Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 16

"Major" and discrimination against independent publishing
This article seems to use words like "non-trivial" and "major" to simply shift the definition of notability to the definition of notability with respect to coverage.

4. "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources"

5. "on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels"

12. "substantial broadcast segment"

Criterion 12, by the way, is interesting: many YouTubers have viewcounts exceeding or matching that of TV Shows. The most viewed video on thedailyshow.com, Sarah Palin Gender Card, for example, has 4,603,790 views. By contrast, The Amazing Atheist (who I learned does not have a Wikipedia article), has 6,669,185 views for his Transformers 4 video. Of course, the Daily Show has been written about, but that's not the point: you would say the Daily Show most definitely has "substantial broadcast segment", and their online broadcast segment is matched by some people who do not even have Wikipedia entries about them. With respect to this criterion, it's extremely subjective.

"Major" in this case isn't any more objective or neutral, since you've added the criterion "important indie label." What the hell is an "important indie label"? And what constitutes "non-trivial coverage"?

Here's a hypothetical: a person with 30,000,000 YouTube views who is not signed to a major album who is only covered by blogs is not eligible for entry into wikipedia, because blogs aren't a "reliable source" according to the standard rules of wikipedia. Yet someone obscure who is nonetheless signed to Sony Music is eligible? Doesn't this seem backward to you? AlmaIV (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't allow blogs as a defacto reliable source, because a lot of them are worse than tabloid newspapers (there are a few reasonably reliable ones though). I do think that having more than a certain number of views on YouTube could be a criteria, but it would have to be quite high (10s of millions) for it to be accepted by most of the more old-school editors though. Non-trivial is a thing that links to WP:GNG - it would need to be better defined there for it to change here, and I think it's best to leave that one discretionary (you could have a lot of sentences about nothing at all, or just name dropping, if you took a sentence count, for example). Being signed to a major label doesn't automatically guarantee you notability, see Articles for deletion/Molly Rainford - where I lost out as it was decided that she was only notable for one event, despite also signing for (ironically) Sony outside and after the TV show. I agree that a lot of Wiki guidelines need bringing up to date and taking into account things like YouTube notability, but there are far too many editors who would block this. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the "non-trivial" or "significant coverage" concept is explained at WP:WHYN. If your sources are sufficient for the purpose, then they count as "non-trivial".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your question: "What the hell is an "important indie label"?". Answer from the same guideline: "i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". Cavarrone (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. #1 In general WP source preferences are partial to old media, and using old media trappings as criteria. These need updating. This is particularly apropos here with the massive changes in the music industry that have occurred in recent years. #2 IMHO SNG's are an attempt to calibrate things where the wp:gng is too ham-handed. In particular areas where the ratio of the required type of coverage to actual notability is non-typical. This makes it too easy (e.g. non-notable sports figures where media "coverage" is itself a form of entertainment rather than being coverage) ) to get in in some fields and too hard (e.g. musical groups and musicians where the situation is the exact opposite) to get in others. So overall I would lean towards being updated and not as stringent here. North8000 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs_Cover-versions_and_multiple-renditions
An MfD has been raised to delete the WP:SONGCOVER redirect and the associated section in WT:SONGS. The substantive question is whether a sufficiently notable cover version deserves its own article, or whether cover versions should always be included in the song article. Could interested editors please pop in and give their opinion. --Surturz (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER
Based on the myriad discussions generated by one editor that somehow sees WP:SONGCOVER as contradicting WP:NSONG, how would people feel about adding "Songs with multiple notable covers are normally covered in a joint article" to WP:NSONG? It's less bombastic and forceful than WP:SONGCOVER, but reinforces that it is typical practice. I don't understand why anyone thinks the two guidelines are in conflict, and this is really intended to clarify that they are not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That would provide consistency with how policy and guideline within Wikipedia generally treat topics and how reliable sources outside of Wikipedia generally treat cover song topics. As for the situation where a cover song topic is unlikely ever to grow beyond a stub, that cover song article can be merged into the cover song artist article or the Wikipedia article on the album in which the cover song appeared, which is how the reliable sources would write about such a topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 *  Add  - I agree with adding "Songs with multiple notable covers are normally covered in a joint article" to WP:NSONG. Otherwise, it would be quite difficult to determine to which musician to redirect the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not add - WP:SONGCOVER is not a guideline, it is a posting in WikiProject Song. A WP:NSONG guideline statement that "Songs with multiple notable covers are normally covered in a joint article" would create a mismatch between the main topic of a Wikipedia omnibus song article and how the reliable sources normally write about cover songs as a main topic. If the song is the main topic of an omnibus article, then the reliable sources that are relevant to that main topic would be ones that discuss the original song and the cover songs as a continuum. Where the main topic of reliable sources is the cover song itself, most of the information from that cover song reliable sources would be specific to the cover song itself and not overlap the omnibus song topic. The efforts of the cover song artists to create their cover song and the reaction of the public to the cover song are outside the context of the original efforts to create the lyrics and original music of the original song. The events and context surrounding the original song and the subsequent cover songs are mutually exclusive - there is some overlap due to the same lyrics and similar music, but the rest of the creative efforts of cover song artists and the reaction of the public to that cover song is not influenced or caused by the original song. The reliable sources largely do not write book, magazine, or news articles that discuss "the song," the original song, and all of its cover songs, as a continuum. When Billboard (magazine) writes about a cover song, they write about the cover song, the cover song artists, and people's reaction to the cover song. They do not write about the collective of the all song works that flow from the original song. Wikipedia articles on "the song" are in the poor state they are because editors cannot find reliable sources that discuss multiple notable covers collectively as a main topic. To create a harmonious connection between Wikipedia's general content approach to main topics and how reliable sources write about cover songs, WP:NSONG should be revised to additionally include: "A standalone article for a cover song is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
 * Add Anything that supports normal practice at WP is a welcome addition to the guideline. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Add, guidelines should reflect common practices, and joint articles for songs with multiple notable covers are a common practice. Cavarrone (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have any guidelines on "joint articles". Instead, we have WP:LIST, which notes that a purpose of a list is to supplement an article's prose content. Can you cite any other guidelines or common practice in Wikipedia that require the prose of a notable topic be merged into or originate in a standalone list rather than a standalone article? The cover song merge targets of artist prose articles or album prose articles already indicated in WP:NSONG is consistent with how content generally is treated in Wikipedia. The above request conflicts with Wikipedia's approach to topics. This RFC goes into additional details as to why this request is not a good idea. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That RFC is why I chose the wording I did: it showed broad support for keeping the articles focused on songs, rather than individual versions (note the 20:8 ratio if favor of keeping the merged style), but there was a recurrent theme that we should probably allow for exception cases. That's why I proposed the phrasing "Songs with multiple notable covers are normally covered in a joint article". You seem to be arguing not for the occasional exception, but for completely reversing the normal practice.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with above and, in reference to common practice, checking just some random song-articles, see Video Killed The Radio Star, Ti amo, Self Control (song), The Power of Love (Jennifer Rush song), Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song), Bette Davis Eyes, Such a Shame, It's My Life (Talk Talk song), Volare (song), I Will Survive, Never Can Say Goodbye, My Way (song)... Joint articles for original songs & covers are already the normal practice. If you want 100 exemples or more about that I can provide you the links. I can understand you don't like it, but this is what happens, for years. Cavarrone (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already listed 100+ song articles which are articles that cover more than one version/recording of a song at Talk:Heart and Soul (1938 song), where this whole debate with Uzma Gamal started. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Add. Though I disagree, it is fairly clear to me that consensus is in favour of merging all renditions of a song into a single article. As such the guideline should be included on this page. Uzma, we've lost this one mate, time to move on. --Surturz (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Add - Appropriately reflects common practice (which in my opinion is also the best practice in most cases), while permitting exceptions in the occasional instances where a separate article is warranted. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support proposed additional wording (although I'm not sure why multiple is important). In the (rare, if any) cases where a cover is more notable than the original, such a potential article could be evaluated on its own merits. The use of normally in the proposed wording permits this, without explicitly encouraging it. -- Trevj (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support There is no reason for multiple articles about one song. LK (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support These types of articles need to be better written and organized not split. However, willing to listen to valid arguments if warranted, but I'm sure there are ways to improve the article before getting to that point. What I'd like to see are some good examples of articles on songs with multiple notable covers and not just what typically looks like individual articles of each version pasted together. -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 11:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the near-universal support, I have added "Songs with notable cover recordings are normally covered in one common article covering the song and the cover versions." Trevj is quite right that "multiple" doesn't make sense (because one cover version creates a second thing to write about) and Uzmal's questions about the definition of "joint" indicate that it's a word that will cause definition problems.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Charts
It has been proposed by several editors to either remove or put a limit on chart results as a means of establishing notability for musicians, albums, and songs/singles. It was originally proposed at the current NSONG discussion for a new guideline, but this change would affect multiple guidelines such as WP:BAND. As such a separate blanket proposal needed to be made. I've added some of the sentiments mentioned in NSONG below in small text. Mkdw talk 21:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" is very problematic; some charts go up to 200 or more. It needs to have a cut-off point, such as top 10 or top 20. Being #200 on a 1-200 chart doesn't make a song notable, it makes it utterly forgettable trivia that nearly no one ever listened to. Billboard could (probably does) publish top 50, top 100, top 200 maybe even top 500 charts. They could at any time produce a top 2,000 chart. That does not mean that everything appearing on them is automagically notable. From a strict WP:N perspective, such charts do not help establish notability at all after maybe the top 10 (i.e. proof that the song was a major piece of pop culture for a while), as the charts are simply raw data, and do not reflect any form editorial intent. Charts do not constitute non-trivial coverage at all; they're like phone books. Also, depending on the size of the country and which chart we're talking about, it may border on trivially easy to make it into the top 200 or even top 100." User: SMcCandlish
 * "... I don't think 'charting' should be the main criterion for the significance of music." User:groupuscule
 * "Criteria number 2 "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" really bugs me. It seems to me ridiculously easy to satisfy compared with the other criteria. Official UK Singles Top 100 lists 100 singles updated weekly. Many other national charts also list 100. Does anyone really believe that just because a single has been on such a list, it is by default notable enough for a stand alone article? Many of these songs won't have any independent coverage." User:FurrySings
 * "Comment, what do you define as a sales chart? Are we saying that if a song doesn't chart on the UK Singles Chart but is sat at like number 100 on the iTunes Store Download Chart that can be added if its covered by an independent reliable source? And perhaps charts should link to WP:CHARTS piped as charts as we have charts which are allowed and disallowed. " User:Lil-unique1
 * "Chart placements don't really establish notability for songs. They are merely rankings of the highest selling songs in a given week; that's not significant coverage. If a song has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple sources, and the content is verifiable by reliable sources, there is no reason to refrain from creating an article for that song. Thank You for the Heartbreak is one example" User:Till
 * Chart placings, as long as they are high enough, do indicate a level of real world notability, and a single that charts highly enough will almost certainly have received a lot of airplay, maybe television exposure, and will almost certainly have been written about. So charting is a good indication of notability, but less so the lower down you get. How highly a record needs to chart to have real world notability will vary from chart to chart, so we can't just put an arbitrary number in that will work for all charts. It is important to remember that we have the advice that if there is insufficient material to merit a standalone article then the content should be merged, so we're not saying that a record that charts in any position is automatically going to need a standalone article, or that such an article would be justified. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're arguing that if a song places high on a chart, it is likely to have been written about and have other things to indicate notability. In that case we should rely on those other things, and not on chart placement. Even if a song places say, 18th on a chart, if nothing has ever been written about it and there are no other sources, then it is almost certainly not notable - without sources, an article beyond a stub cannot even be written. Being on a chart should encourage people to look for sources, but we cannot rely on it to indicate notability. FurrySings (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally we can rely on such chart placings as indicators that coverage will exist. We just might not find that coverage from a Google search. Placing high on a national chart in itself makes a single notable, whether or not we can find coverage, but unless we can find much to write about it it will usually be best to merge it to an article on the artist or associated album.--Michig (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the issue can be solved by the 'not enough material to warrant a standalone article' clause. Then if read correctly, charts help establish notability, but if no material then no article? Mkdw talk 21:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with Michig and Mkdw here. 'Alternative' notability criteria describe situations where significant secondary coverage is likely to exist. If a single/song/track performs well on a major music chart it's likely its been widely played/reviewed ...but to make a meaningful article, one needs to find some of this coverage (as per the "not enough material" introductory clause). Therefore a long-term solution might be for one of the Wikiprojects to make a list of the music charts that are "national or significant". A short term solution would be to qualify what "national or significant" means. For example every genre of music seems to have its own national chart these days (and equally many music genres have specialist online publications)! Should we restrict significance to general music charts? Or maybe (I'm thinking off the top of my head here) we could restrict significance to the 'Top 100' of general music charts and the 'Top 20' of specialist charts? Sionk (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If we can use the 'not enough material to warrant a standalone article' clause to redirect articles to their albums, we are essentially reducing the NSONG criteria to just #1. I think the question should be, "Is a song which does not meet any criteria except having been on a national or significant chart, notable enough for a standalone article?" That's the meaning of having a criteria on a notability list. If you believe the answer is generally 'yes', then we should keep #2, else, it should be removed. The argument that if it meets #2, it's likely to meet other criteria totally misses the point. We are going to have deletion arguments that go "It meet #2, so it's notable." LK (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite. There are two separate issues here. 1. Is it notable?, which is what these three criteria are for, and 2. do we have enough content for a standalone article? A single that was a significant hit is, in real world terms, notable, but it may be best to cover it in an article on the artist or an associated album if we don't have much more than basic details and a chart position. We may have enough content for a standalone article from a dozen sources that don't go into much depth but provide enough verifiable material for a meaningful article, so WP:GNG may not be strictly satisfied. This is one of the big failings of the GNG in my view - the key considerations here should be encyclopedic relevance and whether or not we have enough verifiable encylopedic content for a standalone article, not whether or not we can find two examples of coverage that deal with the single in an 'in-depth' way. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All well and good, but you are not addressing my point, Do you believe that "a song which does not meet any criteria except having been on a national or significant chart, is notable enough for a standalone article"? If so, please explain why. LK (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is why I think that, if clause 2 remains, it needs qualification. At the moment there are regular AfD's that result in "keep"s because of clause 2 alone. 20 years ago if a single charted it was almost certainly of note, but these days with digital downloads and a plethora of download charts, it's much easier for a music track to chart. Sionk (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @LK: Yes, I think it would very probably be notable because it would have the real-world significance which is at the root of notability. If we can't find any detail beyond the fact that it charted, it would usually be better to merge it. If at some later date we find that coverage we can go back to a standalone article. Even if we find lots of coverage, there may be a limited amount of content within that coverage which is suitable for putting in an encyclopedia article, so it may still be best to merge it. If any song or single has sufficient verifiable encyclopedic information available for an encyclopedia article, we should probably have one rather than merging it, irrespective of whether any of these criteria are met. Back to the subject of charts, my experience is that just appearing anywhere on any chart doesn't result in articles being kept at AfD. I wish people would stop looking to these guidelines to provide black and white criteria for keeping or deleting - they are supposed to represent a 'rule of thumb' and each case should be considered on its merits. --Michig (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Lawrencekhoo. I think if a song performs well enough on a national chart its notable. However, not everything notable deserves an article. The reason why we list points for notability is because that's one criteria Wikipedia mandates. There are still plenty of other policies an article must meet to have its own article such as sources etc. It's not like #2 will be the only thing an article needs for it to exist on Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of "charts" out there, and some limit on the number would be a nice threshold to establish. It should also be noted that most charts break them down by category, so a relatively uneventful song might "chart" highly, and not be notable under any reasonable standard. I've seen a proliferation of individual song articles lately, justified often by tangential "charting" notions. Something definitely needs to be done or else NSONGS as a guideline is useless. Shadowjams (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have WP:CHARTS that establishes a guideline on what makes a chart notable or not. The main question is that should chart position be used to describe notability. Mkdw talk 22:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CHARTS is all good, but I don't see thresholds for the ancillary billboard charts, which is a common example. While a top billboard charting song might be easy, how about a #30 song on the country list, that only charts for a week. CHARTS [wisely] doesn't account for those sorts of questions. In fact it's almost irrelevant to the entire discussion here. It provides almost no guidance about what I'm talking about, and about what this entire thread is getting at. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to get away from this idea that 'x charted = should have an article'. I have my own view of how high a chart placing needs to be for a single/song to be 'notable' but we would possibly all have different views, and then there are dozens of charts to consider, and these may have different criteria for different eras. Drawing an arbitrary line below which a chart placing doesn't indicate notability doesn't really seem useful, and a single that was, say, top ten on one of the Billboard charts might still be better merged elsewhere. I think it may be more helpful to emphasize more in the guideline about when we should or shouldn't have a standalone article, regardless of chart position. My own view would be that charted album tracks (i.e. charted but not actually released as singles) should be covered in the album article unless there is enough verifiable encyclopedic content that that would be impractical. And by enough verfiable encyclopedic content I don't mean just an infobox, several headings, two sentences about people's opinions on the song, and a chart position, which is the sort of article we've had a lot of at AfD recently. For singles, if they were taken from an album, I would say the same - cover them in the album article unless the amount of content makes this impractical (which will rarely be the case). For non-album singles, a tracklisting, release date, chart position and minimal content from reviews can easily be covered in the artist article and/or discography, and we should only have standalone articles where the amount of content dictates that covering it in other articles would not be appropriate. Obviously this is a bit verbose, and we already have a sentence to this effect at the start of the song guideline, but perhaps this needs to be stated more strongly. --Michig (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I mostly agree with you Michig; I'm not a huge fan of numerical cutoffs. There's always the exception (e.g. Nick Drake) of the great song that didn't chart but later became notable, which of course is an easy keep under general guidelines. The problem is that right now we have a vague "charted" standard in NSONGS that opts in songs that chart on menial charts and aren't notable by any standard we'd use here.


 * But I'll step back from that, because i think Michig's comment has a lot of really good ideas. I agree totally with the specific treatment of releases. Albums from notable artists obviously get an article. I think that single releases (I'd probably include non-major mixtapes in this group) are probably going to be notable because they'll probably chart or are otherwise notable and are probably significant. The problem with a lot of these song specific articles is that it's people creating an article for every record released single off of a track, and those don't meet any classic definition of notability, however at AfD NSONGS gets thrown around and it's taken as gospel. Most of those should be merged into the appropriate album. However some should obviously have their own page. I think the "chart" part of NSONGS is squeezing in a lot of otherwise not notable articles that would be not only better, but more accurately and fully covered in an album page. As michig says, one line plus an infobox isn't much good. If we directed editors towards a single album page that covered that we could better our accuracy, lessen subtle errors, better manage vandalism, and allow readers to find what they want faster. If a particular song becomes so large within an album article it needs to be split out, then NSONGS has no bearing on its relevance... it's obviously notable. Shadowjams (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little worried here. Most contributors to this debate seem to assume the chart criteria only applies to whether we should have an article on the song.  However, this criteria is also used to determine whether we should have an article on the artist.  While, in the case of an artist who only manages to chart in the lower reaches of a national chart, I could well agree that it is not appropriate to have an article on the song, I think there is a much greater case for an article on the artist.  After all, Wikipedia is one of the first places readers look to find out about an artist they haven't heard of.  The question is how far down those chart listings do we go?  An artist whose sole claim to fame is that they have peaked at number 50 in the Hungarian, Icelandic (they don't actually go down as far as 50, so problem solved!) or Romanian national singles chart is probably not all that noteworthy, and is not likely to result in many readers looking for information.  But an artist that has charted at number 50 in Germany, France, Spain, the United Kingdom or Japan (to pick five of the larger markets) is likely to be searched for by a much more significant number of readers.  I suppose my point is that we need to take care not to be too prescriptive, as that will not be meeting the expectations of our readers.  Skinsmoke (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I've regularly assessed notability of band articles based on chart success, on the grounds that getting an album high in a chart puts you way, way ahead of the standard WP:GARAGE fare. Having said that, my pet GA/FA candidate, Van Der Graaf Generator's sole chart success in the UK is two weeks, reaching a highest chart position of 47. Chart success is only one way of getting notability, not the only way. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to point people here to a discussion at WP:ANI about notability of MMA fighters, where they said, "... remember the basic notability requirement is sufficient coverage in reliable secondary source. If the criteria you're proposing doesn't tend to only include people who meet the basic notability requirement, it's most likely flawed." I believe that #2 is basically flawed in that the large majority of songs that only meet #2 will not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to make an article. FurrySings (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most songs that reach significant chart positions receive sufficient coverage to be considered notable per the GNG, in addition to the obvious real world significance that comes from charting. And somebody saying something in a discussion somewhere doesn't necessarily make it correct. --Michig (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So many songs never chart but have so much information about them. This should no longer be a requirement for an article, as all that information cannot be used otherwise, and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, providing information. — AARON &bull; TALK   12:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Charting has never been a requirement for an article. It is simply one indicator that a song is likely to be notable enough for an article. Many songs that don't chart have plenty of coverage. I have books that go into detail on songs that were never released as singles. --Michig (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but some editors seem to think it is a requirement, or indeed that a song should be a single to be worthy of its own article. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then this needs to be made clear, because as with the very informational "Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)" which has been nominated for deletion, the main argument is that it has not charted. I've experienced it myself with well covered non-charting songs and they are automatically nominated for deletion. Perhaps this could be shown on "Come Alives deletion nomination page. People definitely think charting is a requirement. — AARON  &bull; TALK   23:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is already clear, but if there are editors who don't actually read the guideline there's not a lot we can do about that here. I think the main argument in that AfD is that there isn't sufficient coverage of the song. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Second, is there enough material - this a secondary and mostly irrelevant point. If there isn't, just merge it. Singles and albums already have a natural merge point just above them. Single -> album and album -> artist. In most cases, you probably just aren't looking hard enough - a single or album itself contains all kinds of information, like composer, label, producer, writer(s), surely enough to make a perfectly satisfactory stub. As far as a cut-off, the charts are already cut off - at a point chosen by the chart companies. The charts are also limited to those that are national in scope. I'm not sure why you're not happy with the chart company decision, but I suspect they have quite valid reasons for the length of their charts. Th e S te ve  06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are my 2 cents on the chart question: First, charting certainly shows notability and strongly implies coverage on the radio - this is a key point and the major problem - wikipedia allows radio as a supporting source, but it would be extremely difficult to find the interviews and add the sourcing.  We won't be able to rely on using radio as the supporting material, and, quit frankly, that leaves the charts.  There isn't a large central archive of radio programs that can be easily searched.  However, chart position is an excellent indicator of recommendations and reviews from the DJs of various radio stations.  In fact, many charts incorporate the views of DJs. (ie the DAC

Oppose for increase criteria. Generally, text of "2. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" is very good. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * support refinement - something that has reached a top 20 position is probably something substantial. something that for one week was at 100 is probably proof that it is NOT substantial. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this discussion still ongoing? I have been involved in two afds recently where the only real claim of notability (apart from a misunderstanding of the GNG) has been charting in Korea. One was kept (luckily in my opinion) and the other is still ongoing. My understanding of these supplementary notability criteria is that they are supposed to compliment the GNG, i.e. if they meet WP:NSONG then 90 percent of the time they would meet gng, it is just that the sources have not been found. As yet no one has found sources for these songs that satisfy the GNG. As well as narrowing down the number reached I would also recommend removing some of the charts from Record charts. This was me a day or so ago AIR corn (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongest oppose I've ever given. Limit it to a top 20 or top 10 will cause Wikipedia a lot of problems. Nowadays Wikipedians doesn't seem to have any kind of common sense (and not the essay), the real meaning of common sense, look to the future. First of all, our new editors, a.k.a. "newbies", will be the most affected group as they tend to create and recreate articles about songs or albums that doesn't show notability, for example Artpop, (Artpop (album), Artpop (Lady Gaga album), ARTPOP, My Bra, Boys Boys Boys, and multiple examples of real songs or albums that does not satisfy the NSONGS or GNG criteria. Now, if we limit this to a top 20 position, what would happen? If now a simple requeriment is "to have been in the charts, to have a cover, that satisfies WP:SONGCOVER, or to have won an award" is constantly ignored, do you think a normal person will be happy their favourite song doesn't have an article even though it reached the top 30 in 17 countries, but never the top 10 or 20? Of course not. When I redirect an article I always comment "No charts, no awards, no covers by another artist(s), fails WP:NSONGS" other people just comment "NSONGS" and that's it. If these changes are applied I would comment: "It charted, but not within the top 10/20, no awards, no covers by another artist(s), fails WP:NSONGS". Now there are people who create and recreate articles when they are not notable (I gave examples), what will happen if we apply this is that we will have to force and enforce those articles to become redirects or red links, and if they are constantly recreated, protection, salts, blocks and possibly bans will have to be applied because of this. You can explain people about Wikipedia rules, but how you will explain editors the songs are now not notable even when they did charted, because we decided so? Or the favourite slogan of the TFAs: "Why that FA article was scheduled as TFA, I hate it/Is gross/Think about our children; Answer.- Because you never joined the discussion at TFAR." Which will be our slogan "You never joined the [obscure] discussion about notability"?

Now WikiProject Songs. There are More than 10,000 NA-class criteria articles. Assuming the stub, start, C, and some B class-criteria will become NAs because the probability the songs are not notable under our new criteria will make those 10,000 will become 60,000 articles. Why the WP should continue existing when at least 8/10 are notable and that WP has satisfied its criteria? Also, our songs. Life for Rent (song) is notable as it reached the top 20 in 5 charts, but Sand in My Shoes reached the top 20 in two non-national countries, is the first more notable than the second? Or what about the songs that reach the top 20 one week and due to an event, for example Glitter in the Air, it reached the #18 due to Pink's performance at the Grammys, but the next week it feel to the 70s, is that song "notable" because one event? I thought that one event is not notability by itself. Or what about Glee songs. Let's imagine for a minute they don't do covers and their songs are original. Their songs tend to debut within the Top 20, but they leave the chart in two to four days (in the US), are they notables because of that? Or let's imagine Run (Snow Patrol song) was released this year, and therefore it has never been covered or awarded; it would look like this. Along with a friend, I am expanding that article, and I haven't found independent reviews from the single release, it charted at 5 in the UK and lowers positions in three other charts, is it a non-notable song because those two points? But Glee are because of their top 10?

The proposal is not a bad idea, we should put a limit, but as now it is wrongly elaborated. Of course there are charts with a top 100, and others with top 125, 200, or even 2,000 (Mexican airplay), but limiting it to 10 or 20 is the baddest idea I've ever listened to. We are not Nielsen Company or the Official Chart Company, and even they have understood digital era is stronger than ever. We don't decide what is notable, and what is not, that's up to external references. And it is not our fault songs chart. Wikipedia is not for the Wikipedians, Wikipedia is for the readers, and if the readers want articles about songs with minimal notability we should give them to them as long as WP:V or WP:GNG are not damaged. I'd support a limit of Top 100, but not further than that. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm opposed to NSONG having a "limit" on chart results as a means of establishing notability because chart results - whether a song's peak position is 20 or 200 - merely suggest notability, not guarantee notability. The higher a song's peak chart position, the more likely coverage exists; that's why most top 20 songs are able to support standalone articles. But it's also the case that many, many lower-ranked (or unranked altogether) songs have received lots and lots of coverage, and are also able to support standalone articles. So having some arbitrary chart number represent a notability threshold only seems to make things more complicated than they need to be. The very first sentence of NSONG states that "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This bolsters the idea that coverage, not chart results, is paramount in determining whether an individual song article is warranted. That's why, in my view, an AfD statement like, "Keep: It charted somewhere, therefore it's notable" is an incorrect (or, at least, incomplete) interpretation of NSONG. Instead, a statement like, "Keep: It charted somewhere, and significant coverage exists at A, B, and C, therefore it's notable" not only makes a stronger point but more closely follows the spirit of NSONG. In other words, chart positions should (continue to) be used as guides. If anything, that's what I'd like to be stated more clearly in NSONG #2.  Gong   show  21:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be easier to simply remove number two completely then. Coverage is covered pretty well in point one and I am seeing many "Keep it charted" !votes without any further evidence of notability. AIR corn (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd propose a cast-iron top 10 or top 20 limit. Charting at #194 of 200 shouldn't be a grounds for notability. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that whatever is chosen it should reflect a case where most (lets say 80%) of the articles would meet GNG if this was tested (which is only really done at afd's). I firmly believe that the guidelines for subject-specific notability should be a reflection of the guidelines for general notability, not a replacement. At the least I think that needs to be acknowledged better in the introduction, maybe something similar what WP:Nsports does. AIR corn (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think NSONG should address the charts in some manner, so I'm hesitant to remove number two completely. Here is an attempt at reorganizing NSONG so that it makes clearer (IMO) that coverage is the primary way to establish notability, and that charting alone does not warrant an article.  Gong   show  19:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like that. More emphasis on the GNG is always a good thing. AIR corn (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Add specific language to the effect that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created" and I will sign on.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Love it; added.  Gong   show  23:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll throw the monkey wrench in this: the purpose of the chart listing "rule" is not to allow us to create articles, it's to prevent us from doing so. We have far too many articles about individual singles, and, in general, it makes no sense to have independent articles about individual singles. The material should generally be covered either in the parent album article, or, in the case of a song that's been covered, in an article describing the single in the context of the song. The only value of the chart rule has been to create a bright line ruling that generally prevents failures and album tracks from getting individual articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, which is why I've recently either AfDed or redirected quite a few such articles - in one case, it had neither charted nor had any coverage... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But if it is a bright line rule then it works the other way too, with probably non-notable songs getting articles just because they charted. If the only information for a song comes from short snippets in an album review then it should really be covered in the album article. I would say that this is the major problem, that it is treated too much as a bright line whereas coverage should be the driving factor for notability. AIR corn (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - NSONG as it's written now leaves perhaps too much open to (mis?)interpretation. The song articles being discussed here as problematic are those which consist solely of a chart listing with some trivial mentions within album p/reviews. Supporters of such articles can point to NSONG#2 as justification for keeping them. IMO, NSONG should more explicitly suggest that chart listings can be helpful indicators that coverage is likely to exist, but that chart listings alone do not necessitate a standalone article. Introducing an arbitrary chart limit on notability (top 10, top 20, top 40) would only complicate things, as songs/singles can certainly be notable (and warrant standalone articles) without having charted at all, and not all charting songs/singles may warrant individual articles. So I'm with User:Aircorn in that we should simply emphasize coverage as the driving factor for notability regardless of chart listings. Any thoughts on restructuring NSONG to something like this?  Gong   show  23:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to start an WP:RFC on it as it is a relatively major change that might have been missed by a few interested editors. Wouldn't hurt to get wider community input on it. AIR corn (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea - I'll start an RfC shortly.  Gong   show  23:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a large number of articles list as their only charting the South Korean Gaon singles chart, where most if not all of the songs on an album also chart on the singles chart the week the album drops and charts, and longer if the album continues high sales. This includes the remixes only available on the deluxe version of an album. I don't see how all of these songs can be considered notable on the basis of such charting, yet the AfD Keeps keep coming. Song notability should be based on the song, not on spillover from the album it came from. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest, for a less severe restriction, that the song/album have been a top 40 hit on at least one chart? For example, on the One-hit wonders in the United States, many performers of the 70s or earlier are either redlinked or not linked at all. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely needs overhauling or removing entirely: as a summary of previously stated positions with which I concur - charted on any national chart is too vague, Top 100, 200 etc.; people release singles/albums a-go-go these days due to digital; there are a lot of IMHO fancruft articles about modern artists and their releases (including, but not exclusively, j-pop, k-pop, YouTube artists, Nicki Minaj and other R'n'B artists etc., where every single has an article, due to the plethora of online sources available, often referenced to blogs, user-generated sites, YouTube, twitter feeds, forum posts and so on), with Provision 2 this makes taking them to AfD risky as all the fanboys/girls scream "but it charted at #187 in Korea zomg of course it's notable", ignoring any observations about the fact that the sourcing is utter rubbish; Wikipedia is being overrun by a sea of such clutter and I am ashamed and pretty outraged when trivial non-bands and their junk have articles that are often longer than well established notable groups, whose articles conform to WP guidelines and policy on sourcing, layout and so on. There, that was a bit more than two cents worth. Captain Screebo Parley! 14:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We should state that it must be on the list of good charts. It might be good to indicate that this in addition with one of the other criteria is preferable. Anything beyond that would be difficult to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the solution here is to note in WP:NMUSIC that charting can be used to demonstrate notability but it must be done along with other evidence. If chart position is the sole evidence offered of notability, that artist probably isn't notable. The above arguments about quality of the charts and how high in the chart the album or song is ranked is pretty much moot when you consider that these artists and their work is going to meet criteria #1 which is the absolute most important criteria of any subject here, significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to add in here...I think the rules for creating song articles must meet two of the criteria. If the song has charted well enough then it should also meet #1 (provided the creator has bothered to get that info). I've recently redirected this - which after four years, still amounted to two lines of text. It claims to be top 20 in two charts (unreferenced of course), but no decent article could ever be written about the song if standing on that alone. I therefore redirected it as per WP:PERMA. At AfD the argument can't simply rely on meeting #2 - it must also satisfy at least one more.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Wikipedia?
All album pages are important to those looking them up. I am not a Wikipedia super editor (e.g. an editor with article life or death powers), but I do create Wikipedia articles, mostly on recordings. I have created articles on 12 albums, and intend to create ones for another 40 over the next year or so. As a user of Wikipedia, when I am listening to an album, I frequently come to Wikipedia to look up the information about the album. I want to know what the tracks are, who wrote them, how long each track is. Therefore, in my mind, all album articles which include that information is notable. Unless Wikipedia is getting so bloated that it is crashing, any article that increases the knowledge available to those who are interested are important. Since everything is defined these days by the word notable, I call all albums with a national publication notable. I can state that my recent article creations are a lot more relevant, with more citations etc. than the articles on the EPs put out by The Cranberries for example. Unless there is a planned major purge of all the albums which don't meet the rather restrictive definition of notable, please leave useful articles alones. However, I am willing to listen to a discussion on why Wikipedia should limit it's knowledge base, on why people should go to another source to find relevant information. Mburrell (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Thank you Mburrell. I concur, that album information should be listed in either its own album article, the artist article, or the artist discography article to the extent that it is legal to do so, especially if the artist or the album is notable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal for rewording NSONG
Spinning off from this discussion, which sought to clarify the relevance of chart results in establishing a song's notability, this RfC aims to find consensus on whether to adjust the present WP:NSONG wording to this proposed version.  Gong   show  01:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Support

 * 1) Support. The is more of a reorganization than a rewrite, but I think the changes go a long way towards addressing users' concerns from this discussion. The proposed version continues to acknowledge that song-specific criteria (e.g., charts, awards, covers) are helpful guides that "suggest that a song or single may be notable", and more clearly states that charting alone does not guarantee a standalone article is warranted ("a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria"). In the previous discussion, there was general agreement that a charting song for which there is little-to-no written material should not have a standalone article; instead, it should be merged into the album article. While this is already implied in NSONG ("enough material to warrant..."), multiple users said they still encounter the "Keep per NSONG#2 - it charted" !voting patterns at AfDs. This leads me to think the guideline is not clear enough, so why not take the opportunity to make it less ambiguous? The proposed version also mentions instances where "the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears". How to proceed in such situations is commonly debated at song-related AfDs, so it would seem to be useful for NSONG to address the issue in some manner. Another issue raised in the previous discussion was whether there should be a standard chart position to ensure standalone articles (ie, any song that makes the top 10/20/40/100/etc gets an article). There was no agreement on which chart positions, or which charts themselves, should be used, so it seems NSONG should not introduce an arbitrary limit (not to mention there are many notable songs that never charted). The proposed version does not introduce such a limit. In short, I believe the proposed version does not fundamentally change NSONG; it's simply an attempt to clarify what the guideline already stands for.  Gong   show  01:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, looks good to me. J04n(talk page) 01:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per my comment above. AIR corn (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I like it but I suspect some of the hard critics of the chart performance issue will still feel their arguments that chart position =/= notability because some charts are extremely long. Mkdw talk 04:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - It's not a major change, and it probably doesn't go far enough: that said, it's an important clarification and a step in the right direction. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - But I disagree about the part which says if the singer has extensively spoken about the song. If anything, it makes the article even better if the creative process is known. Song reviewed as part of an album review is crucial, as not even singles get that that many single reviews nowadays. Album reviews for songs are very important and do contain valuable information. Anyone who says otherwise or disagrees is, to be honest, dumb. If album reviews for song articles are going to be banned, then I'm striking my support.  — AARON  &bull; TALK   09:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You would still be able to use information from album reviews in the article. They just would not carry much weight when it comes to establishing the songs notability. AIR corn (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Album reviews will not be banned. This proposal is just for clearing up the question: "What makes a song notable?" Let me elaborate with an example, "Run the World (Girls)" by Beyonce. Obviously it's a notable song, but let's pretend for a minute that the only coverage that existed were in seven total sources. On one hand, we have articles like these three pieces, which not only demonstrate that notable sources care enough to focus on one song, but they also contain more detailed background information on the song than is typically found within album reviews - suchasthesefour. The coverage for this particular song within the album reviews is quite trivial (~one sentence each) and does not establish notability, but it is perfectly acceptable for using to supplement an article (Reception section or anywhere else where the info might be appropriate). In other words, if all we had were these 7 links, a standalone article would not survive without the first three sources, but it could survive without the last four sources.  Gong   show  01:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support with minor tweaks - I would change probably notable to presumed notable, otherwise people might argue at AfD about what "probably" means. Also I'd link Wikiversity and WikiBooks. Other than that, the wording states what I'd probably call "common sense" when handling articles like this anyway. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support with the proviso, that for songs the permastub comment should be enhanced, why not put it as the lead paragraph? Too many song articles are little more than a discography entry - which can and should be merged in any event.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support the clarification -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, goes a long way to clarifying notability though I agree with Lukeno94, it doesn't necesssarily go far enough. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  13:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, revised wording is easier to understand.  78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: the unambiguous clarification that coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability is a crucial one, and badly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I don't think it does much though. The album-context piece is good, but it doesn't address the question of chart notability, and the proliferation of subgenre charts (not to mention the depth of a chart) remain major issues. Still, I see no reason to oppose. Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - it is an improvement in many ways. I too like the discouragement of using mentions of tracks amidst and album review, which will cut out many shoddy fan crud articles. My one suggestion would be to move "Notability aside, a standalone article is..." to beneath the numbered list. Sionk (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - this better reflects what is already the practice at WP:AfD, and is more consistent with other deletion policies. LK (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I was about to oppose re "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" until I saw that this is still covered in the current form, as well. Therefore, what is done in the proposal is that point 1 is expanded and made the focal discussion of the policy, and points 2-4 are generally left alone.  All this becomes is a rewording.  CycloneGU (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - The new wording would definitely be easier to understand. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: well it's not like anyone has opposed so far. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 08:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. It looks like WP:SNOW. I hope this puts the question to rest. LK (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Comment – I'm a little confused here as I try to familiarize myself with the issue to make an educated vote. I agree that the proposed rewrite is an improvement over what currently exists and I agree that a song that has only charted on one chart, but has little-to-no chance of being expanded beyond a stub, should not exist. What I fail to see is how the proposed new wording addresses concerns about charting being the sole reason for establishing notability. Why not ditch the numbered list altogether? I'm sure the list of reasons why a song may be notable could go on for a while (it's been used in a lot of commercials/movie trailers, it gets a lot of plays on iTunes, it was the first song to debut in space, etc.) This guideline should be more focused on why a song is notable, not why it possibly could be, and I believe the proposed new wording would do a better job of establishing that without the list of reasons why it may be notable. 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way anything is really notable (although a few exceptions exist) is if it is significantly covered in independent, reliable, secondary sources. This guideline should provide a good suggestion as to whether something which currently does not have these sources meets the general guidelines. I see it as the presumption that such sources may exist, but have not been used. However, this should not provide immunity and if notability is challenged then those sources must be provided. As a practical purpose it means that new page patrollers that know very little about a song can use it as a guideline as to whether a poorly referenced song article should be put to WP:AFD or just tagged for more references. AIR corn (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I liken the numbered list to that of WP:MOVIE's 'Other evidence of notability' section. There, the five attributes indicate, "when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist. [...] However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." In this instance, NSONG's song-centric attributes are helpful indicators of songs that are likely to be notable, with similar caveats: the supporting reliable sources, and no guarantees of a standalone article even if one or more of the criteria is satisfied.  Gong   show  05:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Should we notify everyone who commented in this thread. AIR corn (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll message them now.  Gong   show  04:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The second sentence of Note 2 reads very oddly to me: "Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way interested in any third party source." In particular, it's "interested in any third party source" that doesn't seem to say what I think it means. I think the meaning is supposed to be something like "has an interest in", as in an ownership interest or affiliation or some other inherent COI, but "interested" doesn't convey that, merely that they might be interested in finding out about that source or what it says. I realize that this is the current NSONG wording of the note, but can we fix it, and does anyone have a good idea on a potential rewording? (The best I've been able to come up with so far is "have no pecuniary interest in or other significant affiliation with any cited third party source"—and change the period after "vendor" to a comma.) The only other grammatical fix I'd make is in the very first paragraph, changing "re-print" to "reprint". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree...would changing "interested in" to "affiliated with" be adequate? I also went ahead and fixed "reprint" - nice catch.  Gong   show  01:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I like "affiliated with" and it's definitely an improvement. I'd be interested to hear whether anyone thinks it misses anything it needs to cover, though (does "affiliation" cover more direct ownership links, for example); if no one has any other suggestion, then by all means make the change. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Four days later: there haven't been any alternate suggestions or objections, so you may as well make the change to "affiliated with". BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I agree that it's improved, but if you or anyone thinks that something more should be added to the sentence (e.g., to borrow your wording above, "or has some other inherent conflict of interest"), I'm all for it.  Gong   show  00:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability of music; not songs, records, singers, bands, concert tours ...
Seeing Articles for deletion/Violin Concerto No. 4 (Paganini) I came here seeking guidance only to find that Notability (music) doesn't seem to cover (how should I say it?) music. Unless it's a song (but a violin concerto isn't). Is that deliberate? Am I looking in the wrong place? Maybe it means that WP:GNG applies without any specific guideline but, if so, it would be nice to say so. Thincat (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point, and probably something that needs addressing. A piece of music can, theoretically, pass NSONG, of course, provided it is recent, has good coverage in RS, and/or has charted somewhere. Of course, with older music, then at the moment, the only fallback is GNG. Perhaps you should propose a new guideline for pieces of music? :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging of non-notable albums redux
The discussion above is is being cited in AfDs (an example is Articles for deletion/In Tuned Out) for turning band pages into situations like this with endless tracklists at the bottom of pages. I would like make a proposal stating that non-notable albums should only be redirected to band or discography pages. J04n(talk page) 11:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's Jax 0677, whom is creating a lot of non-notable things to prove a WP:POINT (see the RfC on him here), and he's the only person making this proposal anyway. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that tracklists that appear to have been haphazardly dumped at the bottom of a page, as in the Shadow Project article, should not be encouraged. And individual articles for such non-notable albums - as were created here, here, and here - are not warranted per WP:NALBUMS. In the previous discussion I was on the fence on the issue of whether tracklists are vital elements of discographies or if they are trivial enough to remove entirely. My reasons for not completely favoring tracklists in discographies are more aesthetic than out of a belief that the information is irrelevant. I think that tracklists can be beneficial to readers if the information is comprehensive (e.g., adding songwriters and track lengths) and presented/organized cleanly (see this attempt at a Shadow Project redo - any thoughts? I'll address MOS:COLLAPSE concerns in a separate response). My first instinct - as evidenced in this band's case - has generally been to simply redirect the albums to the artist's page. That's been my !voting tendency in AfDs as well, so I'm not opposed to the idea of stating that non-notable albums should only be redirected to band or discography pages. But I'm okay with allowing tracklists in situations where they can be seamlessly incorporated into the band or discography page.  Gong   show  20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In my eyes, the discography should have tracklists, the band pages should not. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 Include Track Listings in artist/ensemble article or separate discography page  - First things first, there is no evidence that I am violating WP:POINT. That being said, it is my solemn belief that once the track listings for an album are listed on Wikipedia, those track listings should remain on Wikipedia so long as the ensemble or one of its musicians is notable, because Wikipedia is not censored, and the track listings, times, writers, etc. are encyclopedic information. If that means creating a whole lot of discography articles such as Bile discography to list out the album tracks, then so be it (though I like Gongshow's rendition of track listings at the bottom of "Shadow Project" uncollapsed). Displaying album track listings has been done at No Justice and Van Canto with little to no consequence. The goal of Wikipedia is to increase the sum of human knowledge, and the goal of WP:N is to prevent articles on non-notable topics which are not as likely to be accurate due to lack of publication in reliable sources. Deleting all of the non-notable album article will more than likely be an arduous task. In my opinion, having more than two album track listings in an artist article gets messy. Articles about songs should be created with more discretion, as permastubs can be merged, and longer articles can be kept. We absolutely must respect MOS:COLLAPSE due to the wide range of users. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCENSORED is about objectionable content not non-notable content. If an album is not covered in reliable sources, and the only thing found on the album is a track listing on Allmusic, Amazon, or Discogs, there is no need to include the track list on an artist's page or its discography page. -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 04:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC against you is proof that a lot of people agree you've violated WP:POINT. I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: censorship is not relevant to this discussion. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Proof that a lot of people agree maybe, but not proof that I did so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 Music album track lists are encyclopedic information because it is required to create an article about a future upcoming album - IMO, because a track list (along with an album title and expected release date) are required to create an article about a future upcoming album, I believe that track lists are encyclopedic information, and should be kept in some form. If not, why is a track list required to create an article about a future album? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's because upcoming albums without a title, release date, or track list rarely meet notability requirements. At best, the coverage is so minimal that it simply makes much more sense to place verifiable information about an artist's next album in the artist's article. What is required for any album is reliable coverage from multiple significant sources. If the album is NOT notable, the track list is NOT encyclopedic. -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 15:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not sufficient sources can be found to justify a standalone article for an album has no relevance on the encyclopedic nature of the track titles on that album in my view. I also disagree totally that failing to find enough information for a standalone article should result in album articles being simply redirected. If they contain relevant information that would be worth merging they should at least be merged. For a lot of artists, releasing records is their main point of existing, so not telling our readers what's on those records just seems a bizarre choice. The problem I do have is where track lists (often presented in tables) end up taking up the majority of an article about the artist. Tracks don't need to be listed on separate lines, and can be condensed down to a couple of lines in most cases, as pretty much all of the discography books that I've ever seen do. Nothing to do with censorship, though. --Michig (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Michig, I agree with what you are saying. When the discographies with their track listings take up the majority of an article about the artist, such as 5FDP discography, they can be split off. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your example. I don't see where full track listings were ever placed on the Five Finger Death Punch discography page and, with the possible exception of Pre-Emptive Strike, all of their albums seem to easily meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 21:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, the 5FDP article and its discography together total much less than 100 kB. The discography was likely split off because it took up close to half of the page.  Because each 5FDP album has its own article, the discography page does not need the tracks listed on it.  If each album however did not warrant their own articles, then the discography could easily contain the track listings and lengths, to facilitate organization and keeping the size of the artist page down, similar to "Bile Discography".  If the discography page becomes too big, then the discography page can be split off into individual albums.  What I still do not understand is why individual train stations get their very own Wikipedia pages, even if the train station itself is not individually notable [i.e. Central Station (Phoenix)].--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Reply  - Will this discussion be dispositioned any time soon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the point of reopening a discussion that ended well over a month ago? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - If this is the case, then this should be closed as "No Consensus". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 *  Comment  - I have listed this at WP:ANRFC so that someone who is not as deeply involved as I am can close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

notable?
is the winner of competition like American Idol, Philippines Idol, etc notable to be a biography article? He/she just win the competition and have no album.114.79.3.48 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends what kind of coverage they've had. If they've received in-depth coverage from non-primary sources, that isn't purely routine (ie, not just a review of their performance) then yes, they are. American Idol and XFactor winners usually are notable, not so sure about the level of coverage for some others. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If this is the only claim to notability, it is probably more appropriate to have coverage in the article about the show or the season, and redirect the person's name to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarification. LK (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of coverage audience
I'm bringing this up here because it came up in a recent deletion review.

Criterion #1 of WP:BAND fails to clarify that the coverage needs to be more than local. WP:CORP requires "at least one regional, national, or international source". WP:BAND should as well.

A band that has had coverage only in local publications (like those weekly free tabloids, and websites dedicated to local events) is not notable, especially in the context of an encyclopedia with an international audience.

I have always viewed WP:CORP as the overall notability guideline for all organizations, regardless of what they are, with WP:BAND as a supplement to provide specific guidance for music ensembles. Even if that's an incorrect interpretation, it makes sense that any organization, even bands, should merit attention from more than local sources to be notable.

I propose amending criterion 1 to clarify this point, or at least state at the beginning of the section: "The notability criteria in WP:CORP apply here in addition to those described below." ~Amatulić (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be useful, but a note to the effect that subjects who have only received coverage in local publications with small circulations may not be sufficiently notable may help. There's a lot of interpretation involved - an article in a low-circulation newspaper serving the subject's own community wouldn't generally be considered evidence of notability, an article in The Boston Globe or Los Angeles Times, for example, would. There's a whole grey area in between. WP:CORP is not relevant to individual musicians, who are also covered by this guideline in addition to bands. I don't really feel that the guideline as it is leads to the wrong articles remaining here. People should be encouraged to treat each article on its own merits rather than look to guidelines to provide 'rules' that are to be followed. --Michig (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's exactly my point. The Boston Globe or Los Angeles Times have more than local circulation. We have an article currently at Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) because the author of the article interpreted the guideline in exactly the way you describe isn't notable: coverage in multiple local low-circulation publications or web sites. Clarifying that WP:CORP applies to all organizations including music ensembles would have prevented the controversy about coverage that the author has introduced in the prior DRV for this article as well as the current AFD, where the consensus is that the band is not notable.
 * All I'm saying is it's an exercise in WP:COMMONSENSE to consider the guidelines for organizations apply to any organization, and clarifying this point would not harm, but only aid in guidance. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in principle I agree that as much as possible we should follow that rule — I do, for instance, make every effort to ensure that I'm following it in my own editing; no matter how much I might like a band, I don't start an article about them until I can locate at least some coverage in (a) gold-standard sources like the major music magazines or the top tier of major market newspapers, or (b) a range of regional sources not limited to a single media market. However, I can imagine that there might be cases where a band which has never garnered one word of non-local coverage could still garner a volume of local coverage that's sizable enough to get them past criterion #7 ("the most prominent of the local scene of a city"). I can't imagine that very many bands would meet that standard (The Reformation certainly didn't, at least not on the basis of that article as written) but I can certainly imagine that there are at least a few cases out there somewhere.
 * And furthermore, NMUSIC is not only about bands but also about individual musicians, so stating that WP:CORP applies to bands would thus be separating musical artists into two different sets of notability criteria based on whether the act has one or multiple members — if we did so, a band would suddenly have to pass a higher standard of sourcing than the solo artist who plays the very same bar the very next night would. The standards should be high, yes, but they have to remain equal for both types of acts.
 * Accordingly, I'm more inclined to agree with Michig on this one. We should specify in this guideline that regional or national sources carry more weight than local ones in determining notability, but we should not assert that it's an absolutely inviolable rule that can't even be assuaged by showing a substantial volume of local coverage — nor should this guideline separate musical artists into two separate classes of article, where one class has to pass WP:CORP in addition to this guideline and the other just has to pass this guideline alone. Bearcat (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
In light of the above debate, I'm going to put the following modifications to this document forward as proposals for discussion. Of course, this is just a starting point, and there may be wording changes or further modifications necessary for reasons I haven't fully integrated yet, but it's worth starting the discussion.

1. "Note that nationally or regionally distributed sources, such as widely distributed music magazines or medium to major market media outlets, carry more weight in establishing notability than purely local sources do. An artist is not likely to be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia if you cannot cite any evidence of coverage outside of their own home market."

2. "Note that while album reviews may be cited for verification purposes once notability has been demonstrated through other, stronger citations, reviews in and of themselves do not demonstrate notability — if they are the only sources that can be provided, then the artist does not qualify for an article at the present time."

I also, for the record, disagree with this guideline's assertion that college and university media (student newspapers, college radio stations, etc.) should be entirely deprecated as sources. I agree in principle that they're not sufficient in and of themselves to demonstrate notability if they're the only sources that can be provided, because they do provide more coverage to purely local and hence probably not encyclopedically notable artists than their commercial equivalents do — but if you've already cited enough of a diversity of sources to get past WP:GNG as it is, then college media is perfectly legitimate for sourcing additional content, because it isn't any less inherently reliable, or any less inherently notable, than the commercial media outlets in the same market are.

As with all other media, college media coverage outside of the artist's home market counts for more than coverage inside it does — singer-songwriter John Pebbleston from Twin Falls, Idaho getting interviewed on KEZJ (AM) counts for far less in the notability sweepstakes than his getting interviewed on WFUV would, for instance, but an interview on a commercial radio station in Twin Falls, such as KECH-FM or KBAR (AM), wouldn't count for any more than KEZJ would either. The fact that KEZJ is a local radio station in the artist's own hometown, not the fact that it's a college radio station, is what dampens its potential to demonstrate sufficient notability — if he was from Palookaville, North Carolina instead, then the very same interview on KEZJ would point toward notability by virtue of demonstrating that he was meeting NMUSIC criterion #4. Now, if you will, imagine that he's a very well-known artist with a hit indie rock single under his belt, whose article cites a wide variety of sources, and thus there's no doubt whatsoever about his notability, but the interview on KEZJ happens to be where he officially comes out as gay for the first time, or where he talks in by far the most depth about how his breakthrough hit single was inspired by the death of his father — in such a case, the fact that KEZJ happens to be a college radio station should in no way limit our ability to include that content in his article.

Any additional input? Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I favor your proposal 1, although I still disagree that having coverage only in local sources matters in the least for notability, whether for ensembles or individual musicians.


 * I am leaning against your proposal 2 as stated. If an unarguably notable reviewer reviews an album, that means something. A review on NPR, heard all over the United States, of an album by an unknown artist would be quite notable, I think.


 * As to college newspapers, it really boils down to local vs non-local. Reviews outside the local region may be significant, as I was trying to argue previously, regardless of whether it's an ensemble or individual musician. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's flatly impossible for an artist to get a review on NPR, heard all over the United States, without there also being at least a few real, legitimate sources out there about them in other media as well. And, in fact, NPR doesn't even do album reviews in isolation; their album reviews are always paired with a more substantial feature on the artist which would itself count as a reliable source without even needing to source anything to the review itself. But again, the point was meant to be about people who think their favourite local band should qualify for an article on the basis of one single capsule review in the local street weekly. NPR coverage is an entirely different league. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the wording of 1. "home market" is too open to interpretation. The key thing here I think is that low circulation sources that are local to the subject carry less weight. I totally disagree with 2. Reviews do demonstrate notability. Bands generally exist to play live and record, and generally receive coverage for their live performances and releases, generally in the form of reviews. I see no logic in expecting coverage for something else. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree with (2) too. Authors and artists who create a piece of work that has been widely reviewed are generally notable. Why should musicians be different? Sionk (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Total disagreement with the second proposal, per above. Obviously artists are notable for their works, and reviews demonstrate notability. Cavarrone 09:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What you're missing is that reviews cannot demonstrate notability in isolation. Every album that has ever existed has gotten a published review somewhere — maybe Rolling Stone, maybe a local newspaper, maybe a mimeographed zine with a circulation of less than 100 copies, but always somewhere. But that doesn't make every band in existence notable — because reviews alone do not demonstrate notability if you cannot also add more substantive coverage (i.e. actual interviews, full-fledged articles, etc.), by which we can verify more than the mere fact that the band and its album exist.
 * Any author, artist or musical act who is "widely reviewed" enough to count as notable will also, by definition, have garnered enough of the more substantive sort of coverage that an article on them will not need to rely on album reviews. What the proposal is meant to address is artists who cannot be sourced to anything more substantive than one or two album reviews.
 * The background here is that the WP:CORP discussion above was started because of a band AFD in which the creator argued (and quite persistently at that) that the band was notable enough for a Wikipedia article because their album had garnered one single solitary 45-word blurb review in one publication in their own hometown. The article contained no other sources besides that one blurb. Which absolutely does not satisfy our notability rules — but this guideline does need to be clearer about why that doesn't count. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Major award
What is the standard for a music award to be "major"?  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 17:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Difficult to define this in black and white terms, but the examples give a good idea I think. All of them are highly regarded national awards that themselves receive plenty of coverage. While I think there are probably some less high profile awards that would be sufficient to satisfy this criterion (BET Awards, MOBOs, NME Awards, etc.), there are a lot of awards that wouldn't, e.g. local area awards that don't receive much coverage outside that area or from sources not associated with the awards. --Michig (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Given how wide music is, being too specific is often a bad idea. For example, offhand, there's probably a lot more awards for pop music than, say, bluegrass or opera, and the pop ones probably are a lot more prominent - but we certainly don't want to exclude bluegrass or opera because we set standards that work for pop, but which accidentally exclude the most prominent awards in those genres because they get less mainstream press; nor do we want to make it ridiculously easy for a pop group to achieve notability because they only have to reach the standards set by a genre it's far harder to get an award in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:MUSICBIO and "national music chart"
A recent AfD for Cole Swindell brought a concern to the idea of whether having a single or album on a genre-specific chart (e.g. in the AfD, Billboard's Hot Country Songs) fulfills the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO in criteria #2: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The consensus was obviously to keep the article, and although I disagree with the concern, it might be something we should consider clarifying. If it's agreed that genre-specific charts (as opposed to something more general like Billboard 200) are a legitimate claim to notability, we should make that clearer in the criteria, possibly phrasing it as, Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart, including genre-specific charts. What are some thoughts on this change from other editors? I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What is not expressly excluded should be implied as included, isn't it? I consider the criteria phrasing quite clear as it is now, no need of unnecessary additions. Cavarrone 21:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say clarity is good. It can't hurt to add a note. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

13th criterion for musicians
I've added "Created a lead rôle for a notable theatrical musical work, such as a notable opera or musical." - This is generally considered quite notable - indeed, a lot of 17th-century singers, for example, are primarily still talked about today for having done so. Obviously, most of these'll come under GNG anyway, but it's probably not a bad inclusion.

Is "created" clear enough? in those genres, it means the person who first performed a role, as there's a strong tendency for their performance to influence other ones for quite some time afterwards. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How to write a non-notable compilation
According to section "If the subject is not notable", usually a non-notable compilation should not be covered significantly in Wikipedia. However, I want to create the article Greatest Hits (Teresa Teng album), whose subject is a collection of re-recordings of old songs by Teresa Teng. Would that be all right? --George Ho (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Boldly changing criterion wording
Before it was "A musician or ensemble... may be notable if..." (italics added for clarity). I've changed it to "A musician or ensemble... should be considered be notable if...".  Ross Hill  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ross_Hill&action=edit&section=new Talk to me! ] 23:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, if it only meets one point of the criteria, and that is related to one single event (one song being in rotation in one genre specific market would be an example), then the act would more than likely fail a AfD discussion. "Should be" implies that by meeting a single criteria should result in an indisputable article. It all comes down to coverage in significant independent reliable sources and meeting the general notability guideline.  STATic  message me!  23:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We just went through this, where a COI account attempted to make the purported meeting of a single criteria all the evidence of notability that was required. May indicates that this is not necessarily so. JNW (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Point #5
With the line "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" this also applies to one album with a major record label and one inmportant indie label, or it has to two albums on a major label or two on an important indie label. In other words, is Killer notable because only two of their albums were released under important labels: Bellaphon Records--indie label-- and Sony Music Distribution--major label--(I want to assume it is Sony Music Entertainment)?. Also, if the answer is yes, shouldn't it be clarified to "Has released two or more albums on a major record label and/or on one of the more important indie labels"? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification about criteria 1
I was recently part of an AFD (Articles for deletion/Cloudkicker) where an interview with an international edition of Rolling Stone was deemed not sufficient for establishing notability because of it failed criteria #1's subnote stating "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" do not establish notability. While I support the deletion, this one comment didn't sit right with me and I wanted some clarification about what it means -- I have never noticed this sentence here before. It seems odd to me as it suggests an interview with Rolling Stone about something other than himself, say his pet dog or the recent rainy weather we've been having, would satisfy notability. What exactly does it mean by "talking about themselves" and why is that such a problem, especially if, as an encyclopedia, we're trying to find information about said artist? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

'Others'
The section WP:NMUSIC is kinda strange and out of keeping with the rest of the guideline. It appears to suggest, contrary to standard practice, that notability can be inherited (criteria #2). As far as I can tell, it was added years ago, and hasn't been discussed since. I'm going to pull it out for now, and let people here hash it out to see what, if anything, is worth keeping. LK (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions: 1. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. 2. Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list. 3. Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. 4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. 5. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."


 * I don't think #2 suggests inheritance – possibly the opposite. In context, I don't see #2 significantly different from #3 and #5 at WP:COMPOSER. I agree that these 5 points have been restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Imagine this: A marginally notable musician cites in an interview 2 or 3 significant influences on his/her music. Are these 2 or 3 people now notable enough for a Wikipedia article, solely because of their influence on said musician? A literal reading of Criteria #2 suggests so. LK (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest rewording to "Has been a significant musical influence for several notable musicians or composers." LK (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The #2-signficant-musical-influence-criterion is a question of WP:NOTEWORTHY versus WP:N. If a marginally-notable musician named $foo briefly cites $baz as one of their influences, and a reliable source sees fit to mention the fact (and at least theoretically fact-check it) when they publish the interview, then the influence $baz becomes noteworthy of a sentence-fragment in the article about $foo.  On the other hand, if we have reliable source after reliable source, where $foo is going on and on about $baz (who may be dead now or somesuch), giving details of how $baz influenced their work, and expounding on more about $baz than just a simple-name-dropping... that's where criteri#2 comes into play.  Even if $baz was not notable when alive, that just means mainstream reliable sources suck at discovering good artists; the fact that $foo is a Notable artist, and that $baz is *now* seen fit to receive significant 'the-influence-on-$foo' coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, really *is* justification that $baz also deserves their own article.  The idea is that we now finally see that $baz was Notable all along, even though it took $foo to open our eyes to that Notability-of-$baz, so they get more than a footnote in music history.  Hope this helps.  p.s.  The preceding comment was heavily influenced by Rschen, Lukeno, and SergioCashew... but I won't go into any depth, consider this a passing but noteworthy mention. :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Virginia US artist
I am looking to write an autobiography, which I have, however, not in wiki format. Here are a few accomplishments and noteworthy events.

1996 Won Blueberry Hill Award for best lyrics in a song "Dreamers Dream" 1999 Signed with independent label, Gig Records out of Point Pleasant, NJ. 2000 Released debut L.P. entitled "Sweet Conscience" through Gig Records. 2002 Wrote song, "Never Among Friends" for the independent film, "Never Among Friends" written by Jason Allentoff and starring Pete Capella and Kevin Interdonato. 2003 Released follow up collection, "The Hush e.p." Traveled with The Amazing Meet Project previously of Dog and Love and Reverse, Miles Hunt of the U.K. band The Wonderstuff, and Chris Connelly of Ministry. Opened up for such national acts as Tracy Chapman and Violent Femmes. 2002-2004 Won several Asbury Music Awards for Top Female Vocalist and Top Female Solo Performer, while also achieving nominations in categories including Best New Song of the Year "So Sweet", Best New Album, "The Hush E.P.", Top Bassist for Kristjan Karu and Top Guitarist for Michael Scotto. 2006 Recorded 11 song collection, later to be released as a double release entitled "Someone Like Me", volume 1 of the collection "Hush Underground". 2007-2011 Produced my first album from start to finish, entitled "the Story of..." (the second volume from double release, "Hush Underground") 2012 Announced upcoming collections of songs to be released as well as an 8 year project entitled, 'Sweet Virginia, Meet Strangeling,' a personal memoir detailing my disappearance into a life of total isolation, insanity and eventually my uplifting story about the path that led me back to a place of peace. 2013 Ultimately release the double length collection "Hush Underground" on April 2, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaExperiment (talk • contribs) 09:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good guidelines to read include WP:RELIABLE and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which detail the kind of sources needed to establish notability and support content, as well as the care that must be taken when writing about one's self and matters pertaining to conflict of interest, WP:COI. Good luck, JNW (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

question on article submission
Hi i wanted to submit a article on a MN hip hop artist. My submission was declined and i was wondering if you could help me make a few corrections D.Brown83 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Albums with collaberations
Some albums, mix-tapes and so on may contain multiple different and notable artists with their own Wikipedia pages, does this make the album notable also since it has a certain number of other notable artists instead of just the one? - 20:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

BAND and internet radio
Pardon me if this has been asked before, but do Internet radio stations meet WP:BAND #11 in any sense? I'm primarily familiar with Pandora, and I'm sure some such services are much more different from traditional radio, but it seems to me that Pandora would be a major radio network. Surely its 54.9 million users as of July 2012 dwarfs any proper radio station. Combined with other criteria, of course, would inclusion in Pandora and similar sources be helpful in determining a band's notability? --BDD (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think that inclusion in Pandora could be helpful in the sense that it might help us to identify gaps that we should be working on — if someone's getting play on there but doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet, then that's probably somebody we should track down sources to write an article with — but I wouldn't think that inclusion in Pandora would be, in and of itself, enough of a notability claim to qualify a person for an article in the absence of any other viable sourcing. For starters, it's not a claim that can be easily or reliably sourced; "you can sign up and see for yourself that she's on there" isn't generally enough to satisfy the verifiability requirement (particularly given that many people — frex me — still live in countries where Pandora isn't available to be signed up to.)
 * So I'd say that it while it might help us identify musical acts whose notability might be growing under our noses, it can't really confer notability by itself if reliable sources are still lacking. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring NSONG
Having been involved in the RfC on revising the song notability guidelines last year, when the Choose Your Battles article was nominated for DYK and I went to check it, I discovered an article that seemed to me to be a textbook example of precisely the sort of article the guidelines clearly said was not notable: a song from an album that was only reviewed in the context of that album's review and wasn't a single. So I nominated it at Articles for Deletion.

The result was Keep. Never mind that the arguments for Delete cited NSONG, that the Keep arguments didn't address NSONG (except to say that it was wrong-headed and should be ignored) and cited arguments that run contrary to the guidelines. The Keeps outnumbered Deletes by at least 2 to 1, making Delete impossible and even No consensus unlikely. It made me wonder, frankly, why we have these guidelines in the first place, if enough people can decide to ignore them so that they become unenforceable at places like AfD. If NSONG means anything, it means that not every song on an album will be worthy of an article. What this AfD shows is that it's unlikely that the guideline will successfully be enforced. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be useful to add this language (from WP:PEOPLE) to the guideline page: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It pretty well applies to all SNGs. It also may be the case that the community rejects the idea that a subject which meets the GNG should be deleted simply because of the context of the coverage. Was there really any substantive discussion on the specific point in the RFC? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One problem is how NSONG is worded. Too many people point to the numbered list of "charting, awards, and multiple covers" as meeting some sort of notablity criteria while ignoring the actual requirements of the song "having been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." One may expect that a song that has charted, won awards, or been covered by other notable artists that such sources would be more readily available, but that certainly isn't always the case. Many also want to interpret album reviews that highlight a particular song more than others as the song receiving significant coverage, but that still fails to meet the requirement of the song being the subject of such works, which is the album. I would like to see a more strict enforcement of this guideline or just rewrite it entirely. -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. While "song" may require that the subject be specifically about the song, WP:GNG has a different standard: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This guideline itself notes, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." If a song meets GNG, it's unlikely to be deleted, even if the song is not the main topic of the source coverage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely merges/redirects are a suitable outcome over deletion for many/most songs and I do agree that GNG trumps NSONGS. Such "significant coverage", as defined in GNG, does need to occur in multiple reliable sources. -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Need a table of dictionaries and encyclopedias
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&diff=595309297&oldid=595179631 This recent edit] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation says "As a rule of thumb if a person has a dedicated entry in a notable encyclopedia or biographical dictionary (and The Grove Dictionary of American Music (2 ed.) is very notable), they meet our criteria for inclusion."

The quote is attributed to.

IMHO it would be helpful to have at least a partial list of such "encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries." This list should include all commonly-used "encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries" even if they are NOT suitable sources for notability, so that it's clear to editors "you know, that source you are going to use, it has low standards for inclusion and/or is a pay-for-recognition source and is therefore useless for determining notability." davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think such a list would be useful. If someone wants to start such a page, here some major reference works written by experts with independent standards for inclusion.
 * 19th century
 * Biographie universelle des musiciens edited by François-Joseph Fétis
 * Dizionario biografico : dei più celebri poéti ed artisti melodrammatici, tragici e comici, maestri, concertisti, coreografi, mimi, ballerini, scenografi, giornalisti, impresarii ecc. ecc. che fiorirono in Italia dal 1800 al 1860 edited by Francesco Regli.
 * Großes Sängerlexikon edited by Karl Josef Kutsch and Leo Riemens (extends into the 20th century)
 * 20th and 21st centuries
 * The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and its sub-publications. They are all now published by Oxford University Press (who also publish Encyclopedia of Popular Music, The Oxford Companion to Music, and The Oxford Dictionary of Music) and are also available online via subscription. Basically, any work listed here qualifies.
 * Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians
 * The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music published by Harvard University Press
 * Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart
 * Obviously, most of the above are related to classical music, which is my area of interest, but there are other authoritative ones for pop music and jazz. I suggest that editors specialising in those areas look through Category:Encyclopedias of music and make evaluations.


 * Very notable musicians (at least in their own countries or regions) often have entries in general encyclopedias, e.g.The Canadian Encyclopedia, Store norske leksikon, Treccani's Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti and Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana, the Éditions Larousse encyclopedias, Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana. Neue Deutsche Biographie, etc. etc. (this list is not exhaustive).
 * Voceditenore (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Conversely, works which have low standards for inclusion or accept paid entries include:
 * Anything published by these vanity companies:
 * American Biographical Institute
 * International Biographical Centre
 * Cambridge Who's Who
 * Various other legitimate Who's Who-type publications such as Who's Who in Music and Musician's Directory, which are not vanity publications, but tend to have relatively low standards for inclusion and/or allow the subjects to decide which information to include or not. The editorial control and fact checking can be haphazard.
 * Voceditenore (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a shortcut to the sources mentioned above, anyone mentioned at Music encyclopedia topics and its subpages can prima facie be assumed as notable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan Idol
Is Pakistan Idol a major music competition? —Soham 13:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion for Italian occult psychedelia
If anyone is interested, there is an ongoing deletion discussion for Italian occult psychedelia at Articles_for_deletion/Italian_occult_psychedelia. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Fescal
Hi, if anybody has a few minutes, some more input would be greatly appreciated at WP:Articles for deletion/Fescal to help establish whether or not the subject is notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)