qualify, so the national tour question would be moot. The question in this thread is what to do about artists who meet no other notability criteria (for example: artists with a single album under an indie label) claiming notability due to a national promotional tour. By promotional, I mean one sponsored by the label's producers to generate sales. When such publicity tours occur, it's a matter of course to generate press releases about the tour. After all, publicity is the entire point, and local papers use these to report on local performances. The end result, however, is that the artist can then claim notability when, in fact, they have accomplished nothing more notable than common marketing techniques. Rklawton 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No its not always the case. I can point out numerious AFDs where the criterea of 'two or more albums on indie lables' didn't satisfy the requirement in the minds of many editors. Not one single requirement dosn't act as a "smoking gun" that reinforces the notion of a band's notability, but a combination of them. So the fact that a band or artist activaly goes out on a nation wide tour, does give them some precident, and should be left alone as-is. I have no problem with the current wording of it, and it shouldn't be changed. RiseRobotRise 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't take much for a garage band from the northern US to cross the border and perform in a bar in Canada. Savidan 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DJs and "touring"

Most DJs only tend to play on weekends. If for example a DJ played between 20 and 50 international gigs per year, would this qualify under the spirit of the guideline? One Night In Hackney 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would, if Radiohead played 50 dates on an international tour, and only played on fridays and saturdays, that should also count. RiseRobotRise 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag regarding album notability

The tag on the paragraph for album notability says to see the discussion on the talk page, but I can't find any. What's the dispute, and is it possible to resolve it? TheronJ 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag - since adding it the paragraph has been rephrased. Addhoc 14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TheronJ 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, if there really was a dispute, it would help if someone would explain here what that was. Thanks, -MrFizyx 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The current wording of the album section isn't compatible with WP:N or WP:V... Addhoc 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way. I gather your solution is to link to WP:LP so that other editors will feel compeled to read your essay which objects to this guideline. I think that linking to an essay which is neither a guideline nor an active proposal, however, is confusing.

I'm not the only one who has removed your link. Where is the discussion that supports your addition? I see very little support for your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (albums) and I'm the only one who responed to your merger proposal on this page. Why insist on sneaking this into the criteria? The current wording already acknowledges that "this guideline is somewhat controversial." -MrFizyx 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: After several days without comment, I have again removed the link to Wikipedia:Notability (albums) those interested in the historical essay can find the link here in this discussion. -MrFizyx 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For an album to have a stand-alone article, the album itself should be notable (WP:N) and not just notable by virtue of its relationship to the artist(s). If it isn't all that notable, then there's no reason it couldn't be merged in with the artist's main (or discography) article. Possible critiera could include sales, awards, or favorable reviews from notable and independent sources. I've found two articles today that exist simply because the band was "notable". One album had a self-produced run of less than 100 copies, another hand around 1,000 self-produced copies pressed. That's not notable; it's trivial! Rklawton 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition"

First 3 messages copied from user talk pages Tyrenius 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted a small edit you made to Wikipedia:Notability. It appears you did not realize that "to place" means to do well in a competition; often it means to come in second, so that to "win or place" means to win or come in second. Cheers, Doctormatt 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Has written a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition." Is that a US usage, because it's not UK, so it reads oddly and if anything would be interpreted in the UK as won "any place" i.e. maybe 5th place, which I take it is not the intent. The obvious solution then is simply to say "had won or come second in a major music competition." Does that work for you? Tyrenius 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than US or UK, I think it might be mostly a horse racing term (though maybe it's a US horse racing term). I think your suggestion of making winning or second place the criteria is good, and much clearer. It does make me wonder, though: why not third? fourth? I'm sure others would have opinions on this. Perhaps if you make the change, others will chime in. Cheers, Doctormatt 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now changed to "Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition". Tyrenius 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Other place, huh? Does this include "last place"? Rklawton 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why mention "place" at all? Why not just say a song that was entered into a major music competition? And what qualifies as "major"? Rklawton 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, because anything can enter into a competition, but not everything will place in it. "Major" is deceptively subjective. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, "last" is also a place, so is 99th. How about "top five" (or less)? Rklawton 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) There is a need for some vagueness here given the nature of some competitions. For example, the "New Folk" competition at the Kerrville Folk Festival starts each year with 32 finalists (already selected from the first 800 entries submitted). Most of the finalists already meet other WP:MUSIC criteria. Six winners are chosen from these (no first, second, third...just six winners). The remaining finalists join "club seven" (a 26-way tie for seventh place).

In a given year, the "Chris Austin Songwriting Contest" at MerleFest has over 1100 entries. The top three winners are chosen in four different categories. In that case I would hope third (last?) place is considered notable.

The criteria should be flexible enough to be useful in a variety of circumstances. We shouldn't micro-manage here; this is a guideline. -MrFizyx 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine 32 finalists is reasonable, and when you're talking potential of twelve at MerleFest. If anything, I consider your examples reasons to not touch it - it's pretty solid as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "win or place" should be fine. I sure don't see cruft when I look in Category:Kerrville New Folk Competition finalists. If this criteria is creating a problem somewhere please show me where articles are being created that shouldn't be. -MrFizyx 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-English sources

What is the position about non-English sources used as reference to to provide notability? I can understand that links to non-English sources don't fit in the English language wikipedia. But that makes it hard to prove the notability of non-English artists. It would imply that an British or North-American artist is notable as soon as he's written about, but an artist from a non English speaking country first has to be noticed internationally. Could putting the links to the non-English sources in the talk page be an option? I noticed that those links aren't actually checked before a (speedy) deletion, or at least they weren't in this case: Talk:FFF (artist).

Any suggestions on how to resolve this kind of problem would be welcome, as I strongly believe that the article FFF (artist) shoudn't have been deleted the first time and that notability can be proven, though only via Dutch sources.

psi36 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing from a non-English source is fine, although English language references are preferred on the English Wikipedia. {{Cite web}} even has a parameter to display the language, if it is other than English. The reliability of the source is more important than the language. Prolog 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive changes reverted

For now. This edit, while entirely in good faith, appears to have weakened the guideline in a way that no clear consensus exists for. I've added the necessary language that the change was designed to clear up, but I'm not sure we should be weakening the guideline in such a way without some discussion. I'm surprised no one noticed this until now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since this reversion has been done on at least three separate notability guidelines, I'd suggest it be discussed centrally here rather than in at least three different places. -- Dragonfiend 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• They are not "massive changes", and they actually make the guideline a lot simpler. If band A contains one member of band B that is "notable" because another member was once a member of famous band C before they were famous, but there are no sources about band A, we can't have an article because there are no sources. If a band has never released an album, never toured, but has nonetheless been the subject of lengthy discussion in the music press, we can have an article, because there are sources. It's sources that matter. This is an objective test that can e applied to any article, and it's in the notability guideline as the primary notability criterion. Subject-specific guidelines should reflect that because, as I say, without sources even if every other criterion is met, we can't have an article per policy. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, because of no sources, not because of "notability." This is somewhat frustrating, because even with sources, people don't care. Can't we discuss first and then change things? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree with you on this one, Guy, to a degree that I rarely do. Assuming that the challenged edit represents consensus, the "central criterion" currently requires (1) two, (2) independent (3) non-trivial sources, from which (4) press releases and university newspapers are currently excluded. You can absolutely write an article that complies with WP:V and WP:OR based on one non-trivial independent source, a few press releases, and several detailed university newspaper stories. That article would comply with policy, but not with the notability "central criterion." You could, for that matter, write an article that complied with policy solely from press releases, "trivial" references, and university newspapers. I wouldn't be opposed to a style guide saying that two independent non-trivial published sources are preferred, but saying that it is not possible for editors to agree that otherwise verifiable subject may be notable even in the absense of two independent non-trivial non-university paper published sources is just not correct, IMHO. TheronJ 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I have more respect for JzG and W.Marsh than just about anyone else here, I thought long and hard about these changes again. Because the entire thing is based at the "central" location, I'm going to make my detailed thoughts known there, but I'm reverting back to the guideline that has been discussed at length, mostly because of the confusion between "notability" and verifiability. Short answer - if an article is still verifiable, it may not be "notable." If an article is "notable," having the opportunity to find the "verifiable" information is easier, and keeps articles from disappearing too quickly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, with myspace and purevolume playing a dominant role in independent music and mainstream music, wouldn't a myspace hit count, with bands currently playing be a viable test for testing notability, with articles considered for deletion (to the same affect that the google hit count is viable, not an absolute measure of notability.)…

I'll note that people reverting me are still not bothering to demonstrate the consensus here, either. This is patently absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists of musicians

Lists of musicians in general should contain notable individuals only. While there are notable musicians who do not yet have a main article on Wikipedia, it is difficult for editors to determine whether a musician is in fact notable when only a red link exists. Instead, the lists' talk pages can be used by editors to request the creation of main article for notable individuals who belong on the list. Some lists such as List of jazz clarinetists already suggest that musicians who do not have a main article should not be added to the lists. Shall we require that all lists of musicians contain only individuals with an existent main article? Shawnc 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because the redlinks point to articles that need to be created. Let the redlinks be removed if an article gets deleted or if it obviously won't meet standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle that redlinks placed by well-informed editors would point to article that need to be created. Evidently however this has attracted additions by self-promoting users who obviously do not meet notability requirements upon inspection. It is likely that even if an article was created and then deleted, no one would bother to check whether the person existed on another list.

Other lists that have used the aforementioned requirement include: List of guitarists, List of Gibson players, List of jazz bassists, List of drummers, etc. List of Telecaster players requires that a reference or explanation be provided. Some lists such as List of bass guitarists do allow red links provided that the musician is mentioned in an existing article about a group; I agree with this approach since notability has been asserted implicitly. I also feel that red links are more acceptable for lists of non-modern musicians because there is less chance of conflict of interest.

In any case, should we handle lists on a case by case basis, or use a common standard? Shawnc 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Case by case. If a person isn't "notable," the article will get deleted in due course. No need to try and regulate with some top-level situation regarding lists, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that lists should be limited to people with articles in Wikipedia, or who are mentioned in articles on a band. I can see that redlinks give pointers to articles that need to be written, but there are other places for that (see Wikipedia:Requested articles#Topic areas in Music). When I was first started keeping an eye on these lists (and I haven't looked at them for a while; lord knows what they look like now) they were complete messes, full of vanity and spoof entries. How can most editors know which is genuinely notable and which not? Unless they're knowledgeable in all areas of music, there's only one way: those with articles are, those without aren't. (If an article is deleted, by the way, the admin should check to see what links there, if only to follow up and delete redirects.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More and more I am coming to be of the opinion that these lists are unmanageable and that we would do well to eliminate them in favor of categories (although these have other problems). In any case, I don't think we should try to manage this within the WP:MUSIC criteria. Problem lists are not unique to musicans. -MrFizyx 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have thought that too, about deleting lists and having the categories instead. However, as there are still lists, I try to maintain many music genre lists, and remove all red links; my reasoning is if it doesn't have an article already, it's non-notable; if someone wants to add something, they can create the article for it, then if it's notable it gets left alone. If not, it goes up for deletion, then later, removed from the list. That's what I do anyway. --Dane ^~nya 06:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I have added the disputed tag because of tendentious editing by some and because of a lack of demonstrated consensus for the changes by others. Consensus for anything to happen at WP:N does not introduce consensus here, and it's arguable whether there's really a consensus at WP:N to begin with. Hopefully people will actually be willing to discuss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too comfortable with the recent change, as changing criterion #1 to "central criterion" has changed the numbering of all the remaining criteria. These numbers are referenced from several discussions. I've used "#5" to refer to "Has released two or more albums on a major label or..." several times, but that criterion has now become #4. Prolog 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but I imagine that we could just do #1 (central criterion) instead without disrupting that. If this were to be done, would you find the change acceptable? Seraphimblade 15:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We could, but there is no actual "central criterion" by consensus. WP:N points here (and to other individual criteria), and doesn't even address itself as "central," but merely a criterion everyone shares. There's no reason to downgrade anything here that I can see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what we're looking for is to develop exactly such a consensus, in the way that every such one gets developed-talking it out! Personally, I'm all for establishing WP:N as the central criterion-no matter what may meet clause A subparagraph 14 in some secondary criteria, if there's not enough source material to write a decent article, then there's not enough source material to write a decent article, and it's not an appropriate encyclopedic subject. Seraphimblade 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant has now removed the tag without ever commenting on this page. Small update for those who care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As an update, my original reversion and talk page post on this topic was on 24 January. Since then, proponents of the change have not demonstrated the necessary consensus - or worked to build it. I plan on reverting back to the uncontroversial consensus version tonight unless there's a substantitive argument not to do so. Thanks for most everyone's patience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey BDJ, what would that wording be exactly? Though I don't care much for the wording "central criterion", I think something like that is appropriate for articles on musicians and ensembles. What are your specific concerns? I'm not saying you should or should not revert. I would like to see the dispute clarified. -MrFizyx 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This version, while incorporating your recent edits. This is essenntially the agreed upon version prior to the edit in December. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way, but it does seem reasonable to work some reference back to WP:N eventually. -MrFizyx 16:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, with discussion. d;-) There's some interesting stuff going on there currently anyway, so I'm hoping the discussion over there can be carried over to individual criteria, but not without consensus, and not until the changeover occurs, which will be a while. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of albums proposition

I have created a suggested guidline for notability of albums in my userpage due to confusion of this policy in recent Afd's (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Side_Show_Freaks). The proposed addition can be found here; User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album). This addition would bring clairty to the what is acceptable for inclusion rather than just taking it as read that an album is notable if the artist is notable regardless of how big the actual album was. Please feel free to edit my userpage if you feel anything should be added/removed RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:LP... Addhoc 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now posted it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but I did simply mean this proposal as an addition to WP:MUSIC, not a seperate guidline as WP:LP RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I think your proposal is very sensible. Addhoc 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks way too exclusionary. May as well say goodbye to most indie album articles. What's wrong with the general content forking we see now? Why rock the boat? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just think thats its to inclusionary at the minute, and its upto interpretation. What about a notable bands early albums when they were non notable? This guidline is very similar to inclusion for an artist. Indie albums would still have relable published works to merit an inclusion RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What we'd be saying goodbye to is non-notable album articles. Many indie albums are covered by various sorts of perfectly reliable reviews, and quite a few have comprehensive enough coverage to justify their own articles. Those which do not can still be covered in their parent artist's article (and let's face it, in the case of a totally non-notable album, the parent article is probably not exactly a half-megabyte article screaming for some content to get forked out so tomorrow's FA review will be successful, it's probably hurting like hell for verifiable content as it is.) Once again, Jeff, you never answered this (and don't give me a "hard work" or "ILIKEIT" platitude)-why should we have a separate article on an album when the only verifiable information is "Nobody Cares is an album by the Barely Notables. It has ten tracks, which are:..."? Why would that not work better as a subsection under a parent artist? Seraphimblade 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because of style considerations and that there's no good argument not to separate them out. There's nothing wrong with verifiable stubs that fork content for ease of use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is ILIKEIT. The argument not to separate them out is that they fail WP:N, which seems like a pretty good one to me. Seraphimblade 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not ILIKEIT at all, although I do like it more than this alternative. WP:N, in fact, sends you here to discuss music-related "notability," so it currently doesn't fail WP:N. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The way MUSIC reads now, any notable group can produce something called an album, and it automatically gets an article (so long as we can verify the title - though I've seen scores of one-source, self-referencing album articles). As a result, a group that burns fewer CD's than I do (on a good weekend) gets an article for their CD. Here's an example of an AfD that bucked this trend: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Worms. Here's another self-released album by the same group. It claims only a 1,000 disks pressed (and makes no mention of sales). Note that an editor is arguing that it is somehow notable solely because it comes from a notable group: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side Show Freaks. I see no reason why non-notable albums can't simply redirect to the artist's article. In short, why bother creating an article for an album that only lists the group, release date, and tracks? Or, to take the other extreme. If all albums of notable groups get articles, then why not also create an article for each track? After all, the track was created by a notable group... Just like biographies, each article should present a subject that's notable in and of itself and not simply because the subject has a relationship to something (or someone) that's notable. Rklawton 04:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Without the example of an article on Super Worms, it is hard to see how this relates. The AfD appears to have been about software rather than a musical group who burns fewer CDs than you do. It also appears that the software maufacturer was deemed nn. -MrFizyx 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another rant on album articles

I feel some need to make a statement in support of the status quo on album articles. Here are some points that obviously not everyone will agree with:

1. If an artist is notable, their work is notable. This is a remarkably easy concept to understand. It avoids the instruction creep that pervades the 'pedia.
2. Album articles are a good way to organize information. We wouldn't write articles for each of Picasso's paintings and we wouldn't try to list them all in an article about him. Wikipedians have organized them into nine lists for each decade of his life. Likewise, we don't desire articles on every song by every artist nor do we desire to clutter up the artist's main article. Album articles are a logical way to catalog a musician's career--this creates several to tens of articles rather than hundreds. (I note this in part to respond to Rklawton's sarcasm above: "If all albums of notable groups get articles, then why not also create an article for each track?")
3. Basic album info is easy to verify. They are themselves publications, are well cataloged by labels, widely available in libraries, sold online and in stores everywhere. If verifiability really is the problem with a particular article why not send it to AfD based on WP:V?
4. Wikipedia's music coverage should be encyclopedic. I mean in the traditional sense of the word, as in comprehensive in scope. Recall the first point in WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not paper." Also, album info are not mere random facts. I want to be able to look up when Townes Van Zandt first recorded "Sad Cinderella"[1] or to search for albums featuring Kenny Malone on drums.[2] These are desirable features. I see our competition for this as the All Music Guide, not Encyclopaedia Britannica. We aren't yet any where near AMGs breadth of coverage.
5. Finally, I'm not yet convinced that there is a problem. Cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side Show Freaks seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I gather no one is even suggesting we do away with all articles on albums by 40 Below Summer, just the two out of five that were self-released in very small numbers. Why can't we debate these case by case rather than create complex, overreaching criteria.

Both proposals, Wikipedia:Notability (albums) and User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album), make good points, but they are a big step from the current criteria. Either could result in many deletions if accepted and interpreted strictly. I can offer constructive suggestions on these if a majority feels that something more complex and restrictive is needed. I ask that we think before we creep in that direction. Thanks, -MrFizyx 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You put it so much better than me. Bravo. Bubba hotep 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating the obvious, the music guideline should provide guidance on the minimum standards expected. This includes advising that multiple non-trivial coverage from third party sources are required per WP:N and WP:V. Addhoc 09:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your desire to reconcile WP:MUSIC with WP:N. WP:V? It is not obvious to me why verifiability relates here. If you have access to the album, you hold the primary source of the basic data needed to start the article. I think this renders the point of having an independent secondary source moot. No other source is going to be more reliable. We could also constantly remind editors of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but these wouldn't relate to notability either. -MrFizyx 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the new criteria was actually to be more inclusive. All notable albums by non-notable artists are excluded under the current, single criterion. How can we justify that such an album is notable in this case? It is impossible, since the artist being non-notable precludes any chance for the album to be considered notable.

Now, if the artist was non-notable, wouldn't a notable album make that artist notable? Intuitively, it would seem so, but the only thing in Wikipedia-land that makes an album notable is having a notable artist. Thus, there is a circular argument keeping many albums out.

I realize that such albums are few and far between, but I would not say they are non-existent. If you would have a look at the latest at User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album), you will see my latest edition (Feb 10.) which includes the "notable artist → notable album" as criterion #1 and then includes most of the other proposed criteria (with some rewording), just to be sure that no notable album is excluded. It should make everyone happy, I think. (Taken from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#New album notability guidelines.3F) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This would also give a far clearer consensus for keeping compilation albums RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the editors who initially were enthusiastic about this proposal (User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album)) were seeking more restrictive criteria and would not be excited about the current version. Has Twas Now read the deletion debate that was to have inspired this. You have also ignored some obvious problems with WP:CREEP. I'll extend these comments at User talk:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album). I encourage others to comment there as this discussion has become quite fractured. -MrFizyx 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting wars

What could possibly be wrong with stating that all articles must meet WP:V and WP:RS? WP:V, especially, is a core policy-this guideline couldn't trump or cancel it even if it specifically stated an exemption! I don't think there's a thing wrong with asking people to remember that (especially given that I've more than once seen CD's themselves used as "references", I don't think it'd be a bad idea to send people that direction!) Seraphimblade 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that Wikipedia isn't just a collection of facts album name, group, and track lists, for example. I wouldn't have any objection to creating album or even track redirects back to the group when the ablum or track doesn't rate an article. Rklawton 14:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• The main problem as I see it is that it took a long time to come up with a really good statement of what we actually mean by notability, and why. While we were thinking about that, poeple came up with a lot of cntext-specific guidelines which all fundamentally aimed to achieve the same thing: an objective set of criteria. Now, of course, we have the primary notability criterion, and that has a very great deal of support. So much so that if you were to take to AfD an article which met every one of the criteria listed here except multiple non-trivial coverage, it would, today, likely be deleted. That is a good thing. It means that notability has the same meaning everywhere. It also means that we don't get Wikilawyernig about whether a tour which takes in one bar over the border in Canada is an "international tour", or whether a band is recursively notable because it includes A who was in B which included C who played with D who is in E which is a side-project of F which once had a chart hit. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point there, and I think we've got to mention the central guideline one way or the other. Why couldn't we do both, though? Mention WP:V and WP:RS, and also make clear that this is just intended to be a list of things that probably pass the central guideline, not a list of things that are acceptable even if they don't pass WP:N. Seraphimblade 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Some responses to Guy:

  1. My prediction is that if you really nominated an article which met every criterion on the list except multiple non-trivial coverage, the article would be overwhelmingly kept on the grounds that even if no non-trivial coverage could be easily found, it must almost certainly exist. (My object lesson in that particular norm was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alcohol_120%).
  2. Also, I think the representation of the "multiple, non-trivial" criterion as "objective" is overstating the case. We haven't really gotten into it yet, but my understanding is that "non-trivial" is a subjective analysis, and the number of sources necessary to satisfy the "multiple" condition in any particular case depends on a subjective analysis of the depth and importance of each source. "Two sources of at least 500 words each" would be objective. "Multiple, non-trivial sources" is subjective. In fact, many of the criteria Guy doesn't like are more objective than "multiple, non-trivial sources."
  3. I tend to agree with Seraphim. If the concern is really WP:V, then let's just put something high in the guideline saying that all articles must comply with WP:V regardless of their notability. (As I mentioned above, it is entirely possible to write an article that complies with WP:V from a sufficiently large collection of "trivial" sources, "non-independent" sources, and university newspaper articles. Although such an article wouldn't meet the "multiple non-trivial independent sources" criterion as stated here, it would absolutely meet policy requirements.)

  Thanks, TheronJ 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guy, is the spirit of this longstanding and informed consensus about objective criteria regarding the notability of indie bands reflected in your creative application of it [here], where you've nominated an article for deletion on the basis of criteria for which there is no consensus (e.g., # of myspace friends, no javascript running in your browser)?--Jeandjinni 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bands with trademarked names

Has any consideration been given on how bands with federally/national/international trademarked artist and band names should factor into the notability criteria? Securing a federal trademark for a recording artist usually requires a verified track record of commerce at the national level within a given nation. Perhaps the patent and trademark databases of individual governments of nations would be a good place to start. I would also suggest caution and professionalism by editors when dealing with bands names that have federal/national/ or internationally trademarks secured. Such artists, and more importantly their record labels (the ones that like to litigate), would have certain legal rights under trademark libel laws, so make sure what you post publicly is accurate about such artists, that will help the Wikipedia owners avoid litigation.AudioJin 08:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the first point, I don't believe that having a trademark does anything more than verify the existence of a business entity, for our purposes. "Having a track record of commerce" simply means releasing the product, it does not make it notable.

As to the second, a reference to trademark libel, Wikipedia should by policy only use disparaging information that is verifiable through reliable sources. Disparaging information about individuals is covered by our biographies of living persons policy, and should not be posted uncited in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversed change

I've reversed the following change diff, and accordingly have placed it here for discussion. For my part, I believe that the version reverted to is far better, and prevents people looking at the following guidelines the wrong way. The "band" guidelines should be looked at as something that means you're likely to find sources if the band meets the criteria, not you're excused from finding sources if that's the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame, but not unexpected, I suppose. Your version lacks consensus, for the record, while the portion I reverte dback to has sat here for over a year with minimal quibbling, and also said essentially the same thing without downgrading other portions of possible "notability." I was hoping we could move on from this dispute, apparently not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there are "other portions of possible notability." The only notability is sufficient secondary source mention for a comprehensive article. It might be desirable to have other guidelines that tell people when it's likely that they'll be able to find sources, but not if it confuses them into thinking they don't need to bother actually finding them, or if it confuses people into thinking that a subject is acceptable even with a demonstrated lack of those sources if it passes some other arbitrary cutoff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You disagree, but traditionally, this has not been true, and in reality, it certainly isn't. A subject can be "notable" without being verifiable, which is hwat continues to be conflated here. The consensus version of this page has been in place for ages, where's the consensus for the recent change here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In real life, people haven't been using your criteria, despite whatever this page says. Reminder: guideline/policy/whatever is not what's written on some particular project-space page at some particular time. In real life, unsourced/undersourced band articles get deleted, and no amount of assertion that they meet the other criteria will save them from being subject to our core content policies. That said, the change in question is IMO a small one. Friday (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, for unverifiability, not "notability." As noted time and time again, we can't confuse them, which is what we're doing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted reply) Jeff, look at the page history! You were the only one who objected, while others continued changing back, and telling you to knock it off. That's exactly what a consensus looks like. I asked you somewhere else what would satisfy you that consensus has formed against you. Would you mind answering that one? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I answered it there, and I answered it here - demonstrated consensus at this talk page that your version actually has consensus. Given that your version was never discussed here in the first place, it's tough to say it ever had consensus. You want to include it, you have to demonstrate the consensus. Meanwhile, my version has at least two other people claiming that a reversion is okay, so I'm not sure where you come up with my being the "only one." --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, to be blunt, you're not stupid, so don't act like it. That change has been discussed in general at multiple locations including WT:N and WT:BIO. Support of the change was overwhelming-I didn't actually see anyone against it besides you, and if there was anyone, there weren't many. You know all of this, you participated in the discussions. Support of the change was overwhelmingly in favor. If you don't consider that consensus, what do you? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"In general" simply isn't good enough - can you really be sure that people who watch this page watch WP:N, or even know that it was promoted - and I can't even say the "consensus" at WP:N was overwhelming, either, but we're running with it. If you don't think I'm stupid, then start talking to me like you think I am and start providing some evidence that consensus was reached here for the change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, are you seriously objecting on the grounds of where the discussion took place??! That's.. well, bizarre. As a whole project, our understanding of notability has become more refined that it was in the past. The realization that notability is indicated by sources rather than by some subject-specific rules we made up ourselves is a Good Thing. If the folks who watch this page aren't up to speed on this yet, that's fine, they will be eventually. Friday (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, agree with Friday, it's common sense that guidelines and policy should be reasonably compatible with each other, so consensus reached at WT:N, for example, clearly has relevance here. Also, if you add Guy, W. Marsh, Radiant, Friday, Seraphimblade, Rklawton, Ryanpostlethwaite and me on this page, then I think you have something close to a reasonable consensus anyway. Addhoc 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But discussion at WP:N didn't relate back to here at all - when was anyone who pays attention to this page invited to take part if it was going to directly influence it. And if you want to start simply counting heads, then you can add Theron and MrFityx or whatever to my side, plus the year plus of guidance this has given. This is silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm on anyone's side, really. Jeff is correct, however, to change the music policy you need to build consensus on THIS PAGE. WP:N does not automatically trump other policies. That said, I think WP:N should apply to musicians and ensembles as well as composers and lyricists. What is being called the "central criterion" here, however, is not an accurate reflection of WP:N. For starters, at WP:N it is now called the "primary notability criterion". Another problem I see is the added devaluation of university newspapers--this does not come from WP:N nor WP:RS, but is given here as part of the "central criterion"? Third, I think this page's attempt to clarify "non-trivial", misses the mark. For example, an interview in a major media source should be non-trivial, but this criteria indicates otherwise for "publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves..."

Why don't we use this talk page to find more acceptable language rather than to make claims about head counts for our revert wars? -MrFizyx 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never argue that WP:N could trump any policy, and I don't think any guideline ever could. The dispute here, however, is not WP:N trumping a policy, it's about WP:N trumping its own sub-guidelines! The "dispute" here strikes me as arguing whether a person "trumps" his or her own hand, and of course they do. The hand can't somehow act in a way that's separate and detached from the person's body. It's the same here-we should be trying to tell people "These are some circumstances under which you are likely to be able to find reliable and sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N", not "These are circumstances under which you are exempt from providing enough coverage to satisfy WP:N, or should create an article even if you know you can't." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:N already contradicts most of the guidelines it points to, and is not currently accurate in its wording anyway. Most "notability" guidelines fail to share the "primary" criterion, and, again, the consensus that the "primary" criterion is in fact primary is somewhat tenuous anyway. WP:N does nopt have the same history that the individual guidelines do, and there's no suggestion that a) WP:N is "higher" than the individual ones, or b) that anyone's attempting to depreciate these at this point. Thus, when someone sees an AfD for a musician, they're not going to look at WP:N, but WP:MUSIC, which is the overriding guideline for musicians. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

One problem with Seraphimblade's analogy is that the various "arms" of wikipedia have operated for some time independently and we are not being informed at to what the "head" has been up to. Also, as Jeff notes the wording of WP:N need not be interpreted as dominant. -MrFizyx 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This guideline provides possible alternate methods of being notable without being covered in multiple non-trivial publications. It is definitely possible for something to not satisfy the latter but still be a reasonable article topic, for instance NASA logo or some of the smaller Rambot settlement stubs, which are only covered as "trivial" mentions alongside other similar topics in maps or lists. And of course there's the overused example of Pokemon. --NE2 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with you on the subject of NASA logo; it wasn't remotely difficult to find a few sources. If your suggesting the approach taken by the current version of WP:N is likely to encourage minor Pokemon articles to be merged until they actually have some reliable sources, then I honestly don't see a problem. Addhoc 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so that wasn't a great example. There are certainly ones out there; an article can be reasonable yet not meet the definition of notability given in WP:N. --NE2 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Jordanhill railway station? As far as I can tell, all of those sources are "trivial", in that they are not about the station itself but about the system or about Jordanhill. --NE2 14:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I partially agree with you on this. I gather this is what TheronJ meant, that in some cases there can be enough reliable sources to write a decent article. Personally, however I don't see a problem, we are only talking about a guideline. Addhoc 14:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Only talking about a guideline" which wants to be the deciding factor on what's "notable" for inclusion. If you start making exceptions in those areas, the validity is lost entirely. I brought up Mom and Dad as an example at WP:N - it does not meet the guideline in any way shape or form, although it's arguably the most important movie of its genre - it's not the subject of multiple, non-trivial works, instead getting mentions in a variety of greater works. The "primary" criterion is a failure in that regard, and it's why it rightfully points to the subject-specific guidelines - they handle what's "notable" for a specific subject better than assuming that "notability" has to extend beyond verifiability. A band that's toured extensively, but is only featured in group articles is "notable" and verifiable, but does not meet the new criteria - it means that this severely weakens the ability to include "notable" artists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, NASA logo is an excellent example - it is not "the subject of multiple, non-trivial works" independent of its subject as currently written. Encyclopedic topic? Absolutely. "Notable?" Without question. Meets the "primary" criterion? Nope. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff and I have actually been (for once) in agreement on changing WP:N, and it appears the change may be able to find consensus-instead of "multiple non-trivial sources", simply change it to "sufficient reliable secondary source material." Of course, we'd still have to determine "sufficient for what", but I think this would solve a lot of problems. Something on which tons of reliable information is available but has never been covered as a central subject, something that's been the subject of multiple "blurbs" that treat the subject as central but provide little information and basically repeat each other shouldn't. I think that would solve many of these concerns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

refocus on music criteria

I feel like the examples of NASA logo, Jordanhill railway station, and Pokemon are getting us off the subject. Name some musician/ensembles or composer/lyricists that are notable under WP:MUSIC and yet might not meet the primary criterion as stated at WP:N. I feel that WP:MUSIC criteria should now be explicit as to when/how/why/if exceptions to WP:N need be made. My view is that albums by notable artists are a reasonable exception, but the artists themselves should probably be able to meet WP:N in nearly all cases. -MrFizyx 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My favorite example are members of the Elephant Six Collective. Arguably one of the more noteworthy independent rock collectives of the late 1990s, most, if not all, of their acts are "notable", although many of them aren't going to garnish much in the way of media attention, especially if they're involved in other more well-known bands. The Gerbils struggle to meet this standard, although Neutral Milk Hotel doesn't, even though they share members. The Essex Green doesn't have a problem, but The Sixth Great Lake most likely does. I haven't done as much hard research into these the way I have some of the other examples I've brought up, but the point is that a) they are "notable," and b) they don't meet the new criteria. We shouldn't have to make exceptions when the old version served us well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This search appears to indicate there are plenty of sources available... Addhoc 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For the collective, sure, absolutely. For the individual bands, not as much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the standard wiki procedure would be to redirect the individual bands to the collective article, if they are not notable sufficiently on their own. Stirling Newberry 18:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that we should be specific about when an exception should be made, but also about how-which, in 99.9% of cases like Jeff brings up, would be "Create redirects and merge as necessary to an umbrella article until and unless enough sources are available for individual ones." It should be a very, very rare case that an article that doesn't pass WP:N is allowed, and any argument for those rare cases could simply be made by an individual's reasoning on the basis of WP:IAR, which would lead to the appropriate level of evaluation and scrutiny. What we shouldn't be saying is "Sufficient secondary sources are required unless the subject is a pro athlete, or had a gold record, or is listed on a stock index, or received a webcomic award, or it's a Pokemon character, or a high school, or...". If we're going to carve out exceptions, that raises a very important question: How do we carve out exceptions for some things but not others while avoiding systemic bias? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But redirects and merges aren't helpful, neither is having to rely on IAR when we're completely capable of making a useful guideline. It's probably not as rare as you think to have an article that doesn't meet WP:N, because it's so absurdly strict. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All Music Guide entries for The Gerbils, Neutral Milk Hotel, The Essex Green, and The Sixth Great Lake provide a starting off point for articles on the individual bands. Surely someone with knowledge of the genre can locate another article or two on each. -MrFizyx 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Sixth Great Lake" for example has reviews in several on-line publications (PopMattersFakeJazzSplendidZine). Shouldn't doing the "hard research" be part of the process of creating an article? -MrFizyx 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

AllMusic is not all that much of anything for a starting point, and traditionally has not conferred "Notability". Splendid, great, I never would have bothered there, but I didn't think PopMatters would qualify either, given the history. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

History? I dunno, it seems these would provide enough sources to meet WP:N even if they didn't offer everything you would desire for the article. This is certianly suggested at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Resources. Are you saying these are usually devalued in AfD? I have not seen this. -MrFizyx 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, to be fair, I haven't been involved in any contentious music-related AfDs, either, so things may have actually adjusted themselves properly since then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to old version

The "it is important if someone chatters about it" version is not acceptable in any shape manner or form. The basis for inclusion should be notable and verifiable accomplishments, whether or not the chattering classes choose to chatter. A band that charts, even if people don't write about them, is verifiably notable. Of course the article must still consist of acceptable sources - and self published sources almost never qualify already. Stirling Newberry 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stirling, I won't comment on your class war analysis, apart from reminding you that consensus determines the guideline. Addhoc 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stirling, Lets try not to get too hypothetical. Can you give some examples of artists with charted hits for which "nothing" has been written? -MrFizyx 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just writing about Jaroslav Volek - about whom almost nothing has been written in English, and only one article explaining his theories - by a student of them, which, under these guidelines would not qualify. And yet, he is cited by several peer reviewed journals. Since these aren't articles about him, but articles which cite him, they don't meet the standard either.

Further this guideline does not have consensus. This is not an article which can be "held" by simple reversion, it claims to have broad support, when it does not. Further the people shoving this version through seem to be ignorant, at least, about the history of the guideline - which was just being discussed and editted a few months ago. Nor were the people involved in that last round contacted and asked whether they felt it to be a good idea.

This round of the guidelines is being pushed through in a disrespectful, dishonest and uncivil manner, and inviolation of wikipolicy which demands consensus - not revert ganging - for guidelines.

Stirling Newberry 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that the external links that you provide in the Jaroslav Volek article would likely meet the criteria in WP:N. Two sources look to be a fairly in-depth articles from conference proceedings, probably not peer-reviewed, but I'm not certian that this is required. The second is in Czech which leaves me at a loss, but does not mean that it is not a relaible source. I think the intention of several editors here is to see criteria that require there to be at least some minimal amount of verifiable information to be available before an article is created.

I and others here may be ignorant of some of some of the history these criteria. Your tone, however, and assumption that nearly every other editor is somehow acting in bad faith seems to be out of line. -MrFizyx 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, as a some time member of the "chattering classes" your accusation of my engaging in class warfare is absurd. People write articles for all sorts of reasons, and there are many examples of conflict of interest in decisions to write, or not write, about an individual, event or movement. Proximity to people with a byline may be helpful to producing notability, but it is not, by any means, reliable as a chief criterion, simply because the provenance of current articles is impossible to verify, and therefore outside of wikipolicy on what articles can be based upon. It cannot be verified, in the present, why someone wrote about someone, and therefore cannot be a criterion, because there is no verifiable way for someone else to dispute it.

Stirling Newberry 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is going on with all the reverts? The guidline has been destroyed. Its not even the same as it was before all this started. I'm now going to be bold and revert the artist notability section back a couple of weeks until we've decided exactly what we're going to do, at least this is generally accepted. Please discuss here before making any further reverts RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Guidelines should not be unilaterally changed, when there is contention. Consensus needs to be achieved through talk first of all. Tyrenius 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Stirling_Newberry, you wrote: A band that charts, even if people don't write about them, is verifiably notable. Charts where? How high? And for how long? I fail to see how positions on various charts constitute more reliable sources than do multiple nontrivial CD or gig reviews. Chart methodologies (which involve variously weighted criteria such as Soundscan data, retail shipments/returns comparisons, radio airplay, not to mention the transformation of music biz metrics in the light of digital distribution...!) can vary as significantly as do critics' methodologies for choosing what gets reviewed and what doesn't. While I think charting can be used to help make the case for Notability, I don't think it constitutes Notability in isolation from other factors.--Jeandjinni 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• For "notability?" You'd better believe it's more useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But I don't believe that. Not at all. Am I to believe that charts, which base their evaluations on (1) radio airplay (which is as a matter of routine gamed in North America through independent promotion, and anyway mostly owned by a horizontally and vertically integrated oligopoly of a small and shrinking number of companies) and (2) distributor-sales-before-returns (which are the dominant factors in the calculus of Billboard and other well-known charts) use a reliable, objective methodology for determining what is musically Notable or non-notable? To argue this would be absurd. I could argue that charts are completely devoid of informational value outside of certain business circles, but I'm not even going that far here. I'm merely arguing that charts are as subjective as music criticism, and as such their utility for determining Notability is only persuasive - and not conclusive, as Stirling claimed. There's nothing controversial or novel about what I'm saying. The subjectivity and bias of mainstream pop music charts have been the subject of peer reviewed studies for several decades.--Jeandjinni 04:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • They may be subjective and biased in compilation, but they're one of the best arbiters we have of popularity and of breadth of exposure. An airplay chart, even if adds are done on a crappy basis, still tell us how often a song is played and thus heard. Even if it's sales-before-returns, it's telling us how many copies are sold out there. It's excellent raw data, perhaps better than a record review or whether a band toured. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • To be precise, sales-before-returns (or "shipments", a measurement relied on in RIAA figures) is not an accurate reflection of retail sales, as it only accounts for orders from distributors (and does not account for the massive amounts of unsold merchandise later returned, ultimately, back to the record labels from which they came). Soundscan is more accurate, but also biased insofar as it doesn't reflect music sales outside its data collection system (indie retail, some global markets, many online digital distributors). Regardless, I'm in agreement with you, badlydrawnjeff, that charts should be used as a criterion for Notability (even though the relevance of traditional chart methodologies is fading fast). But surely you can agree it shouldn't be used as a decisive criterion for notability on its own? As I asked before, charted where? At what position? For how long?--Jeandjinni 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure, some caveats are important, but as a basic, broad standard, it's probably as objective as you can get. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted changes for discussion

As these changes were not placed here by the person who reverted them for discussion, I am placing them. I would ask everyone to refrain from allegations of "bad faith", regardless of what side (s)he is on-there has been significant support for this change in many areas, the guideline was changed to this for quite some time, and I don't believe that the person who made them acted in bad faith in any way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He's going further back than what was consenusally agreed to, but he is right that the latest updates are being rammed through, although I don't believe it's in bad faith. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a central discussion here. I've certainly seen no consensus to remove these changes, many of which are months old, but hopefully discussing them at one place will develop a consensus one way or the other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should worry about getting the consensus here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, merely a small number of editors running a revert war. More over, it is a bad faith revert war with lies in edit summaries in defense of patently absurd guidelines. Since you refuse to abide by the basic conscept that guidellines must be able to maintain consensus - that is broad agreement with no important parties unwilling to join, but ar einstead attempting by revert force to impose your ideas, ideas which do not stand scrutiny in a rational way, there are no guidelines. Clearly you don't agree with the old ones enough to abide by them, fine - consensus requires everyone be on board. But likewise, you cannot, by temporary wikicracy impose your views. Stirling Newberry 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hatta Scandal and why the imposed guidelines are errant nonsense, complete foolishness and beneath contempt

Since we are in edit war I will be blunt. The guidelines a few editors are trying to impose here are complete garbage. They so wrong as to be laughable. A good example of why is the Hatta scandal from classical music. Hatta was a pianist whose career was cut short in the 1970's because of cancer. And yet she released a stream of records on her husbands label, a few well placed critics, including at the Guardian UK, created a cult of her reputation, despite the fact that she did not tour, and no on could verify even that the performances in question had happened. It turns out at that a significant number of the recordings released were plagarized - perhaps the majority since everyone that has been checked has turned out to be plagarized. In some cases rather obviously so.

Under these guidelines, until a couple of weeks ago, Hatta - despite no tours, no airplay and no sales of any significance since the 1970s - would be "teh most important pianist Britain has ever produced".

The reality is that the world of music journalism is rife with conflict of interest, inacccuracy, attempts to create cult status as part of a PR campaign and so on. These guidelines would allow a few well placed music journalists, with some back door payments, to create a "notable" artist without that attending musical accomplishments, and would make what these music journalists say more important than verifiable accomplishments. This is why the original guidelines focused on things that are hard to fake, and if faked can be debunked. Where as the myth of Hatta has been going on for years.

The absolute absurdity of making POV sources - because critics are POV tertiary sources, and not secondary sources - into the standard of notability is hazardous, illogical, irrational, dangerous, unencyclopediac and opens the door to the ability to deliberately manipulate wikipedia by simply working a few people at a cocktail party.

Decisions on wikipedia must be by verifiable means. We cannot verify critics claims, merely document them if they are some how about someone who has verifiable accomplishment.

Again, these guidelines do not have consensus, they are being revert warred into place, and they sink so far beneath the level of rationality that they are completely unacceptable, nor is there any basis for discussion going forward at the present time.

Stirling Newberry 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

hit on any national music chart footnote

We currently have:

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.[footnote 3]

...

Note 3: There are, at present, no precise definitions of a "small", "medium" or "large" country in this context. However, a very limited definition of "small" will generally be used, excluding only a few of the world's smallest countries.

I think the note has become unassociated with the text it refers to, somehow. Can somebody who knows what it's supposed to be attached to fix it? JulesH 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed to remove Note 3 from the chart item (criterion #1). Note 3 still applies to the touring item (criterion #3), mainly because there still seemed to be no consensus as to what constitutes a notable tour. Dl2000 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking ahead

So a lot has changed the last few weeks with this guideline, and most notably (heh) the "primary" criterion has changed over at WP:N. Since there are numerolus disputes both concerning the "primary" criterion and the wording of this guideline here, I think it's worth covering the recent changes:

• The "primary" criterion has changed to the "common" criteron to reduce confusion over the word "primary," and reflect that the criterion is simply shared amongst many guidelines at WP:N.

• The wording has changed from "multiple, independent, non-trivial" to a more concise and descriptive definition: "A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article."

As there is a desire to have the common criterion expand across, in the interests of this and in the interests of gaining consensus, do we want to change our initial wording as well to reflect the "sufficient, independent works" wording? I think it's more accurate and addresses the concerns of a few editors who worry about the direction this guideline has been heading. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I should think yes. We ought to change the wording here. I don't have an issue with dropping the "non-trivial" adjective. I also like the flexibility that "common" implies. Moreso than the hierarchical term "primary" it acknowledges the need to reconcile general Notability policies with subject-specific Notability guidelines.--Jeandjinni 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Musicians - artists or not?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(artists)#Overlapping_with_similar_guidelines where I raised the issue of whether that proposal should include musicians (by copying parts of this proposal) or should it be limited to fine arts only.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bootleg albums - notable, not notable, or need independent sources?

The guideline currently says that albums are notable if their band is notable. However, I stumbled across this article: Tales from the n9ne - a bootleg from Tech N9ne. The band is clearly notable .... but is the bootleg? And if yes - why? --Alvestrand 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of a few areas where our very simple guideline for albums does not offer much help. My opinion is that if the bootleg/demo tape/whatever is frequently included by reliable sources as being part of the discography of a notable artist, then it is notable enough for a page. If it is not usually listed as part of Tech N9ne's discography then it should assert it's own notability (e.g. via general criteria such as WP:N). Again, this is just one man's opinion. -MrFizyx 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On the specific one mentioned, It really should be deleted. All it is, a collection of featured songs found on other artists albums as well as unreleased (leaked) material. There is nothing official about this, less official then if I created a mix CD of my favorite 2Pac songs. Then again, that's only my opinion.

They couldn't even get it right either, "Deamons" is actually "Trauma" from one of his earlier releases. Lol. If this one is left up, then why not add the slew of other bootlegs that fans have created from his music? Such as "Planet Rock 3000", "From Here & There" & "Neverready" among others. Mizery Made 09:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note on albums

I added the following sentence to the Albums section:

However, as an organizational guideline, unless the article on the artist is already very long, it may be better to merge the album information to the artist's article.

Please discuss (and revert if needed). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:52Z

I have one problem with that; what establishes very long? In my opinion, very long would be a brief introductory sentence, infobox, tracklisting, and maybe credits. If that isn't very long, surely it would be way too long to incorporate into the artist's article? Unless the article is the barest of stubs with maybe one release... --Dane ^~nya 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Article size, articles are considered to be longer than advisable if they are over 32 KB of total text (i.e., what you see in edit mode). This is not a hard and fast rule, but some older browsers have difficulty displaying a page more than 32 KB long. So, if a merge will result in an article less than 32 KB long, the merge is appropriate in terms of size. Any article that is much more than 32 KB in length is a candidate for splitting, if the topic allows an easy split. -- Donald Albury 15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points Dane nya and Donald Albury. I've added a link to Wikipedia:Article size. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 21:13Z

Against it. I strongly prefer to have separate album articles. Albums usually consist of lists (of tracks, credits, etc) and infobox and this messes up the articles flow, especially when there are more than one album which is the case in most musician/band articles. Besides what is the problem with having them as separate articles anyway. Spearhead 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. If there are more than one album, which one gets inclusion into the main article? --Dane ^~nya 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All, of course. Until the article gets too long, at which point it would be split into individual album articles. Same reason that we don't have a separate article on every single ever released by a notable artist... —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 02:54Z

Also against it. This is good advice for a few cases, but not in general. Also, it seems that any new guidelines regarding how to organize an album article and a music biography should also have some discussion on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (and maybe also Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians) where general advice is given on such matters. -MrFizyx 17:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Album/single reviews

There seems to be some confusion about whether a review of an artist's latest album/single is classed as a non-trivial published work. In my opinion it shouldn't, for the sole reason that there are thousands and thousands of sites out there that will review music that gets sent to them. If such reviews are classed as a non-trivial published work then any artist that has been reviewed on more than three sites can be classed as meeting the guideline. One Night In Hackney 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: What do you call a published non-trivial piece of writing that analyzes the artistic and musical qualities of a sound recording? ... Answer: a review.

Certainly reviews published in printed magazines and newspaper and most of their on-line counterparts are non-trivial. I would also count reviews collected on the personal web site of a professional journalist or radio host. There are certianly trivial reviews out there too. Reviews posted on blogs or by users of sites such Amazon.com or Epinions.com, don't meet the threshold required by Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and are pretty much junk. I would also diregard anything published by a site whose primary purpose is to sell you CD's (e.g. CD Baby, etc.).

I think you overestimate the ease with which one is able to obtain independent reviews. Writers and editors pick and choose and in most cases I think only fairly small fraction of what gets submitted gets a published review.

Reviews are important sources for any album article as the various viewpoints in those secondary sources allow editors to discuss the album from a neutral point of view. -MrFizyx 17:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't overestimate the ease with which one is able to obtain independent reviews, and even if I did it isn't relevant to the point I'm making. While it isn't easy to obtain a review in a large widely distributed music magazine, it is relatively easy to obtain a review on the many sites that exist to by and large review music. As I stated earlier, there are thousands of these sites, and all it takes to meet notability criteria is to get three of them to review you. A "piece of writing that analyzes the artistic and musical qualities of a sound recording" isn't generally speaking much use as source material, as opposed to an article about the artist rather than a review of an album. One Night In Hackney 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, educate me a bit. Name a few of the "thousands and thousands of sites out there" whose policy is something like "will review any CD submitted" and arguably meets the guideline for reliable sources. Then maybe I can better understand your concerns. -MrFizyx 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK how about this site you recently cited in an AfD? For the record I'm aware it wasn't the only one provided, others were much better. The site states "We try to review every cd sent to us", and to me the site seems to be little more than a fansite, as opposed to a professional magazine or website. Or how about this site which is used in many articles yet states "Prospective writers should be aware that all contributions to the site are made on a voluntary (unpaid) basis for both tax reasons and overhead costs of running such a large website"? Perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation of the guideline, but I see it as setting the bar slightly higher than a few reviews. My interpretation is that if three music journalists (or other reliable sources) have chosen to proactively write an article about an artist the artist is notable, whereas someone reviewing a CD they have been sent is reactive. One Night In Hackney 06:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Well, I can see that I for one don't share your concerns. Maybe other editors do. I will conceed that in terms of credibility, the reference to punkbands.com was the weakest of the four sources that I offered in the debate of The Concubine article, but it was also the one which offered the most biting criticism of their album. Also, below the statement in their FAQ that you quote, "We try to review every cd sent to us." Is another that statement that reads, "If it doesn't get reviewed... sorry."

I also feel that you are quoting rapreviews.com out of context when the more relevant statement on that FAQ page is: "As you're probably aware, hundreds of rap albums are released per year. Some weeks between indie and major labels as many as 10-12 new albums can come out at one time. This is simply too much for any crew of volunteers, no matter how vigilant, to cover. We do our best to cover most of the important and a lot of the independent albums, but some things do slip through the cracks. A polite inquiry coupled with a request for coverage is the most effective. Indignant mail screaming 'y'all haters' for not covering an album will be ignored."

Editors can decide on a case by case basis whether sources like these meet their threshold for non-triviality. Some editors will dismiss these particular sites while others will see value in their criticism. I think they would just barely cut it for me (and I must admit the fact that they appear to use solely volunteer journalists counts against them). If these two are among the worst of the "thousands and thousands" then I'm not too concerned. And, to suggest that a few bad examples are grounds for dismissing reviews in general seems unreasonable. -MrFizyx 07:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with One Night In Hackney. I fail to see how an album being reviewed by a few web sites establishes notability. I would be interested in seeing how many released albums have not been reviewed by at least three web sites. If, as I suspect, almost every released album manages to get reviewed somewhere, then such reviews are not useful for establishing notability. -- Donald Albury 20:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that if the reviewing source hasn't demonstrated sufficient notability to have a Wikipedia article (i.e., meet the requirements of WP:V, WP:N, etc.), then any review published within that source should be considered inappropriate for WP:MUSIC notability purposes. Such should fall under "trivial coverage". -- Scientizzle 04:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject into this discussion. Doesn't WP:RS essentially cover this issue? A review on a website which anyone can post (essentially a discussion forum or blog) is not a reliable source. A review issued by a professional website (and not by a random member of the site) is reliable. Does this distinction help? -- Black Falcon 06:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Black Falcon. The standard for Wikipedia sources is WP:RS, not that the sources themselves have articles. If required all sources to have articles we would unreasonably be limiting ourselves. Anyone who thinks reviews are unrelated to notability might spend some time browsing through some sites that have made an art out of analyzing them like Metacritic.com or AcclaimedMusic.net. -MrFizyx 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Points well-taken. If Black Falcon's & MrFizyx's statements are taken to their logical conclusion, I should amend my "if the reviewing source hasn't demonstrated sufficient notability to have a Wikipedia article..." clause to say: "If the reviewing source hasn't demonstrated sufficient notability to justify a Wikipedia article of its own (whether that article has been written or not), as per WP:V, WP:RS & WP:N, then then any review published within that source should be considered inappropriate for WP:MUSIC notability purposes." -- Scientizzle 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I worry that that will raise more problems than it will solve. The notability of a source has nothing to do with its reliability. An obscure academic article on quantum mechanics may be very reliable, but certainly not notable to receive its own WP article. Conversely, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq is notable, but he is not a reliable source regarding Coalition casualties in Iraq. I agree that music reviews from unreliable sources should not be counted toward establishing the notability of bands/albums, but the reliability of sources is not contingent on (changing) WP guidelines. -- Black Falcon 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I wouldn't consider the two example sites I provided to be the worst examples of such sites, just they adequately demonstrated what I believe the problems with sites of that nature is. Firstly they try and review everything they are sent, so a review by such a site should not be used as an indicator of notability. Secondly they are not professional journalists, they are fans and volunteers. So perhaps a better question from me would be - should sites that cannot be shown to be professionally run with a proven editorial policy be classed as reliable sources? One Night In Hackney 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is something that you need to consider case by case. To put Balck Falcon's "al-Qaida" analogy into context, it may well be that the amature journalist at punkbands.com are better equipped to give an infromed commentary on a death metal band than the paid staff of a major media outlet. Their articles do, however, deserve more scrutiny. In the case where I cited them (see discussion above) their album review was written with an appropriate tone and correlated well with points made in reviews of the same album elsewhere while going into more depth on other points. If you were to read the reviews blind to their context you could not easily guess the source. They also offered a level of criticism that clearly demonstrated independence from the subject. For these reasons and others I would say yes, their reveiw is a non-trivial, reliable source for an article on The Concubine.

Keep in mind that no one of these sites alone is going to be sufficient enough to support an article. And keep in mind that sites like punkbands.com and rapreviews.com are not likely to have any overlapping coverage of the same albums and neither of them is going to cover something like celtic music. I'm convinced that there are recent notable albums with little or no reviews online (although I'd need to do a bit of research to provide good examples). -MrFizyx 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Distributors equal to Major Labels

The WP:BAND says that a notable band or artist has to have released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

• Change Releasing a record on Major Distributors such as Catapult and CD Baby should be equal to releasing on a Major Label. Why? Some of the indie music industry's most notable artist cannot be included in Wikipedia because of that UNFAIR and RIDICULOUS standard. Indie music is just as notable as Major music. Releasing your own music and having success should be notable. Davidcarter biowriter 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are confused. Just because an artist uses CDBaby or Catapult Digital Distribution does not mean that they cannot have a Wikipedia page. The artist's notabiliy, however, must be asserted by some other means. Seeing as these two companies offer their services to anyone with $35 and a dream, simply releasing your music through one of these companies is not an indication of notability. -MrFizyx 01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite right. CDBaby is a musical version of a vanity press, which other notability guidelines reject as sufficient assertion of notability in the absence of meeting other criteria. -- Scientizzle 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

National Charts

The definition of national chart may need amending. I think that there is acceptable notability in the Texas Music Charts. Bands like Randy Rogers, Jack Ingram, Jarrod Birmingham, and Stoney Larue have all made their impact in the Texas Country music scene. Jarrod's wiki has dissappeared and Stoney's looks on the verge of being removed. These artists travel the same Texas scene as Kevin Fowler and deserve notability for charting number 1 on the Texas Music Charts. The Texas Music Charts are compiled by hundreds of stations in Texas and Olkahoma (including Clear Channel) that report to them the number of spins-per-week an artist gets. What does everyone else think??? Lancemurphy 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Ingram & Stoney Larue have articles, while Randy Rogers & Jarrod Birmingham do not (and their logs[3] [4] don't show a deletion). I checked out the site for the Texas Music Charts, and it covers about 80 stations. The methodology is different (they "retire" songs after 15 weeks at #1); the chart covers only Texas/Red Dirt country music. I'd have no qualms about an assertion of notability using the Texas Music Charts, but I'd guess that such a claim on its own may not prove enough without additional evidence of meeting some other criteria. The big problem I see with the Texas Music Charts wbsite: I couldn't find an archive of past charts. Maybe I'm just missing it, and/or maybe it's in print form in papers or magazines, but if it's not, then that might prohibit effective use of the chart. -- Scientizzle 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Chances are, if they've reached enough importance for multiple showings on a local chart (and a statewide chart really is local), they'd meet another criteria. I think national is a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this qualify as notable?

If a musician was nominated for MOBO award (Music Of Black Origin) but did not win that category, are they worthy of a Wikipedia entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tilefish (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I've never heard of that award. What is the organization that offers it? -MrFizyx 08:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MOBO Awards. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If the number of nominees are quite few, I think this award could make a partial case for notability (it appears to have national/international recognition). It would be better, however, if the artist also met one or more other criteria (my impression is that in this case, they probably would). -MrFizyx 07:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• If they are nominated then it should be easy to find multiple non-trivial independent sources. If such sources canot be found, then they are not notable. Easy :-) Guy (Help!) 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They'd be considered "notable," but may not survive an AfD if the sources aren't there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question re: notability

I'm going through dead end pages and came across Surprise, Surprise (Sweet Bird of Paradox), a John Lennon song from the Walls and Bridges album. The bulk of the article is some chick relating how JL wrote this song for her after their first boink. My question is, Does every song on every album by even the most notable musician get its own entry? I can see this anecdote possibly being a trivia entry on the album article, but its own article??? Thnx -killing sparrows 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I replaced the article with a redirect to Walls and Bridges. Lets see whether or not someone decides to reverse this. -MrFizyx 08:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thnx, is there a policy on individual song notability? -killing sparrows 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. I also copied the source link on "Surprise, Surprise" into the Walls... album page, there was already mention of the story there. There has been a proposal on songs at Wikipedia:Notability (songs), but discussion on this seems to have died down a while back. -MrFizyx 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixtapes

What about the notability of mixtapes? Some bands seem to produce massive amounts of these, and they don't seem to be considered as part of the official discography (and don't chart either). See e.g. So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12), which was previously deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12), redeleted as recreated content, but is now "improved" by adding that it is made by a multi-platinum selling rap group... Is this enough to establish notability? I would say no, but more input is welcome. Fram 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. At first glance it looks like an archive of some DJ's weekly radio show. The All Music Guide does catalog some of these mix tapes (Parts 1-5 and 19), but doesn't review any of them and only provides the track list for one or two. I'd have to look into this some more. Does anyone write about mix tapes? -MrFizyx 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also 6 being sold in iTunes Music. Spellcast 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The question lies in what the album guidelines actually say. And currently, it says albums are allowed if it's by notable artists. If these deserve deletion, I think the album guidelines should first be made more clear, otherwise it's a battle of which personal view is most common, and in a popularity contest, the majority would win despite not having an actual policy to back it up. If they get removed, then why not the mixtapes by Kanye West, The Game, and Eminem? Spellcast 07:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct to a point. The album guideline does indicate notable artist -> notable albums, and G-Unit certianly appear to be notable. However, what if there are no reliable sources that even bother to list things like So Seductive as part of their body of work? Then I would say that the mix tapes don't necessarily have the same standing as studio albums and may fall under general criteria (e.g. WP:N). -MrFizyx 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please evaluate

Kater Fritz, The Jeopards. I am not an expert in music. BTW, is there a place I can post such notices? I don't want to go right to AfD. `'mikka 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kater Fritz seems borderline at first glance, I'm sure some effort could be found for a second source, and it's probably safe to assume they've toured internationally. The Jeopards isn't looking nearly as strong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My standards are somewhat different than Jeff's... I would consider Kater Fritz a borderline case based on the apparent fact that they haven't released anything beyond one demo, and would consider the Jeopards a speedy-A7. I mean, no assertion of having actually done anything, and their website is on myspace for crying out loud. Anyway, a good place to post such is probably PROD (e.g. add "{{subst:prod|add your reason here}}" to the top of the article). >Radiant< 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after a bit of searching I have to agree. I think it would be hard to make a case for either of those articles. I'm going to add a {{notability}} tag to each of these pages while you decide whether or not you want to prod/AfD either of them. -MrFizyx 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[EC]

I'm more in line with Radiant, Kater Fritz is certainly prod-worthy, citing only a German-language source (the link appears to be broken...) and having not released an actual album. The Jeopards is totally speediable. Prod's a good way to go. -- Scientizzle 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientizzle beat me by adding the tags first. -MrFizyx 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My standards reflect this guideline, nothing less. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I do know about PROD. I happened to notice that Jeopards are being actively edited by a fan, so I doubted the PROD tag will survive. `'mikka 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern about WP:Music

My article about the singer Mark Klein (singer) is up for deletion, but I don't think I broke the rules of the guidelines. 1, because in order to prove a musician's notablity, the musician must have outside sources other than the musician's website, right. And two, Klein is a member of a legendary, notable supergroup called The Boogie Kings, who have been performing since the 1950s! Another of the guidelines is that a musician must be part of band that is notable, right? If I knew Mark wasn't notable, I wouldn't put him up here! I'm just a little upset that I thought I followed the rules and someone goes ahead to try to delete it without even checking the rules! Can someone tell me why Mr. Klein is NOT notable to them? Fanficgurl March 21 2007 11:36 (UTC)

Yet again, somebody has flagged a music-related article for Speedy Deletion where the alleged criteria for doing so (A7) do not exist in the article. The article does assert Notability. If an admin questions the Notability of the content, it should be AfD instead.--Jeandjinni 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To both, improperly CSD tagged articles will likely be evaluated and not deleted by an admin if it properly asserts notability. It can never hurt, however, to place a {{hangon}} and make it abundantly clear on the talk page that there is a clear assertion. It's an imperfect system, of course, but it generally works. When it doesn't work, I'd encourage you to bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Most of all, though, this really isn't a discussion about WP:MUSIC, but belongs more on the talk page for WP:CSD. WP:MUSIC notability becomes relevant in proposed deletetion and articles for deletion, but the details and sourcing of notability aren't nearly important as the assertion of said notability when it comes to speedy tags. -- Scientizzle 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan club CDs?

I was going to nominate Unplugged in Boston for deletion, but I was unsure about it because the band is notable. However, it's just a fan club CD, of which there are few (if any others) articles for on Wikipedia. Plus, it's not even on AMG, so it's not notable enough, right? Adamravenscroft 10:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards letting it stay if it can be sourced as "only available through the fanclub at this time". If it's a release endorsed by Megadeth themselves, it would probably survive an AfD... — Scientizzle 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

College a cappella groups

Whoever looks at list of collegiate a cappella groups will find substantial precedent for judging those according to different standards from those applied to other musicians. The reason seems to be that even if they are not notable as musicians, they are nonetheless notable for other reasons: that a cappella groups at a university are included within the particular culture of that university. In particular, at MIT there is far more interest in music among the students than at nearly all other institutions not devoted primarily to music or to the fine arts.

Given the precedent, as seen at list of collegiate a cappella groups, I think it should be mentioned on this policy page that this page is not the ONLY standard by which to judge notability of such groups. Michael Hardy 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Charts

I think "any national music chart" needs to be better defined. It's not clear what a national music chart is. Since there are no countries (okay, maybe some communist states do) with an e.g. Ministry of Popular Music that compiles its nation's music chart, it's not clear what charts qualify. "Any" would seem to suggest that the definition is fairly broad, but maybe that means "any nation" not "any nationwide chart of a nation".

For example, MuchMusic is a nationwide Canadian music channel. Does its weekly chart qualify as "any national music chart"? Likewise, do the iTunes country-specific charts count? Do genre charts (i.e. U.S. R&B chart) count? Do non-brick-and-mortar-retail charts (e.g. online sales) count? Etc.

If not, how should determining which are the national music chart(s) be done? - 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithTyler (talk • contribs)

Minor criteria

Time after time, I see people arguing that some insignificant band is "notable" because they meet one or two of the minor eleven criteria, even though they have absolutely no independent reliable sources reporting on them, which is the central criteria for notability. I've added the sentence "Though these additional criteria make it more likely that the central criteria is met, by themselves they are not sufficient to establish notability" to the description to avoid this wikilawyering. -- THF 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember a single case where a band's article has been deleted through Afd, despite the band having released 2+ full-length albums on a notable label ("minor" criterion #4), as long as verifiability has not been a problem. Therefore, your change does not seem to reflect current practice and since it does not have consensus here either, I have reverted it. Prolog 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The section needs to be rewritten. If Criterion #4 is, by itself, sufficient, that needs to be stated. I don't think it is, unless Criteria 4 is rewritten: we have some really insignificant independent labels have one band hit it big, which makes them notable, and then that bootstraps all the non-notable bands that signed with that label to notability retroactively. That doesn't seem to make sense. -- THF 14:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

General notability guideline template

Since the general notability guideline is central to most sub-pages, someone came up with the idea of creating a centralized template which will be consistent among the permutations from WP:N. Please see whether we can make this work here. The text is meant to be fairly generic, but it may make sense to add text following the template for fine tuning, or help us to make the template more applicable if it is not reflecting the consensus for notability. I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, but I'm very happy to see the compromises that make this a fairly representive of the attitude of the project. --Kevin Murray 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

PNC tag

Seeing how I don't even see a consensus for the non-tagged version as it currently reads, do people want the {{pnc}} tag here, or do we leave it out? I'm starting the discussion here because the proponents can't be bothered. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If it has enough source information for a good article, but doesn't meet the "PNC", that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. I agree with not including it. --NE2 13:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Include, at least until someone can provide me a legitimate example of a notable musician or band who doesn't meet the PNC criteria. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lind, where a handful of fanboys were able to block a deletion of someone who can't even land a contract and his self-published record because of the WP:MUSIC ambiguities. -- THF 13:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lind seems to make a good example, actually. I'd say a number of the bands in the Elephant Six Collective may, as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Elephant Six satisfies PNC: non-trivial stories by the Boston Globe and Tucson Weekly. I don't see why the non-PNC bands in Elephant Six can't simply be listed in the Elephant Six article. -- THF 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If that article gets too long, we should have the option to split them off. --NE2 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The E6 article is the size of two screens. The only way WP:LENGTH could be implicated was if there were several reliable sources discussing the individual bands--in which case the PNC discussion would also be moot. -- THF 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Include I don't see the problem here. It's a nutshell version of the guideline, it's what most AfDs rely upon, and it's flexible enough: "A notable topic should be the subject..." (rather than "must"). — Scientizzle 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because they don't belong in the E6 article as separate entities. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than opposing a template which brings continuity to the various sections of the notability infrastructure, why not help to develop language at the template which more clearly relfects the consensus. How can we make the template better? --Kevin Murray 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a debate for WP:N and perhaps Template:pnc. I don't see anything in WP:N that indicates that music articles don't need to meet the WP:N criteria. -- THF 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The template discussion should be for the wording, and whether to include the wording here is a discussion for here. WP:N is not superior to this guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, WP:N is superior to WP:MUSIC. All articles have to meet WP:N. Nothing in WP:N says that music articles are exempted. To the extent PNC is accurate, it belongs on all of the notability subpages. -- THF 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

False. WP:N is not superior, there's no cosnensus for it to be superior, and there's no cosnensus here for it to be superior. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose inclusion of the template. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should Include this improvement. --Dragonfiend 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And do include that permastub topics should be merged to the parent. Many topics might merit mention, but don't merit an article. That's also true of many albums I see, especially from bands who just barely scrape by notability themselves. Usually those band articles are hurting for content too, everyone would benefit from a merge of album and band, and the album article is basically "Album X was made by Band Y and contains Tracklist Z." Of course, if there are multiple independent reliable sources covering the album (not just the band who made it) it should probably be separate, but there's been a tremendous amount of confusion with "Albums MUST be in separate articles!" Sourcing is indeed a primary guideline. If secondary sources have not yet seen fit to discuss something, we shouldn't either. If they've only seen fit to barely mention something in passing, we barely mention it in the context of a larger article. It's not our place to correct for perceived biases or problems in sources, just to reflect them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

• For: Minderbinder, Kevin Murray, THF, Seraphimblade, Dragonfiend, Moreschi, Scientizzle
• Against: badlydrawnjeff, NE2

--THF 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On Easter Sunday, on a weekend? I don't think so. Plus, you may want to read the discussion above, where such a wording was rejected earlier - why it's still here, I don't know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another consideration is the apparent consensus at WP:N talk and at the pnc template talk page, for inclusion in the subpages. Whether the notability infrastructure should be treated as one cohesive project remains controversial, but with broad acceptance. I think that this is a more important issue than specific wording. --Kevin Murray 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, what happens at WP:N does not govern what happens here, especially since they've yet to be bothered to make a case here. They cannot say "WP:N is the most important guideline" without getting consensus from the other guidelines first. No one's saying notability should disappear in this discussion - we're saying that an overriding concept may not work, and lacks consensus here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the individual sub-pages are not autonomous organizations with hegemony over a division of knowledge. We are one organization called WP; the measure should be what the broad consensus reflects, in whatever way it is displayed. Since many topics do not fit neatly into one bucket, it is important that the various rules be consistent in standards and application. --Kevin Murray 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, technically speaking, isn't the broad consensus that subject-specific guidelines are what define notability? After all, they all have wide support and are guidelines per consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a stretch. Many of these sub-pages evolved to address specific issues and without broad support, before an attempt was made to centralize the concept at WP:N. That they are mentioned at AfD is only a demonstration that they are recognized, not that they are supported. If your first car was a Yugo, that doesn't mean that you would prefer to drive it today if you now have a superior product in the garage. --Kevin Murray 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

These pages long, long pre-date WP:N as a concept. At no time was WP:N presented to the individual guidelines as a centralization. Furthermore, I may be driving a Yugo, but if you've got a Pinto in the garage, I don't know if I'd be willing to switch. As it stands, WP:N is more like the rusty Ford on cinderblocks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I really can't see what's wrong with the PNC template. Anything to simplify and clarify. the labyrinthine mire of instruction creep that is these subject-specific guideline, such as WP:MUSIC. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that we should be judging anything on whether it's "creep"y as opposed to its relative merits, I don't think notability can be simplified. It's unrealistic to expect, and, again, confuses notability with verifiability. Besides, is it really less creepy to say "a subject can be notable here, but only if it meets this standard first" as opposed to "this is the standard for notability for this subject?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No one sub-guideline inherently presents confusion, it is when they are taken as a whole that the contradictions create problems. Just having a plethora of rules, creates confusion when an editor who is not well versed in wiki-law tries to determine notability etc. Do we want to create a wiki-law infrastructure with prosecution, defense, public defenders, and legal scholars? --Kevin Murray 17:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's confusing - we either create a problematic overbearing guideline with no basis in reality, or say "if you're writing about a musician, check notability on musicians to see if the article's subject is suitable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these have become CREEPy. Yes, I agree, they once served a useful purpose. But before writing any article, we should always ask "What kind of article can be written about this subject? Something more than a directory entry? Something well-sourced from multiple viewpoints? Something with independent sources that aren't potentially biased or self-interested? Something that can one day go into depth on this subject, even if it's a stub today?" Yes, it is harder to ask those questions. Yes, it means fewer articles. It's still a better set of questions then the mechanical "Did this band have two gold records or go on a national tour?" We define notability as having been noted, to a good degree of depth, by reliable, independent sources. I know you define it differently, Jeff, and I'm surprised to see you of all people ignoring the rules (though that is your right), but here, notability doesn't mean "popular" or "well-known", it means "an in-depth, NPOV, well-sourced article can be written on this subject from independent sourcing." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what rules I'm ignoring. One of the things we should ask is "what kind of article can be written. The other is "Even if I can write this article, is it appropriate." And vice versa, the two are separate. We define notability by various benchmarks depending on the subject, similar to how the real world does it. Around here, notability has never meant what you say it does, and never should, because that's not what notability ultimately is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you define two key aspects, but there should be the hierarchy: (1) is it appropriate? Followed by (2) what kind of article can be written (i.e., do we have information, can it be verified, does it meet WP policy). Theoretically, if you can't satisfy 1, then 2 is moot. However, without an objective mechanism to establish 1, we default to some aspects of 2, to determine whether other authors have already established 1. --Kevin Murray 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're ignoring the notability guideline itself. (And it was always intended that N should be central and overriding, not just to be something "advisory" and superceded by subject-specific policies.) What we need to do, is put the subject-specifics down to some sort of advisory level (I'm not sure if "essay" would really be appropriate, "historical" might work), where it's clear that they do not in themselves specify what is notable, that only WP:N does that, and that these just offer ideas on subjects likely to meet it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the notability guideline itself - for one, the consensus for it to be a guideline is quite tenuous, and the actionable wording is in flux. Beyond that, the guideline points people in these directions, so it's not meant to be overriding and was not created with that in mind. What we need to do is abandon WP:N as unrealistic and misguided, and I think people are coming around to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing here, I'm not sure how. The vast majority of those here are arguing to strengthen WP:N and make it overriding, not to weaken or abandon it. The subject-specific guidelines were fine for their time, they were good rough approximations. But now we've got something better, that makes a better indicator of whether an article is appropriate or not, and won't result in nearly so much cruft by following it. I do not intend to belittle those who wrote these, for what they are, they're actually a pretty decent guide. But there's a lot of stuff that falls through the cracks both ways, and N fixes that. N also is in line with our core policies of mirror sourcing and of undue weight. If sources write a ton of information on a subject, so do we. If they barely mention it, we barely mention it. If they totally ignore it, we totally ignore it. No subjectivity whatsoever on our part. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest reading above. Not only was the PNC soundly rejected last time it was forced in, but the current wording wasn't acceptable, either. Somehow, it snuck back without comment, which is a problem. We don't have anything better yet, and your use of words like "cruft" indicate a further misunderstanding. We don't need to beat the dead horse you and I have numerous times before - notability and verifiability are separate concepts which are both important. WP:N solves no problems, and creates more due to its unrealistic and improper expectations and misunderstandings of the concepts it attempts to define. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that changing the name would be useful, which is why I'm all for changing it to "article inclusion". Unfortunately, that also seems to change the concept of what we should include, and permit directory entries and the like in many cases. If we were to just copy WP:N to WP:AI, change all the wordings of "notability" to "an article should be included only if" or the like, I think we'd reduce the confusion and have a workable inclusion standard. What parts of N do you think are unreasonable, by the way? To me, it looks like the requirement that sourcing be substantial is just an extension of WP:NOT a directory or indiscriminate collection of information, and the requirement that they be independent of the subject just a logical extension of WP:ATT (or WP:RS, depending on your preference there). As to the previous discussion, yes, much of the discussion that happened here was against, but most of it occurring at WT:N was in support. Now, most of it occurring in both places is in support. What more consensus do you want? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the term? Lipstick on a pig? The idea that notability is governed solely by sources is the problem. It's entirely unreasonable, because it misunderstands notability. Now, most discussion in both places is not support - you cannot discount what went on last month when nothing has changed, and when people don't support an overriding PNC, you have to show that something changed. That hasn't happened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can most certainly change. There are certainly people who've been involved in past discussions in support that haven't weighed in here either, certainly we can go include Uncle G on the "for" list if we're counting people's previous opinions. However, over the past month, I really have seen a shift in attitude regarding the importance of sourcing. Love it or hate it, WP:ATT did bring that issue to the forefront, and I think a lot of people really did realize "Oh, when they say you gotta source it, that means all the time, every time." So, yes, I do believe there's been a genuine shift in attitudes and priorities, and I think you're seeing that reflected here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To add to the above, there's also been a general change in attitude regarding simplification and consolidation of policy. Currently, our notability guidelines are pretty byzantine ("if it's in this category go look at that, if it's in some other category go look at that, etc...). Especially for newer editors, but even for more experienced ones, it's a lot easier to point to WP:N and say "Well, does enough sourcing exist for a comprehensive article or not?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue how you're coming to your conclusions at this point. Consensus can change, yes, but there's no evidence of it changing here, in terms of what happens with this guideline, and certainly no consensus has emerged regarding the wording at WP:N. As for a shift in attitude about sourcing, certainly - in terms of verifiability. Not in terms of establishing notability, however, which is what we're dealing with. The sourcing attitude is part of a continuing trend regarding information, not notability - notability has only been discussed in that context by the PNC camp. As for your addition, simplification and consolidation of policy has strong, strong opposition at WP:ATT, judging by the poll. I don't see any sort of consensus for any change of attitude here. It may be "easier" to consolodate WP:N, but it doesn't make it right, proper, or realistic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Well, by that standard, we can also say it has strong, strong support. Also, a lot of the "oppose" objections were on the basis of "verifiability, not truth", which is not an opposition to ATT at all-that's always been the case. As to sourcing, if people are beginning to understand "Information here must be sourced", it's not too far from there to understand that "article subjects must be sourceable." From there, WP:NOT a directory or indiscriminate collection of information provides the final guide. If we can't have an in-depth article on a subject, but put a permastub in for the sake of "completeness", we are writing a directory. All directories seek completeness. Phone books, maps, local business directories, road atlases-all these are directories, and all of those should seek completeness, as that allows them to fulfill their purpose. We should not seek completeness, as we are very specifically not intending to write a directory. Our biographical coverage is not complete without a biography of me, or my next-door neighbor. It can certainly be verified that we exist, so sourcing a small stub would not be a problem. But in the work we're writing, we are specifically not seeking to have completeness. We're seeking to write a tertiary source reference work, and tertiary sources derive from secondary ones. If those secondary sources do not exist on a subject, or are trivial, we should not include that subject in our work here, or briefly mention it under a parent topic for which more substantial sourcing exists. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

None of those things have anything to do with notability, however. You've effectively repeated what everyone agrees with regarding verifiability and attribution, but have yet to discuss what makes those subjects that meet everything you've listed notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Forget what the dictionary says about "notable". It's as useless to our Wikipedian purposes as what it says about "verifiable". We're deciding what should or shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. There's little benefit to endless arguments over which word to use to describe this concept. Friday (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I want to ditch "notability" as much as some others do. Unfortunately, I'm way in the minority on ditching notability entirely. I don't see you offering a better alternative, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. By some definitions of "notable", we should include some things here which are not notable, and exclude others which are. I would be all for changing the title of "notability" to a less confusing and ambiguous title, such as "Article inclusion". So, from here, let's forget "notability". We should not include articles on topics for which substantial secondary sourcing does not exist, regardless of whether, by any definition, they are notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But that, again, is putting lipstick on a pig. Changing a flawed guideline's name is still a flawed guideline, you're just calling it something different. As for what you're saying, it doesn't work - subjects that lack "substantial secondary sourcing" are more than encyclopedic, as has been demonstrated numerous times to you. We need to get away from expecting sourcing to indicate notability (or the word of your choice) and expecting what we do decide is worthy of inclusion to be sourced. That's what you're missing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Something being "encyclopedic", as in, appropriate for a tertiary source, depends primarily upon the existence of substantial secondary sources. If such exist, it's suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If not, it's not suitable for inclusion, despite our personal opinions of what should be included. If you think something hasn't been well-covered and deserves to be, suggest an article to your local paper or write a book! But this is not the place to "correct" that, based upon our own ideas of what should be written about. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, notability (or the word of your choice) deals with the appropriateness of the subject. That doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about. You're speaking to the choir regarding what you're saying, but not in the scope of this page and WP:N. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Our use of sources helps define the scope of Wikipedia. We can use the amount of coverage in proper sources to gauge what we should or should not include. Or, we could invent our own, original notions of what should be includable, but it does us no good at all. We're bound by what the sources say- this is by design. It's a pointless waste of time to say "Well, sources SHOULD be covering this because..." It's outside the scope of Wikipedia to second-guess what the sources SHOULD be paying attention to. Friday (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter accomplishes what notability/etc sets out to accomplish more than what you're saying. It's not a pointless waste of time to take a look at what we should be covering, but it's also not a waste to say "even though this subject is appropriate for inclusion, we can't have an article yet due to the lack of sources." Two separate concepts - what's suitable, and sources - different approaches, and a sane result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I could probably go for saying "Well, it would be great to have an article on this someday, but we can't right now, there's not enough sourcing." If we could take out notability entirely, and go to a concept more like that, I'd certainly go for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But here's the problem - not everything that's verifiable to reliable sources is "notable" enough for inclusion. So how do we separate them out? That's where these guidelines come in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have WP:NOT for that. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient. What we really should look at, is "Would it be possible to one day write a GA or FA on this subject, given the amount of source material that exists? If so, would the article's subject be in line with WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and our other core policies?" If the answer to both is "yes", we should have the article, if the answer to either one is "no", we should not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not cover all things that are not suitable for inclusion while having the requisite amount of sources. You shouldn't stgart harping on this GA thing again, it's not workable. The simple question should be "do we have enough independent material to demonstrate notability." Stop counting sources, and stop considering what may be, instead focus on what is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would describe discussions of "Should we include this, if there were enough sources?" when there aren't enough sources, as not very useful. There's nothing we'll do differently, in article space, based on the outcome of such a discussion. So why would it be useful? Friday (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it changes the discussion entirely. Instead of assuming that the only way a subject is "notable" is based on the sources, we accept that a subject can be "notable" even if the sources can't be found. Instead of making it up as we go along, we reflect reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If this were a "let's sit around and talk about what we the world should notice" forum, I might agree with you. But this is an encyclopedia. What we think the world should notice doesn't really matter here. It's off-topic. We just go by what sources have noticed. Friday (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Because we're an encyclopedia, that discussion is necesssary. We go by what sources say, and we figure out what subjects are worthy of inclusion through discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we figure out what should be included by looking at sources. If you think something has escaped notice that should be noticed, write to magazines and newspapers. Bring it to their attention. Write a book of your own. But don't try to "correct" that here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to "correct" anything - we know that multiple things make something notable, you're even admitting as such. The issue is that the sources aren't what constitutes the notability, but the things that they've done. We've been down this road a million times already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability creep

For a wonderful example of notability creep from the failure to have PNC here, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Give Up the Ghost. There are no reliable sources referencing this band, which has broken up, but because it released two obscure records on an obscure and marginally notable independent label, fans used WP:MUSIC to vote for keeping a crufty article. -- THF 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a failure of the guideline at all - the band is notable. The lack of sources is what's problematic, and even then, no one seemed to be bothered by it. Regardless, I'm sure some sources can be found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a great illustration of the failure. A couple trivial sources were found, that article will never go beyond that. We need something to state that a quality article must be possible on a subject, not just an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article can go way beyond that - if the notability is asserted through the sources, trivial or not, we're capable of filling in the gaps through other reliable sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't fill in the gaps. It's the job of those sources to collate and interpret information, not ours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all gap filling is original research, and you know it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is objective, not subjective. How can a band be notable if it's never been noted? -- THF 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not objective. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a legitimate position to take in the abstract, though I disagree with it in the context of Wikipedia because it makes collaborative editing impossible. The main problem with your position for purposes of this discussion is that "Notability is not objective" expressly contradicts WP:N. -- THF 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's because WP:N is extremely flawed. There's a reason WP:N lacks any real consensus, and a good argument can be made about it not being a guideline anyway. Besides, "notability is subjective" doesn't make collaborative editing impossible at all, it simply opens up a better dialogue and forces more opinions and less, some would claim, "lawyering." --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The above illustrates the problem of why we should have one, across the board, standard, rather than "Well this is what makes a band notable, this is what makes a person notable...". Someone in the AfD even admitted to intent to lawyer, and effectively that fans were stacking the vote with ILIKEIT. There was very little discussion of the sources, or the main issue raised-that very little source material exists on the band. That should have been the main focus of the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it shows exactly how a primary criterion is an abject failure - any "notability" guideline that fails to account for notable subjects is poor. In this case, the band is unquestionably notable by any reasonable standard, yet fails WP:N - the problem, thus, is WP:N. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

wrong place for the debate

Jeff: if WP:N is the problem, you need to address these objections there, rather than create a guerrilla movement in the mountains where few admins tread. Here, we're trying to apply WP:N in good faith, and that would seem to necessitate the inclusion of PNC. Your objection to the PNC inclusion seems to be based on the idiosyncratic view that WP:N doesn't count. If you fix WP:N, then PNC will fix itself, and there won't be a problem with its inclusion. -- THF 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am. In the meantime, the wording from WP:N shouldn't be forced here without discussion and consensus. Even if the PNC wording is "fixed," it still doesn't belong here without discussion and consensus. Even if I agreed with the PNC, I wouldn't advocate the change here without discussion or consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I disagree that Wikipedia requires the same debate to be rehashed in multiple forums. There is an umbrella policy of WP:N that is a guideline per the consensus there. By using a PNC template, when WP:N changes, PNC can be changed, and several articles under that umbrella are simultaneously fixed. You can have the last word. -- THF 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this page for 48 hours due to edit warring and to allow further discussion to take place. This page is a guidline on wikipedia and edit warring on guidlines is not the way to go about things. I have absolutely no opinion on the matter, but please discuss rather than act Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was probably going to request this anyway. If you'd submit an opinion on the matter, it might help resolve the conflict. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to submit an opinion on that matter just yet, but if all parties agree, I will take a look after the protection expires and make my opinion on what the consensus has come to about what to do Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Evaluation - Including the PNC template here

• For: Minderbinder, Kevin Murray, THF, Seraphimblade, Dragonfiend, Moreschi, Scientizzle

• Against: badlydrawnjeff, NE2, MangoJuice

Section added by --Kevin Murray 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that we should be counting heads, but I doubt these people have changed their minds given the lack of new evidence of this being necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I sure don't see any decision coming from that discussion. What I see is a lot of questioning of various standards to no conclusion, with the bulk of the discussion being two men's opinion. I'd suggest contacting some of these editors to join the current conversation. --Kevin Murray 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you don't. The discussion seems clear that the PNC is not what people want. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I should note that a headcount of seven-against-two is not automagically a consensus. I would suggest seeking broader input on this (WP:RFC, WP:VP). I should also note that this is in fact our oldest notability guideline except for WP:BIO, so it is fair to say that its original wording is well-accepted. >Radiant< 09:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance is not the same as preference. In the absence of quality, we often settle for mediocrity. WP policy should remain dynamic since we remain in the early stages of our evolution. It is premature to claim precedence of individual guidelines over a centralized infrastructure, based on chronology. In the evolution of societies, local laws generally predated national laws, but rarely do they now retain primacy. Promoting continuity is a stride toward an enduring organization. --Kevin Murray 14:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please read again. I did not say anywhere that I claim precedence of individual guidelines over a centralized infrastructure. Instead, I said that a 7-2 headcount is not a consensus, and that I suggest wider input. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative text for PNC template

The following was adapted from what has been at BIO and ORG for some time, and was based on the early March protected version of WP:N:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,⁶ and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Could this satisfy the concerns of the consensus builders? If not, could we fine tune this to address the pertinent concerns? --Kevin Murray 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the PNC template doesn't belong here. Consensus at this page is to have a number of different ways to judge consensus for musicians and music-related articles, with sources being one of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This segment of the notability infrastructure does not exist in a vacuum. The scheme of order should mesh, with continuity as a key component to compatibility. --Kevin Murray 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It exists as it always has, referring to the subject matter in which it describes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not over its existence, but over compatibility with the overall notability infrastructure. "Always has" is an invalid argument in a fledgling process. --Kevin Murray 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Then there's no problem, as there are no compatibility issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, so do you want to add the pnc template, or should I? --Kevin Murray 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I meant there's no compatibility issues without the PNC template. Only when you add it are there issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Segment of the notability infrastructure"? Duuuude! It's just a guide page. We're still not actually a bureaucracy here, y'know. >Radiant< 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it sounds a bit formal, but WP is a growing rapidly and needs to be carefully nurtured toward success. There are legitimate dangers from too much freedom and too much control. It's not "just a guide page", it is a brick in the structure. --Kevin Murray 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd love for that to be true, but it isn't. We're not even close to that point as a community yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Kevin, if you think it's like that I suggest you use a F-578943 form to file a formal motion to amend this page. In triplicate. Policy pages are not protected for this precise reason. >Radiant< 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Radiant, that form has was superseded by a now obsolete form that can only be found in duplicate. Will that be OK? That’s the problem with a dynamic environment, where we can’t keep up with the changes. I may be pompous, but I am dedicated. Cheers to good humor and better beer! --Kevin Murray 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a templated policy

I am opposed to the installation of {{pnc}}. I must agree with Mangojuice's statement elsewhere that "this is an exceptionally poor idea". The suggestion that our various subject-specific criteria are all to be subject to a paragraph edited in some obscure template is nonsense. If you desire a change in the music notability guideline, be willing to fight about it here on this page.

For the record, I support the application of something like the "primary criterion" to musicians and ensembles, but must insist that we maintain the essence of our current album guideline. And I absolutely do not support such a change in template form.

I notice that participants at WT:N have been extended an invitation to come to this page and join in the "test case" debate here (see WT:N#Template or not? - test case at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)). Have you considered posting similar invitations on the talk pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs? You are proposing a change that may have dramatic consequences for many of the editors involved and you may find that the views of editors who create, organize, and improve music articles offer a different perspective than the administrative types that lie awake at night thinking about the wording of WP:XYZ. -MrFizyx 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything, except that I see no pressing need for a "primary" crierion here. Of course, if people decide otherwise through discussion, I can't logically stand in the way. This guideline is really one of the better formed subject-specific ones out there, and it sucks to see it being blown apart like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the guideline as written now, I see absolutely no reason to bend the wording around to accommodate {[tl|pnc}}. The guideline very clearly is in synch with the primary criterion, and explains things clearly. Mangojuice^talk 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the wording here somewhat lacks consensus, too - elevating one criterion over the others was rejected during the previous discussion, and nothing has been indicated that the consensus has changed as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection (again)

Because the edit warring erupted again, I have protected the page for a further 72 hours. Do not act unilaterally, discuss first. If concensus can be reached before this, I will unprotect Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If Kevin Murray is going to pretend that a head-count has meaning he should at least learn to do a good one. Then again there really is no indication that he has bothered to even read my post much less address my concerns. Nice consensus building. -MrFizyx 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well hello to you too. I did miss your comment above, as the conversation is a bit disjointed among the sections -- my error. I agree that we should have broader participation in the discussion, but I don't agree that notability for music is associated with the various music projects. I don't see a reason to exclude the music minded, but I think that the invitation should be broad based, not subject specific. I don't see the need for a hostile implication regarding my intentions etc; I think that I'm pretty upfront about my opposition to specific guidelines, and my feeling that if they are to exist they should be compliant with and subordinate to WP:N. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So where are you seeing the consensus here again? Because I'm seeing nothing in the page history that's changing what was reached in the discussions starting here. It's troublesome that you're going right back to the revert warring on this, Kevin, while asserting the same consensus we have yet to see demonstrated after asking numerous times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff the count of recent participants is clear here, and add to that the consensus at WP:N. It takes two sides for a war, so don't get "holier than" about it; you fired first here. --Kevin Murray 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're counting participants here, then you don't have consensus. You don't need to have it explained to you again, however, that a discussion at WP:N has no bearing on a consensus here. As for my "firing the first shot," I was bold and made an edit that reflected consensus, I was reverted, so I simply brought it back to where it was when protection was on. You're still continuing to force here what's been reverted everywhere else, so I'm not sure when you're planning on trying to work with people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A consensus at WP:N absolutely "counts" here. That would be like saying that the "consensus" at WT:NOR doesn't apply to any articles unless those writing the article also agree individually. Things don't work in isolation, and if you believe so, you misunderstand "consensus" and "community." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges - WP:NOR is a guiding content policy that doesn't have anything else going along with it, unlike the idea of notability with many facets. Plus, I don't believe there's a consensus at WP:N, either, but this isn't the place to discuss that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection doesn't reflect an endorsement of the page contents at the time of protection.

Jeff, what do exclusionists have to prove for you to agree that there is consensus? WP:N seems stable, and the version of this page you seek contradicts WP:N. The advantage of the PNC template is that when the consensus changes, several pages can be changed at once without having massive resources devoted to re-arguing the same points over and over with each subpage. -- THF 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They need to prove that cnsensus has been reached here that a template belongs, and that consensus has changed since the last discussion. WP:N isn't stable at all if you see the talk page, and still fails to reflect consensus. At no time was I considering the protected version to be a consensus version, but I had hoped, perhaps naively, that a good faith reversion back to that would save some trouble. Apparently not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And one other thing - the PNC tag only reflects wording that some believe belongs at WP:N - not even a consensus of editors agree on the wording that's there now. At no point does the wording at WP:N apply to the subject-specific guidelines, which have their own criteria and rationales for them, and mostly pre-date WP:N. The tag makes no logical sense at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The template is not meant to be static. One of the major advantages is that as consensus matures or shifts, the benefits of new thought will flow throughout the notability infrastructure. Jeff seems to have less problem with the consistency issue than the issue of not having his precise wording. --Kevin Murray 21:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

no, I do have a problem with the alleged consistency, because the "consistency" is nonsensical and not widely supported. Please stop trying to read my mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible resolution

Jeff's latest edit, adding a tag, is a good compromise. Can we agree to discuss this at WP:N? The consensus reached there whether WP:N is the top page in a hierarchy, or instead something less than that, will moot any discussion here. -- THF 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree the tag is a legitimate reflection of the current state of that section. I agree that the discussion should be centralized as we are restating our concerns at multiple pages, and the people only speaking or reading at the sub-pages are missing the big-picture of the concerns. --Kevin Murray 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• No, discussion at WP:N will not solve the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, enough discussion at WP:N is eventually going to solve the problem here. Jeff, the sub-guidelines don't work. They were worth trying. They've failed. Now we've just got people coming around to realizing that, and that we need to go to something simpler. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • When that actually occurs, be sure to let the rest of us know, because there's certainly more evidence of a large rejection of WP:N than any rejection of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You may be right in some senses, but the move certainly is toward a simpler inclusion/exclusion guideline, even if its title is not notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The rhetoric of denial is really counterproductive Jeff. The objections to WP:N are virtually gone, your concept of AI was rejected, you are trying to divide the discussion to confuse the issues and prevent progress with delaying tactics. --Kevin Murray 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Your claims of all three are without fact or merit, and only seek to derail any discussion on the matter. You won't be wearing me down on this, sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Jeff, the idea here isn't to wear anyone down. It is to address some problems that exist, and right now, changing the inclusion/exclusion guidelines seems the best way to do that. Kevin and I are far from the only ones that realize that policy consolidation and simplification in general, and in this area in particular, need to happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Kevin's been at this for over a week, and has been reverted by numerous people, with his change only sticking in one place. No one's saying you're the only ones here (although Kevin's really the only one so severely against the tide), but that you aren't representing - and haven't sought - consensus on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Jeff, I've been "at this" for months and have seen that a solution proposed by Guy could bring continuity in a simpler way than elimination or merging. It's not my idea and you are on the verge of dishonesty to continue to say that it is. --Kevin Murray 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                • You're the only person continuing to push it on the guideline pages, so it appears to be your baby at the moment. JzG certainly isn't pushing against consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • That crosses the line to a bald face lie. --Kevin Murray 22:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Very well. At least we know where you're coming from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why won't discussion at WP:N solve the problem here? If consensus is for consolidation, then there will be consolidation; if consensus is against consolidation, then those who argue for consolidation here will be refuted by the fact that the WP:N explicitly rejects it. -- THF 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Because consolidation needs to be discussed with editors here, because those interested in music articles expect a guideline on musicians. If WP:N's editors - who are largely not editors at the subject-specific guidelines as we learned in February - want them to be merged together, they have to make their case at the guidelines, not just simply assert it from afar. Keep in mind as well that WP:MUSIC is much older and has a much stronger history than even WP:N does, so that's a major factor. So if we're going to downgrade this or work off of WP:N's wording (a wording that lacks consensus), we need to make sure it's accpetable here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The solution to that is to put a notice on this page that there is a discussion going on on WP:N that would cause that guideline to supersede the WP:MUSIC guideline, not to force Wikipedia editors debate something on fifteen different pages in parallel. And I don't even see anyone participating in this discussion who isn't participating in the larger WP:N discussion. -- THF 22:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • probably because no one thinks it's serious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Memory Will Never Die

This song by default has been nominated for deletion for being non-notable. Please weigh in at the discussion page. Thank you for helping in this matter. Killswitch Engage 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blood for Blood

As a hypothetical, what do people think about the notability of Blood for Blood, an obscure twelve-year-old local punk band that has never had a notable record contract? -- THF 14:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't appear to meet the criterion to me. I'd probably suggest an AfD rather than a speedy, though, because of the documentary kerfluffle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Although a terribly written article, I can confirm that they are not "a twelve-year old punk band" and there are quite a few references out there which at least hints at above average level of notability: [5]. Victory Records is a pretty large independent album label, and they have a few albums on there... hang on a minute, this isn't an AfD is it? Bubba hotep 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Formed in 1995, it is 2007, perhaps my math was off when I said twelve-year-old. THF 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point. Only on that, though. :) Bubba hotep 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an AfD. I'm just trying to divine the BDJ standard of notability when there isn't the objective measure of "noted by independent reliable sources." THF 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I simply looked at this guideline. From the looks of things, nothing in the article seems to explain how it meets WP:MUSIC. If this were an AfD, I'd probably do some more research for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. If I didn't have prior knowledge of this band (and a fair few of their CDs in my collection), I probably would have deleted it, or at least swung into motion the process of deletion, by now. It probably would have ended up at AfD, and it may well have been saved quite unanimously. I think that's where the real consensus of notability is gauged – out in "the field" at AfD. OK, so you could say that people commenting there are referring to this guideline as their rationale so it matters what it states, but there is a fair amount of interpretation going on there as well. The thing is, the people who frequent AfD (more specifically, category M of AfD) probably don't even know this talk page exists. Bubba hotep 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How can they not know this talk-page exists? Every AfD nomination mentions WP:MUSIC, and all sorts of non-notable bands' articles get saved by wikilawyering claims that they barely met one out of thirteen criteria because they have two albums with a non-notable independent label that had one band under its umbrella that became marginally notable as a one-hit wonder. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lind, who doesn't even have a record contract, saved without a single independent reliable source available entirely because of wikilawyering and WP:ILIKEIT. // THF 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have voted keep there - there's nothing to indicate it meets WP:MUSIC. Mistakes are made, you know - why didn't you take the closure to deletion review? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's right (for exactly the reason you just stated), but is does seem to be a bit of a consensus. There are more people who participate in cat M AfDs than there are participating on this talk page for a change to the guideline. When I said, "don't even know this talk page exists", maybe it should have been "choose not to acknowledge its existence", or "avoid like the plague". Bubba hotep 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And hypothetically, I would have closed that AfD as delete (for Lind, anyway) and weathered the shitstorm at DRV – which might not have happened actually. :) Bubba hotep 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone else wants to take it to WP:DRV, I'll support it, but until 21:18 today, I didn't have any reason to believe that that would change the result. (Plus, I have an admin or two on Wikipedia gunning for my head because of my job, so when it comes to anything that might possibly be considered a disruptive edit, I'm going to play it cleaner than Caesar's wife, especially for trivia like this.) THF 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

←I would never take it to DRV without first consulting the closing admin. Not sure whether I would have ever said that if I wasn't an admin, but I am now and I know what it's like not to be asked your reasoning behind it first. You may find them more than engaging in their reasoning behind the decision. However, looking at it from here, it may have been because maybe at least one of the added nominations was/might have been notable, but then that wouldn't have precluded a split decision on each article. I don't know really. One consolation is, the world will not stop spinning. Maybe another is, Caesar's wife may have been tempted over to the dark side if she had signed up for a Wikipedia account. :) Bubba hotep 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mark Lind. Since discussion on this page was related to the original AfD, you might want to participate in the deletion review. THF 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the debate. --Kevin Murray 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that this has been deleted, I'm moving back to the pre-template/pnc version per the consensus that existed prior to the kerfluffle. Please consider getting consensus for your changes before moving forward. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A template's deletion does not call for a full revert. I've brought this properly in line with requirements for sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read above - there is no consensus for the ordering and elevation of the "requirements for sourcing", which is why I went back to that version. Is there a reason why you went back to the version without consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't go "back" to any version at all, that was my original edit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. is there a reason you're going against the consensus above with your edit, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the wider consensus (as well as core policy) require decent secondary sourcing. It's not optional or a nicety. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What wider consensus? What core policy requires notability to be governed by sources? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So, no answer to this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've answered that many times. There is not a core policy which says "Notability must be governed by sourcing." Certainly, I could counter to say there is no core policy which states "A subject which meets our definition of notability should be kept", either. There is a policy which uses the assertion of notability as a criterion, that being the speedy deletion policy, but those are of course very deliberately narrow and do not cover all cases under which an article may be deleted, only the most obvious ones. However, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT all can be used to speak to the issue. V specifically states that the burden of proving a claim is upon the claimant, not upon someone who disputes it. The dispute to "They're notable" is "Verify that they're noted, then!". WP:NPOV prohibits the use of editorial opinion and the granting of undue weight. If I think a particular viewpoint should be more widely covered, I still only may cover it here to the extent that it is given due weight. We don't cover things to a greater or lesser degree than the amount of available source material supporting it says we should. WP:NOR forbids editorializing. We go by what's published in reliable sources, not by what we happen to think. Finally, WP:NOT makes it clear that we do not indiscriminately collect information, that we are not a directory (and therefore do not aim to cover things exhaustively, only representatively), and that we do not work with predictions of the future, only with what's currently published and already known.

So, the answer is: No core policy contains that exact line. But they all support it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How do they support it? You haven't explained that, you've simply attempted to link the two. Notability, as has been explained, is a separate concept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade is correct. --Dragonfiend 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Currently, notability is our article inclusion standard. The core policies are very clear as to what allows the inclusion of material (sourcing) and what disallows it (lack thereof). Therefore, that's the one and only thing we should ask. We shouldn't act without sources, we shouldn't try to "correct" perceived deficiencies in sourcing, we should never give anything more weight than the sources support, we shouldn't have directory entries, and we shouldn't base decisions on predictions that coverage will turn up. It comes back to the good old bit of verifiability. You say "This fact is true." I say "Verify that, please." You say "How?" I say "Show me reliable sources that support your claim." Same with notability. You say "This subject is notable." I say "Verify that, please." You say "How?" I say "Show me reliable sources that have indeed taken note."

Also, if you must have a quote from policy, here's from V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So, yes, article inclusion is governed by sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The only part I disagree with is that you're trying to extrapolate it into notability again - notability is simply about whether an article's subject is worthy of inclusion. It's entirely separate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) You want to see consensus? Look right here! No one but you has objected, and one person explicitly supports the changes made. No one but you reverted, or even altered, the edits made. If there weren't consensus for the changes, more than one person ought to be objecting, this is a pretty heavily-trafficked page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was consensus for your changes, more than one or two people would have chimed in to support given the upheaval. As I said, I can point to a clear consensus for the language currently there - can you demonstrate that consensus has changed? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did. As stated on WP:CONSENSUS, general silence does equal assent, especially when we both know very well tons of people have this page on a watchlist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd say the general silence suggests that there's general support for my position that consensus hasn't changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then how about this. Let's put the new edit in for now, and file a request at policy RFC and/or VPP. If you're right, we'll have a flood of objections, and I'll revert it myself. If I'm right, we'll have support, or no one will bother to object. In either case, since then the changes have at that point been widely advertised, we could then presume that "silence equals consent." Work for you? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That would imply that there was a consensus for it to begin with. I don't mind if you advertise this discussion everywhere it can be heard, but let's be realistic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All I'm stating is, let's find out! Let's leave the edit in for the moment (we could leave a "disputed" tag on it as well, if you're concerned about people acting on it in the meantime), and ask for input. What I'm stating is this. If you're right, when we get a bunch of eyeballs on this thing, a bunch of people will object, and then we'll know you were right, and there's no consensus for the change! On the other hand, people are a lot more likely to object than to leave an "Eh. Looks alright by me." comment. So, if anything, this method favors you. However, if we can get all those eyeballs on this thing, and those people don't feel objection is in order, could it not be said that they're consenting to the change, by seeing it and not registering objection? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of tribute bands in articles about notable acts

This issue has come up at talk: Pink Floyd trivia, but it doesn't seem to be covered here. There's a discussion going on over the threshold of inclusion for tribute bands; at the one end there's the argument that only tribute bands notable enough for their own WP articles should be included (the counter-argument is that there is already a guideline stating that secondary figures referenced in articles about notable figures needn't themselves be notable); at the other end the belief is that the mere existence of a web site on the band is sufficient (the counter-argument is that not every fact, though provable, is encyclopedic). In addition to extra feedback on this incident being welcome, perhaps this is a necessary expansion of the musical notability guidelines? Or is this issue addressed somewhere else? Anchoress 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove specific references to tribute bands that haven't established indepedent notability. External links to PF tribute bands, for example, are not appropriate for an article on PF (as per WP:EL) because they would, generally, act as promotion without adding encyclopedic content. That any band has spawned a number of tribute bands is certainly a topic of note, but Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote non-notable acts. — Scientizzle 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of my opinion too. I think the threshold for inclusion of a tribute act needn't be as high as the standard that would be demanded for them to have their own article, but they should at least have some independent news or recognition about them in some form. I don't think their independent notability need be extensive, but something beyond just their own website. But hopefully something official can be drafted and included in the relevant place in our guidelines/policies. I don't think we should just be making up something for this case (not saying you're doing that, just making a comment). Anchoress 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that inclusion of a tribute band within the article of the tributed (is this a word?) band should be limited to circumstances in which there's a demonstrable two-way connection between the two acts that would make encyclopedic sense to include in the main article; the tribute should be on its own page, or not at all. As an example, take an imaginary Pink Floyd cover band named, oh, Fuschia Floyd...

• If Fuschia Floyd met WP:MUSIC (independent coverage/tours/etc.), they should have their own article and would merit an internal link as a related topic
• If Fuschia Floyd fails WP:MUSIC, they could merit mention in the Pink Floyd article if they've a demonstrable part in the Pink Floyd story (maybe they collaborated, perhaps Roger Waters endorses them, etc.). Links to Fuschia Floyd's website should be limited to use as references.

Including a non-notable tribute band in a main article is akin to including a freeware knockoff version of some notable software in the article of the original software. There are hundreds of Pac-Man clones, and there are hundreds of KISS cover bands...we needn't and shouldn't cover them all. — Scientizzle 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem for this standard of inclusion is that generally speaking, tribute bands, by their very nature, do not elicit a lot of ‘news’ that may end up in published articles somewhere. They usually have a website, and their upcoming appearances usually generate a listing in a ‘coming attractions’ section of an external entertainment site, maybe with some explanatory text, often copied directly off the band’s website. The fact that the Pink Floyd tribute band listing (prior to a recent purge that generated this discussion) included 37 bands is itself quite noteworthy. After the purge we are down to four (those that have Wiki articles), and if the same standards were used on those four that were recently used to kill two Wiki pages for PF tribute bands, we would be down to maybe one. If tribute bands are to be discussed (and I think this is valid) I think – by the nature of a tribute band and their lack of otherwise newsworthiness - a lower standard than normal should be used for their inclusion.--Fizbin 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I see no reason why a tribute band should be given a de facto upward nudge in notability because of their gimmick. I think it's a perfectly reasonable idea to include information on the number & breadth of tribute bands for any notable act, but that doesn't necessarily require listing any non-notable ones by name, nor linking to their sites. I see no need for a separate standard, personally. — Scientizzle 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy change at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected yet again

... third time's the charm. C'mon folks, all the people involved here should know better; talk page / concensus / unprot. - Alison ☺ 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Seven edits in five days constitutes a need for protection? This is starting to get absurd. Regardless, all I'm concerned about is consensus, so if there's some new consensus out there, I look forward to seeing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's been repeatedly protected and unprotected and each time, it starts on up again. Something's not right here ... - Alison ☺ 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to know the answer to that? d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this time, I've got to agree with Jeff. (You got to know that when the person whose version it's on is objecting to protection, there's a problem...). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had time to keep up, but why exactly are you claiming there is consensus for inserting a WP:N overide into each sub-section of this guideline. Next time Jeff reverts you, feel free to count me as the "one more person" who objects. -MrFizyx 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then we'll hold off on the change for now, and discuss it instead! That's always just fine, of course. In the interest of discussion, might you state why you object? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus for inclusion of WP:N wording here

• For: Minderbinder, Kevin Murray, THF, Seraphimblade, Dragonfiend, Moreschi, Scientizzle
• Against: badlydrawnjeff, NE2, MangoJuice, MrFizyx (did I miss anyone?) --Kevin Murray 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The TfD rejected the PNC template either in concept or in text. There was no absolute rejection of inclusion of the WP:N in some modified form, nor was there absolute support. It seems that for now we are back to evaluating each page on a case by case basis. At this point there seems to be more support than opposition; however, I don't think that we are getting enough participants to truly make an evaluation. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that continual head-counting is going to get us far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose as an alternative? I mention above that we don't seem to have broad invlovement in the discussion. Is there a compromise which could bring greater agreement among our little group? --Kevin Murray 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've said numerous times before, there's no indication of a consensus shift, for one. For another, you seem to either not care or be unaware of the discussions before the tagging flared up again (because there was no real difference as it stood). Like I said, advertise it everywhere, let's get it out there if it's that important that you get it here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thnk that at this point we should take a breather to clarify what is at issues, based on the comment below. When we have a goal, we should advertise it to pasdt aprticipants here and at other notability sections at minimum. --Kevin Murray 20:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is simple - is there a shift in consensus where there's suddenly strong support for a PNC-style wording here (ignoring the fact that there's no consensus for the wording people have tried to place). The answer, quite simply, is no, and we all know it, but if we need to canvass and prolong this even further, we will. Fine by me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Now I'm not sure what anyone above is being counted for or against. Seraphimblade has attempted to re-word all of the sub-sections of this guideline. To me this is rather different than a reference to WP:N at the top of the page, or more specifically at the top of the section on musicians and ensembles (the previous status quo). Some of his/her changes guide editors to completely reverse current long-practiced solutions to problems. -MrFizyx 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Would it be sufficient to just have a preface before the sections, and clarify that the following three sections are special cases. This would be consistent with the presentation at BIO. The albums section is meaningless and should be dropped, along with a name change from Music to Mucisians. --Kevin Murray 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless? I disagree. -MrFizyx 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I stand corrected. Seraphim's version was just a restatement of the PNC, which I though was meaningless. I hadn't looked at Jeff's version, which is not meaningless, but I think that it is wrong. I think that an album is a product, and these are currently handled at ORG. This is a problem which stems from trying to handle notablility at the micro-level, rather than coming up with a well structured system. --Kevin Murray 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are calling "Jeff's version" is a long-standing (although at times controversial) consensus on this page. It allows for the content forking of a notable musical artist's works into the logical structure of albums. One need not wait for an article to create technical problems (e.g. per WP:LENGTH) for such a fork to make sense. To my knowledge albums have never been handled at WP:ORG, nor do I understand why they should be. This forking of content is typical of on-line music encyclopedia, and here it allows for good division of labor between Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrFizyx (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn’t mean to imply that albums have been handled at ORG, but to state that other products are handled at ORG as a byproduct of companies etc. which produce them. Not the cleanest place, since individuals, who are handled at BIO, also produce products. Generally most products are handled through WP:N, why should the product of musicians be handled differently than the product of academics, authors, artists, architects, artisans, etc. I’m just looking for some continuity. --Kevin Murray 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've previously given my rant on albums, above on this page. First, I would think any artist's works should at minimum be catalogged on wikipedia, the most logical procedure for this would depend on the medium. Albums are managable and packaged chunks of a popular musician's recordings and each have basic information that can easily be verified through primary sources (liner notes). Second, music encyclopedias are more common than encyclopedias of artisans or academics. Should our breadth of coverage rival the All Music Guide or just Britanica? Third, as noted previously, there are many music-related workgroups among wikipedians. These structures are distinct from the other topics related to WP:BIO where workgroups may not exist or also have unique structures and practices. We should not make policy changes without awareness to on-going work.

Personnally, my primary concern is with artists having careers that span several decades. My experience is that meeting WP:N for individual albums released in the internet era (after mid-90s or so) or their MOST notable earlier works would usually be easy. More obsucure albums, reviewed in the printed media of the day, but not frequently revisted would leave significant holes when WP:N is strictly applied. While I try to focus on album articles that meet WP:N, this does increase the slant in coverage to recent works. -MrFizyx 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Albums are nothing mroe than subarticles. We'd have all the content messy in a regular article and no issues with primary sourcing if they were in the article, so it;s simply an easy and more visually pleasing way to present encyclopedic information. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I would prefer that Music and Musicians split and then be combined into Creative Works and BIO respectively (the former to contain art, music, literature etc.), but that may be a hard sell. I don't see a problem with individual articles on albums, and even on prolific songs, especially when they are affiliated with more than one artist. For now let's leave it alone. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (music)/rewrite potentially a fresh start

I modified the current text and format for purposes of discussion at and posted it at: Wikipedia:Notability (music)/rewrite. The idea is to achieve the goal of incorporating the style and structure of BIO, and remove the chatty essay sections, to make this more clear and actionable. Thoughts? --Kevin Murray 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable from start to finish. Orders everything incorrectly, fails to address notability, and is probably worse than the PNC versions tried to force through before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say primary sources can be used as long as they're verifiable. It seems to me that primary sources, by nature, are pretty difficult to be verifiable. You might want to reconsider wording. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some primary sources are quite verifiable as opposed to primary research which is not. --Kevin Murray 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, can you offer some positive feedback with a touch less hostility. Maybe you could suggest how the order changed? While I injected the PNC (roughly) from BIO, the order of mention is the same as the protected version. Other than the PNC issue is it that odious? --Kevin Murray 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. And WP:BIO is a poor example, as there's no consensus for its current structure anyway. It's completely odious from top to bottom, and has nothing redeeming. I see no need to sugar coat it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We might save the sugar between us, but can we be polite? I sure want to try. --Kevin Murray 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I simply have no clue how you can see how the discussions have gone over the last two or three weeks, and then think that the rewrite version you put up there has any basis in reality, to be blunt. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, can we ignore the PNC issue for a minute? What is so odious about the other aspects of the structure? You are critical without offering constructive examples. --Kevin Murray 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't ignore it because your rewrite tosses it right back in there. It elevates the whole thing above the other parts, as if one thing creates notability more than another. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me ask this, why is the PNC concept included in the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" section of the protected version, but not the others? --Kevin Murray 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the PNC based text:

Generally, a musician or group is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia if there has been significant coverage of the subject from reliable sources that are independent of the subject and verifiable. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by sources is not generally sufficient to establish notability; however, many lesser sources can cummulatively demonstrate notability. --Kevin Murray 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) rewritten --Kevin Murray 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is any pnc based text. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So am I understanding that the PNC principle should not apply at all to people in the field of music? --Kevin Murray 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no pnc principle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm trying really hard to engage you in constructive dialog, and include you in a non-combative solution, but you just keep picking at the language of my comments etc. Do you want to find a solution or just complain? --Kevin Murray 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What's constructive about digging up the same tired thing that doesn't work? How many times are you going to try and push this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What am I pushing? I'm trying to find a middle ground here to reconcile your position with the position of the majority of participants here and you are trying to make it a personal issue. I assume that you have no interest in other than combative rhetoric, so you really don't have anything to say other than disrupting the conversation and keeping it off-point. Sad! --Kevin Murray 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What middle ground do you think you're actually staking right now? Keep in mind that there's certainly no evidence of a majority or consensus on this issue for your position, and you then try to push it off topic with your accusations of making it a personal issue. Is this the new tactic? Because if we want to make this a personal issue, we can. I'd rather try to nip a thrice-failed idea in the bud and move on already. Up to you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm trying to experiment with a more neutral test for notability which includes (1) the possiblilty of single sources establishing notability, (2) acknowledges that primary sources (not primary research) can establish notability, and (3) the specialized criteria are independent from the general criteria. I would like to see the result of what we put together here as a format considered at BIO, PROF and PORNO for continuity. If it back-flows to WP:N so much the better. I realize that you reject the concept of notability, but that is within the tilte of these pages. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the "test" at BIO is only there due to protection after months of edit warring. It by no means has consensus and is a poor example. PROF and PORNBIO are both sub-cats to BIO, so they don't work the same way this does. So you're completely using the wrong examples. Secondly, you're still stuck on the PNC-style guideline. It doesn't work. It has no consensus. It stuck in one place without any issues - it's DOA. This has nothing to do with my alleged rejection of notability - I fully accept that's how we work here for the time being, but you keep pushing these dead examples. If you want to start fresh or neutral, do it - don't keep trotting this same crap out and expect a new result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the protected version of this page satisfy you? --Kevin Murray 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but it reflects consensus and provides a decent balance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should criterion #1 under Criteria for musicians and ensembles not apply to the other types of musicians, composers etc.? --Kevin Murray 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. It does apply, as does everything underneath it - musicians, etc are notable if they meet any of these things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the current format suggests that. Composers have a separate section and numbered criteria as does the "other" category. I don't see crtierion #1 under the first section applying to either "composers" or "other" as the lists are presented. That is among the issues I'm trying to address. --Kevin Murray 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I follow you now. Yes, songwriters and composers need the different criteria. Perhaps moving #1 down there will help you out a little bit, though, not that it actually becomes more important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is part of what Seraphim was trying to do in the version prior to the protected one, copy the message from #1 to all of the sections. Rather than being redundant I thought it would be better to have that type of message above and thus common to them all. A further step would be to have a list of what applies to all musicians, followed by what is specific to each group only. Let me see if I can get that to work at the example page. --Kevin Murray 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the most recent rewrite ofWikipedia:Notability (music)/rewrite. I think that there were many criteria in the various sections which had broader applicationto all musicians. By making the fisrt section applicable to all musicians, it seems that we can eliminate the last "others" section. --Kevin Murray 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have included what I think to be a broader defintion in criterion #1; should I go back to the one shown at the protected page (non-trivial, multiple etc.?) as having consensus here? --Kevin Murray 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to continue the confusion of a "general criterion for all" and "special cases," which still implies that one is worth more than another, regardless of the language. What's currently here is fine, and we can just move/duplicate a few things if need be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we might have to agree to disagree here on a few points. Let's see if others think that there is any value in my proposal. Thanks for spending the time with me on this. A bit rocky from both sides on some stuff, but you bring out some very good points. --Kevin Murray 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What about record labels? I'm sure this has already been discussed, but I'm curious. Should we include a sub-section on them too? Most, as far as I know, are evaluated using the WP:CORP guidelines, but I personally think that they should fall under the music guidelines. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Labels are corporations/organizations. The same issues that plague all other corporations plague those, but WP:CORP is too locked up to bother getting any traction. Beyond that, the only music labels that would be affected by a switch would be indie labels, as the main labels undoubtedly meet any standard and the indie labels generally gain it when their artists do. I haven't encountered a notable indie label being removed yet, let's put it that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that was the answer, and I realize that it really only applies to indie labels. But it would just be nice if there was some sort of clause like "Has released at least two albums by at least one band that is otherwise notable," similar to criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC, because that info isn't covered by WP:CORP. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)