Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 9

Clarification
I think WP:MUSIC should be clarified. It currently states "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album ."

I've seen many users make the mistake of thinking that the article is implying that if an article contains enough verifiable information, its notable.

I propose clarification, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable, but a separate article for a notable song is only appropriate when the article meets one of the three previous rules and enough verifiable material is contained in the article to warrant a reasonably detailed article."

Any other thoughts, suggestions? -- The Guy complain edits 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference between your proposal and the original text does not come out clearly to me after an initial read, and I am reluctant to spend time on a word-by-word comparison. Could I propose that you strike out the removed text and underline your additions, then it will be much easier for us to judge your proposal. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, done. I'll explain them, too.  I didn't change anything in the first couple sentences; those are perfect.  The only gripe I have is that some users are assuming that a detailed article for a song automatically implies notability.  My additions try to clarify the three things that make a song notable: 1. ranking on a significant chart, 2. being performed by several different artists, and 3. winning significant awards.  In other words, I'm trying to place a bit more emphasis on the three rules, and less on the whole "detailed article" thing, while also trying to clarify a bit that having a detailed article does not assume notability.  I'm proposing that we clarify and emphasize the three song notability rules, and make sure its known that having a detailed article does not imply notability.  I'm also inviting anybody to come and modify my little rough re-write of the guideline. Cheers to you, too. -- The Guy  complain edits 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem with your proposed rewording is that those aren't rules. :) Those are possibilities--"probably notable", it says. The acid test of notability for a song is WP:N: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A song may be notable without having met any of those possible factors. It may meet all of them without being notable (though that seems unlikely). I think the real problem is that as songs & albums have been once again sub-divided, people lose sight of the actual rule. I think it might be helpful to put songs & albums back into one section. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I still propose the re-write to avoid confusion... Maybe like this? "Articles on songs should meet the general notability guidelines, but most other songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable, but a separate article for a notable song is only appropriate when the article meets one of the three previous rules and enough verifiable material is contained in the article to warrant a reasonably detailed article.-- The Guy  complain edits 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't support the revision as worded, since there may be songs that meet the notability guidelines but that do not meet one of those three points (which, again, are not rules; they are examples to help guide, but are not meant to limit inclusion only to such songs). What you're proposing there narrows down the field of notable songs. :) What's wrong with simply altering what exists to say, "A separate article is only appropriate on a notable song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"? That alters the existing "only appropriate when there" to "only appropriate on a notable song when there"--a change of three words that does not alter the actual notability requirements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that I'm proposing a clarification to make it clear just what the standards for inclusion are, and differentiate them from anything else. Please, you re-write it to your standards, cause I don't exactly understand what you mean. -- The Guy  complain edits 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clarify. :) In your revision, you are saying that it is a rule that a song must have (a) ranked on national or significant music charts, (b) won significant awards or honors, or (c) been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. What I'm saying is that these are not rules. Those are listed as examples of things that might suggest a song meets notability guidelines. There may be notable songs that do not conform to these three points. There may be songs that do conform to those three points, but which do not meet the notability guidelines. What matters is whether a song has been covered in substantial, independent, reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well when I re-wrote that, I didn't "re-write," I just added a sentence to the beginning of it.  Hmmm.....  Maybe you should re-write it?  I'm a bit stumped. -- The Guy  complain edits 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

←The problem is in words like "when the article meets one of the three previous rules." The article doesn't need to meet any of those three points. It needs to meet WP:N. That's why I suggested the much simpler revision above to address your concerns, although I still think that putting songs & albums back into one section called something like "albums, singles and songs" is a very good idea since many people seem to miss that WP:N is the governing guideline for songs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Articles on songs have to meet the general notability guidelines, but a separate article for a notable song is only appropriate when the article meets the general notability guidelines and enough verifiable material is contained in the article to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Songs that are not notable usually do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." -- The Guy complain edits 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that may suffer a bit from unnecessary verbiage.:) The guideline already says that songs must meet WP:N. Your proposal there repeats that several times. We already have a bit of problem with "instruction creep" here since "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles". What we have already steps over into limiting content. If we're going to add more, I think we need to keep it minimal. If the language I suggested above doesn't work for you, what about " Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That works. -- The Guy complain edits 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Current proposal to alter the "songs" guideline in the following way: The editor who proposed clarifying that passage indicates that some contributors are mistakenly believing that verifiable material equals notability. Obviously, this is going to be true when that material is verifiable to reliable, secondary sources, but could be a problem if we're talking the official myspace. :) I have no objections to this change. Any other comments? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To add "Notability aside," before the currently existing "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
 * I am delighted to see that while I went away from my computer and lived my other life, you guys sorted it all out faster than the speed of light - a rarity here on wikipedia :-) Thanks anyway The Guy  complain for replying to my initial request for clarification. – IbLeo (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about notability of a composition.
I want to start out by saying I am not asking nor questioning the notability of W. A. Mozart. I understand his position in music history (and adore a good many of his works). I am questioning the notability of every single one of his works. Understand, we have articles that are shorter than this message on some of his works. Mozart is great, but a stand alone article about a 15 second piece of work... with no references? I can't see the justification in this. The only reason I didn't go straight for CSD is W. A. Mozart's reputation and general importance. Can someone explain to me why every single composition by him is notable enough for it's own article? padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the notability guideline? Songs are governed by WP:N, and accordingly they require significant coverage in reliable sources. But "notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Going straight to CSD wouldn't do much good, since "songs" are explicitly excluded from CSD for notability reasons; only people (individually or collectively, as in companies) and web-content can be speedily deleted for notability concerns (see WP:CSD). But you might want to consider proposing a merge to address your concerns, though if the parent article is long enough, the material may have been split for space concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually one of the contributors to the current argument on WP:N which is what brought the concern to mind. I didn't realize that CSD#A7 was restricted like that (I guess I've only used it in appropriate situations... by accident), so thanks for pointing that out. As for merging to the parent article, there is no parent article. These were created as stand alone articles, all 626 compositions by Mozart are stand-alone articles. Can I propose a merge with a non-existent article? Or, I'll have to find an article to make the parent. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to this notability guideline, actually. It doesn't say all songs are notable; quite the contrary. :) Mozart would be the parent article, I would imagine. Alternatively, since that one is almost certainly too long (I'm guessing; I haven't investigated), you might create an article that logically groups these compositions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about the notability mix-up. As for the logical groupings of compositions...there already is one. That's right, there are two exhaustive lists of Mozart compositions along with stand -alone articles for each of the 600+ compositions. That's gotta be some kind of record. I think I'm gonna start tagging. padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear. :) Good luck with your clean-up efforts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A main article like "Compositions of Mozart" or even use the existing List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, needs to be created and the individual articles merged with that. Nick carson (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this really constitute undue weight?
On the Simple Plan article there is an argument over whether they should be listed as a specific genre or not. I currently have three references to back up the statement but one particular editor is refusing to allow it to be included, arguing that it constitutes Undue Weight. The sources in question are not small fringe-sources but Rolling Stone, Indie UK, and Blender Magazine. If such prominent sources can be found to back up the statement is it really "Undue Weight" or does the statement merit inclusion? Aurum ore (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have no particular opinion on the matter, but I wanted to note that this may not be the best place to seek feedback, as it doesn't relate to the notability of the band. You might want to ask that one at WP:NPOVN or WT:NPOV, which governs WP:UNDUE. Alternatively, if there are only two of you involved and other contributors to the page don't choose to weigh in, you could seek feedback at WP:3O, but in that case please be very careful to word your question so as to avoid indicating your own stance. Have to watch out for canvassing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, I wasn't sure whether to post it here or in WP:NPOV but eventually decided on here, since the contributors would probably be familiar with the sources in question and genre disputes in general. However, if this really isn't the place for this discussion, then I'd be happy to move it. Aurum ore (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a venue familiar with music topics, perhaps WikiProject Music would be helpful. I would suggest WikiProject Music genres, but that one seems to have gone inactive. Of course, it's always possible that somebody monitoring this page will way in, but as it's a fairly narrow focus (music notability), you may not attract as many viewers as you might like. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like there's actually an active discussion on whether to merge WikiProject Music genres into WikiProject Music. On reconsideration, WP:NPOV probably is the best place for this, since as you said, they cover WP:UNDUE. Thank you very much for your feedback. Aurum ore (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 6 for musicians and ensembles
The sixth criterion for musicians and ensembles based on having a member who was once in another notable band is very weak. If notability is not inherited, it certainly does not swap over from one band to the next. It should at least be tightened to the point that the linking members are notable themselves. I've made a crude edit in that sense, but refinements or comments are welcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to change it, though I'm short on time at the moment to think about wording. :) After all, you take a hot 70s band, give it a guitarist for one album in '97, is that guitarist's subsequent solo project going to be notable? Even if they only play in bowling alleys? And is that bowling alley band's keyboardist's early projects also notable? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it the more I am inclined to drop it altogether. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This section has sucked for a while now. Is the bowling alley band notable? As currently written, yes. In a rational world, the bowling alley band would be notable if and only if it were the subject of substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * agree wholeheartedly with Tikiwont's edits. The criterion should really be along the lines of individual notability commencing with the band/act/ensemble that first achieved notability. Spoilydoily (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your change. I always disliked that notability could be inherited that far. On a similar note, C10 states that a musician/ensemble is notable if they created work that was included in a notable compilation album. Since "in general" albums "may have sufficient notability" if the musician/ensemble is notable, a duo like Sharp & Smooth (AfD) could be considered notable since they contributed a song to a compilation by PvD. "Members of two notable bands are generally notable" suffers from the same problem – if the two bands only inherited notability themselves this shouldn't be applicable, per common sense. I would suggest that notability can generally only be inherited from a topic that is directly notable per WP:NOTE, quite similar to the change you made to G6. This would prevent daisy-chaining them together. In principle, I find G6 and the other criteria I mentioned useful. Maybe it should be clarified in WP:MUSIC that if a topic isn't notable per WP:NOTE, it's preferrable to redirect to a section in the article notability was inherited from. A seperate article should only be created if this isn't feasible, typically because there are several potential articles where that section should go. Amalthea Talk 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does say use redirects. -- neon white talk 10:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the issue of dropping it all together. See my post about The Iron Maidens below. Phantom Blue fit the guidelines because they had a release on a semi-big indy Shrapnel Records and then one release on a major, Geffen Records. But how notable they are beyond that is debatable as they were dropped from Geffen Records, went through line up changes, and put out three albums on their own label. So one has to look at the overall picture and ask: "Because a person was in one of several line ups of a band that was 'notable' does that make the next band, or the one after, that that person is in also 'notable'?" I would say no. How many people remember a band called Balls Of Fire? It was Peter Criss's band after he left KISS. On a good night they played to 50 people in small clubs around Hollywood and North Hollywood. Never got an album deal and hardly got noticed. Notable because of Peter Criss? Yes. Notable as a band? No. The band is not even mentioned in the Peter Criss article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Song stubs
The notability guideline may have a weak spot when it comes to songs. In keeping with the guideline's suggestion that notable artists recording a piece makes a song notable, large numbers of song stubs contain nothing more than 1-3 sentences plus a laundry list of recording artists, all uncited.

Here are just a few examples from 1946:
 * "If This Isn't Love"
 * "For You, For Me, For Evermore"
 * "The Girl That I Marry"
 * "Just A-Sittin' and A-Rockin'"
 * "Rumors Are Flying"

Three serious problems result.
 * 1) These articles are magnets for violations of WP:COPYRIGHT through posting of lyrics and contributory copyright infringement links to sites that illegally host lyrics, chords, performances, etc.
 * 2) Many of these articles aren't watchlisted, so violations of WP:COPYRIGHT go unchecked for long periods of time and other violations accumulate (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc.)
 * 3) When a notable article does get started that falls outside suggested parameters, well-meaning editors challenge its notability.

For an example of the third problem see "Frog Legs Rag": it was never on the charts because popular music charts didn't come into existence until several decades later, wasn't recorded by notable artists because piano rags often weren't recorded. Yet multiple third party sources confirm it is a major work by one of the three most important composers of ragtime.

So our current guideline wording contributes to a bad situation: thousands of nearly worthless stubs from the 1940s onward (I'm not kidding about that number) and a serious shortage in coverage of any sort for popular music of earlier periods. "Frog Legs Rag" is one of only six entries in Category:1906 songs. Comments and suggestions are welcome; there has to be a better way to handle this. Durova Charge! 10:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this is a problem with the guideline, per se. The first principle of songs is "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That would make "Frog Legs Rag" a notable song regardless of charting. The other songs may not be, even if they did chart or have been performed by multiple artists, as the guideline note that they "are probably notable". In the absence of principle one, they aren't. The guideline also says, "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."


 * That said, I am concerned that subsectioning the "Albums, singles and songs" section may have been a bad idea. (I believe it was most recently split here, as a unilateral move. I made it a subsection later since the split separated it from that governing principle.) Twice now editors have placed shortcuts to the subsection rather than the section, which may indicate that they aren't noticing the first principle...which is the most important one. Do you believe that returning them to one section would help address your concerns by making that first principle more obvious? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, particularly since albums are largely tied to the invention of 33RPM records in the late 1940s. It would be useful to add a note that for periods before the mid-twentieth century, third party sourcing should be the primary consideration because chart rankings and recordings may not exist.  Durova Charge! 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put it back into one section, since the division was made unilaterally and has demonstrably caused confusion since. As my second edit, I restructured for clarity and added information on future singles. But third party sourcing should already be the primary consideration, even for singles after the mid-twentieth century. The current sentence on charts and whatnot is simply meant to list examples of material that may be notable, not to provide exceptions to the primary rule. :) What about rewording this, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." to "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups may have enough secondary coverage to meet notability requirements." Any thoughts on that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Occurs to me (belatedly) that an alternative to reuniting them is simply to fully separate them and restate the governing principle in each section: "All articles on albums must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and ""All articles on singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability of soundtracks
WP:MUSIC doesn't specify any specific criteria for proving notability of soundtrack albums. Do these still fall under the general criteria ? For information, I'm referring in particular to Category:Resident Evil soundtracks - most (if not all) of these articles seem to be basic track listings and, according to precedent, without assertation of notability these should be being redirected/merged etc. into the main articles. However, this may be contentious due to the time the articles have been around, and the number of editors. CultureDrone (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All albums are governed by the same principle: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." But if they're only basic track listings, the guideline suggests merging even if they are notable. :) If you think it might be contentious, perhaps a merge proposal could help establish consensus or an RFC? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Iron Maidens
This is a two part question really but this is a good place to start. In reading the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" section it does not seem that The Iron Maidens really meet any of the criteria. The second part of the question has to do with the sources cited on the main article page. At first glance they seem ok but when you actually look at them they are either reprints of press releases, information from their official website or information posted on their official message board. They also have separate articles for both of their CDs, The Iron Maidens: World's Only Female Tribute to Iron Maiden and The Root of All Evil (EP) as well as their Live CD/DVD, Route 666 (album). These are all indy releases put out on their own label. I see that USER:Metagraph asked if the main article was notable in May 2008 but there was not any response and they never posted again. Also each member seems the have their own page as well - and yes, it can be argued that Linda McDonald was a member of a notable band but looking at the big picture - without any NPOV sources listed and DIY releases only (Plus being a tribute band) - do they really meet enough criteria for having so many article about them and their releases? Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! That is one heavily nurtured article. A search of google news confirms press, here. (There may be more; to help eliminate false hits, I paired the band's name with "tribute.") It seems they've had press coverage as far away as Turkey (here) and El Salvador (looks like a brief, brief mention in La Prensa Gráfica, here) which certainly confirms the "widespread" part, anyway. :) They're also referenced in one book, here, though it's hardly extensive coverage. ("tribute" notwithstanding, the other one is a false hit.) Is it enough to meet the notability guidelines? Ultimately, that's always down to the community to decide. Given the hits I came up with, even without reading deeply, I would not nominate it for WP:AfD it myself, but I know some contributors who probably would. I don't know if consensus would come down on the site of notable or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So then should the guidelines be modified to say that an artist or band can be notable for being a cover band and or tribute act? The articles you mention seem to be about tribute acts overall, not just one band. I guess another way to look at is is like this: Many artists have played all over the world but may not get any press. They may have put out their own albums but may not be considered notable albums. In short they would not meet the guidelines as currently written. In the case of The Iron Maidens, because they are not doing their own material, can be notable enough for their own article and their self produced albums, which do not seem to really meet any of the current guidelines, are considered notable enough to have their own articles as well. As an aside if you follow the links to each band member some of them all seem to be notable only because they are a member of The Iron Maidens as well as members of other tribute acts. A quick looksee turns up Hell's Belles (band) (stub), Cheap Chick (deleted Page), ThundHerStruck (deleted page), Zepparella (Deleted page) and Lez Zeppelin as far as "all female" tribute acts go. Michael White & The White have a minor article when compared to The Iron Maidens yet during the 80's they were considered the premiere Led Zeppelin tribute act because they had Robert Plants endorsement. Randy Hansen and The Fab Faux both have pages. Fairly well known male cover bands such as Strange Days, Blizzard of OZ, Believer, Mean Streets do not have one. Most surprising is that the Atomic Punks do not have one - nor does their guitar player Brian Young, who was David Lee Roths guitarist. I am not against the inclusion of cover bands and tribute bands but I think the guidelines should be modified somehow to reflect a set of guidelines that would be specific to that genre of music. And going back to The Iron Maidens again - I again ask if they are really so notable that their albums are automatically above the set guidelines for albums, as well as all of their current and former members (9 people)? At the least I am thinking the individual albums either be merged into the main article or deleted all together. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it would be necessary to specify that a tribute act could be important. The point there is #1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." There's also a chance for #4: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." If it meets either of those (and I'm not saying it does, but that it may), it doesn't matter if it's a tribute band or an original materials band or jazz ensemble with a rotating cast of players or a group of toddlers with kazoos. :) I suspect given my previous experiences at this page that an effort to branch out into specific genres will meet with some resistance, as people resist what they perceive as instruction creep. If you want to propose it, that would start with drafting some ideas and publicizing them here and at relevant points in Wikipedia. "Village pump" is usually a good place to mention such. (Smaller changes generally don't require that much work, but overhauls to an existing system do.) As to the notability of The Iron Maidens, the place to ask that (for deletion) is at WP:AfD. That's a consensus question; if some assertion of importance is made (enough to escape speedy) nobody here can answer that. :) Merge proposals are done at the articles themselves. In terms of other articles that are or are not around, Wikipedia necessarily depends on volunteers (of course), which means that the articles we have are the articles they feel like giving us. I'd guess that The Iron Maidens have a member or a fan who is a Wikipedian. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Albums (and bands that make them) from non-English speaking countries - How to
When it comes to non-English/American released albums currently WP does not seem to make any separate guidelines, not that I am saying there should be because I do feel the criteria should be the same. However how does one make a distinction about refs and citations? For example if any album was listed with simply a track listing and a brief blurb about "This is the first release" would that be considered notable? I don't think so and the first line under the albums criteria says: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. With that in mind I marked several albums for possible deletions because they may not meet the criteria listed here. They were: Sam (Osvajači album), Vrelina and The Best Of (Osvajači album). On every page the author removed the templates and said the same thing on each talk page - the band is "the top and most influential" band of the genre, The albums are listed in a rock Encyclopedia, the albums are official studio release (Not demos, etc) and that the label that released the albums is the "second largest record label in SFR Yugoslavia" (However The Best Of shows it was released on "Take It Or Leave It Records", not the same label on the other two). However I am under the impression that even if the album was released by the "second largest record label" in any country that would not automatically mean the album is notable. Likewise if a band was the top band in a county of a specific genre it does not automatically mean that their albums are notable. A listing in a rock Encyclopedia does not seem to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" either. The main band article (Osvajači) has remained relatively unchanged since it was created in November 2007, and in itself I am not sure if the main article meets WP guidelines in that there is a lack of any real information (citations, links to reviews, interviews) that is verifiable. I am making no judgment on the band, only asking do we use the same criteria for the "unknown" as we do for the "known". Plus if there were citations and external links there is a high probability they would not be in English and the guidelines do say links to English language content are strongly preferred for use in the English-language Wikipedia. Any advice on this one? Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Under ordinary circumstances, if a PROD is a challenged, the next step is WP:AfD. I'm not familiar with the band, but I have to say that my experience is that in AfD, people are careful to avoid systemic bias by judging as non-notable something that may be prominent in another country. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. :) I got quite a few hits on Google by typing in "Sam + Osvajači", but I can't tell if some of the pages being returned are reliable sources or not. (English language sources are preferred, but, as WP:NONENG notes, in the absence of them any reliable source will do.)


 * Probably what I would do in your place is first talk to the contributor who removed the tag and ask his or her help in finding reliable sources in any language to help verify notability. If he or she isn't available or is unable to help, I might ask for assistance at the talk page of WikiProject Serbia to see if anyone from the region can shed light on this band. If no help was forthcoming, I would next consider whether it would be better to propose merging album articles that lack evidence of independent notability to the band article (would definitely propose before doing that, as it seems the PROD remover might object) or if the band should be evaluated for notability by the community at AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * might ask for assistance at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia... Oh, that is a great idea! I did think about, and probably will, post to the author of the articles however I wanted to check here first to see if I was overlooking something obvious as far as criteria goes for albums and their notability. Now what about a Serbian tribute band? ;) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Humorous page relating to this
I remember seeing an article on Wikipedia that was one of those upside down exclamation point "We keep this because its funny" pages (or at least I think it was?) regarding musical notability. Anyone got a link?Andrew Nutter (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Could we include Manual of Style (music) in the "You may have been looking for" list? That was, in fact, what I was seeking. Philhower (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"fill in" musicians
If an artist is on tour and hires a "fill in" (or even session) musician and, in articles about the band and/or their concert mentions the musician, would that meet criteria #4 - "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". Maybe the question would be "what is considered 'non-trivial'?". Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's "non-trivial" if it's at least "significant". :) I'm afraid that there is no absolute measurement that I can give you, but there's a bit more about it at WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.". If the articles, as you say, only mentions the band, e.g. it's not much more than a name drop and a brief description, then it's trivial. -- Amalthea Talk 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would likely require the person, as an individual, to have gain coverage of a national tour. The 'fill in' musician cannot inherit notability from simply being associated with a notable group. -- neon white talk 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #12
How is the wording "Has been the subject of a ... longer broadcast" meant to be interpreted? Is the musician supposed to be the topic, in the meaning it's supposed to be about him and not with him performing his work? The question has been raised at AfD:John Dahlbäck, where I thought that a 75 minute performance (Essential Mix) on Britain's biggest radio network would file under p12. Apparently it isn't obvious, so any thoughts would be appreciated! Thankfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for musicians and ensembles - proposed addition/change discussion
I am slowly working on sections of the Music Guidelines to bring them "up to date" with the internet. There has been an influx of articles that use website, magazine and newspaper "news", "upcoming releases", "reader picks" or other similar "user submitted" sections as citations. Blogs are getting cited a lot more, many newspapers and magazines now have staff "blogs" which would make a link/citation seem like it goes to a "reliable" source however it ends up being a personal blog by an editor of the publication. Currently it is only the artist, publicist or label who are fully addressed in Section 1. Based on several AfDs, and other discussions, many Editors feel that as long as it is technically not a "press release", "advertisement" or "booking information" than anything else's is "significant coverage" that proves Notability. In principal "independent from the musician/ensemble itself" seems clear but a recent AfD discussion brought to light that some editors feel a "self submitted" article that gets printed in a national magazine is "independent from the musician/ensemble itself" because the magazine chose to run the article. The same is argued for an endorsement deal because the company, not the artist, is doing the "advertising". With that in mind I am bringing Section 1 of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" guideline here for beginning discussion.

Proposed Changes (in red)
Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theater group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
 * 1) * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media and television documentaries except for the following:
 * 2) ** Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
 * 3) ** Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
 * 4) ** An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
 * 5) ** User submitted news articles, either in print or online, that consist of an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates.
 * 6) ** Endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist.
 * 7) ** Discussions in "chat rooms", "bulletin boards" or "message boards", be it a fan site or an official site.
 * 8) ** Information or commentary found in blogs.

This should be a good starting point for discussion. Once the dust has settled on this I will move on to "Albums, singles and songs". Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, brevity is important (you'll see a lot of people shying away from instruction creep), and I think we may be able to make many of the same points more succinctly simply by incorporating by reference WP:V: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable (excluding self-published sources)" Those three words shouldn't be necessary, since self-published sources are already not "reliable", but if it needs reinforcement they stand to explicitly eliminate blogs (unless official, for instance if maintained by Entertainment Weekly staff. Blogs by professional writers are acceptable: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."), chat rooms, bbs, message boards, etc. (I also changed the "reliable" wikilink from WP:RS to WP:Sources. WP:V is policy; WP:RS is a guideline. These days, WP:V seems to me to do a better job setting out what a "reliable source" is anyway, and it does contain a pointer to WP:RS for those who want more detail.)


 * If that three word (and wikilink) change addressed those concerns adequately, that would only leave "endorsement deal publicity" and "user submitted news articles" to address. I'm not really familiar with endorsement deal publicity, though it seems sensible to be specific to me, if people are inappropriately citing PR material because its hosted by an indirectly related company. Would that be like, oh, Johnny Amazingdrummer signing up with Shiny Popular Drum Company?


 * The one that concerns me is "user submitted news article." My concern is its application to sites like All About Jazz. The artist bios and record reviews at that site are "user submitted", but contributions are vetted before publication in a process that typically takes about 5 days. That makes it a "closed wiki"; it is a "reliable, third-party" site "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I would personally not like to see any change to guideline that might result in its being dismissed from music articles. Do you have an example of the kinds of "user submitted news articles" that concern you? (Or is All About Jazz what you had in mind? :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well "user submitted" is meant to include all users including artists, publicists and the like. As currently worded it implies that if there is a press release on an artists official site, publicists site or a label site it could not be counted as "notable". However any member of the public can take that same press release and submit any place where "user submitted" article are allowed. Example of publications and websites that do this are:  AP:News is getting cited a lot of late. LA Times The Guide, South Florida Sun Sentinel community news (See also Community Events ), Leader Herald Virtual Newsroom, Albany Times Union calender, BBC information on "User Generated Content", CNN's iReport (From the about page: iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post. Only the stories marked "On CNN" have been vetted by CNN for use in CNN's global news coverage.), Introduce Yourself section in Bass Player Magazine. Really there are lot more but this should give an idea of what I am talking about that meets the criteria I mention - an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates.
 * For endorsement deals - examples are Warwick basses list of users, Fender endorser page for The Derailers, Schecter Guitars endorser list with photos, Korg featured artist endorsement interview.


 * I hope that helps. What it boils down to is sending Editors to various WP policy pages about one specific item may not address the information contained in a subject specific set of guidelines such as this. Information from any location should not be counted as "Significant Coverage" as it relates to notability if all it contains is a mention of a musical recording ("I really liked the new gbdx demo"), track information (The new gbdx CD has 11 songs on it), an upcoming show ("If you are going to be in the neighborhood catch gbdx Friday night"), a past show ("Last Fridays show with gbdx kicked ass") or other such information ("The singer for gbdx owns a car").  The concept here is to be specific as to the source and form of the "press releases", "advertising", "performance dates", "contact and booking details" and "other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So with "user submitted", your concern is material that is simply based on PR releases? Hmmm. How about clarifying something along the lines of "User submitted news articles, either in print or online, that consist of an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates, based on press releases." Would that serve your purposes? If not, maybe we can come up with some other language to exclude vetted material, such as we find at AllAboutJazz. In itself inclusion at such a website does not verify notability, of course, but it may lend towards widespread coverage.


 * With the endorsement deals, it seems I did grok what you meant. :) Such material is not independent, so I agree that it should be excluded from notability concerns. I'm not quite sure where you're standing on the three-word addition I proposed; does that address your concern with self-published sources? Your notes about gbdx owning a car (which genuinely made me LOL) would most definitely be "trivial". :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

→::::Reply to Moonriddengirl: Being information from a Press Release is not my only concern about "User Submitted", it can be "news" from any source - a band member, a manager, a concert promoter, a venue owner, a recording engineer, a roadie - it does not matter. Any editor can go to a website that has this "official" information and "User Submit" that same information. (here is a perfect example: THE NEW RISING SONS (EX-TEXAS IS THE REASON, SOLEA) REUNITE) As currently worded as long as that information is "independent" from the subject it should be fine. Now, if you put some of this information that is only one sentence long ("The singer for gbdx owns a cat too") down as a citation to prove "Notability" it logically would seem to fail any guidelines of notability for creating a separate article on the subject. But it does not seem too matter because an editor can use several of these and say "These citations and sources prove the artist is notable because it meets number 1 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles." As for "self Published Sources the way that is worded currently it does not apply to items such as "user submitted" in the way I am talking about. For example I mentioned the "Introduce Yourself" section of Bass Player Magazine. This would not fit into the musician "self-publishing" the article but it might fall under: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Because the "author" is a bass player and because it is published in a magazine by an "established expert on the topic of the article" (Bass players) it could be argued that this "user submitted" article is acceptable. But yet it, in theory, is not acceptable by the WP:MUSIC guideline which clearly disallows articles in "other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". It is a contradiction of sorts when it comes to this. (See my reply to Neon White below for more information that relates to your comments) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to decide if the phrase "news articles" is sufficient to distance what you're talking about from what I'm talking about. "News articles" could be taken specifically to refer to breaking news--announcements of releases and whatnot along the usual line of PR. But that raises the question of how the "Introduce Yourself" section of Bass Player Magazine would be interpreted as a "news article". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support these changes. (I'm so glad for preview; I was about to submit an opposite opinion until I re-read and noticed the except in the first line!) There is a constant barrage of new articles in which well-meaning authors presume that any mention of an artist's name establishes notability; having this specifically codified will help maintain and even raise the stature of the encyclopedia. A re-wording that reinforces the fact that the list is an exception list might be helpful. Frank  |  talk  12:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm conerned this is 'over guidelining' and instruction creep. It's essentially an explaination what is and is not a reliable source. Isn't the idea of reliable sources already adequately covered in WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V? Why not wikilink to those? This is about notability primarily rather than a guideline on reliable music sources. -- neon white talk 16:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

→::Reply to Neon White: Just to break it down a bit. Here is what the current subject specific guidelines in section 1 do not allow: ''Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.'' There are also 12 listed items, most of them are very specific. Now if none of those are considered "instruction creep" the items I am suggesting are not anything that different, if anything they just clarify. Neon white asked: "Isn't the idea of reliable sources already adequately covered in WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V?" Currently none for the guidlines make any mention of any "endorsement deal" as it relates to musicians. Likewise there are currently no mentions of any form of "user submitted news". The specifics about all of this comes from how Editors are reading "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" in the most logical place to read it when putting together an article about an artist - WP:MUSIC. One of the most common comments is "They are a notable, they have an album" and to verify this there are "multiple" links to "independent" comments placed in "reliable" sources. The rational appears to be the Editor asks their self if the cited source is a "press release", a listing of "performance dates", "contact and booking details", an advertisement "for the musician/ensemble" or an article "where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". If it is none of those than it is used to prove "notability" of the subject. Here are a few examples: (See my reply to Moonriddengirl above for more information that relates to your comments) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Houston Calls Release Date cited as one of several "non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". (Should be noted that the "several" sources are 4 citations, three of them to this same websites "user submitted" news section).
 * Gretsch G6136DL David Lee Limited Edition Electric Guitar is the only citation given in one article to prove notability of the articles subject. (Presumed rationale: Not an advertisement for the musician, not "self published", not a press release - only shows that the artist is in a band and has an endorsement deal so it meets the current guidlines).
 * "Many of the B-Sides/Demos can be found on file sharing networks such as LimeWire" used to establish notability.
 * eventful.com cited because it includes a bio which includes a brief interview and user comments (see the "Share your thoughts…" section) that are all "independent from the musician/ensemble itself" as this is not an "official" site, nor "self-published".
 * Bass Player Magazine, October 2008. Introduce Yourself section cited because "The magazine has to pick who they want to feature, right? A feature is a feature. You are arguing semantics at this point. It IS significant third party coverage.".
 * Who are you quoting in that last example? From where? We need a link to satisfy WP:NFCC. :) (Actually, smiley aside and strange as it sounds, we really do; contributors of content on Wikipedia retain right to attribution. Even more importantly, it would be helpful to see context.) We don't need to change the guideline for such as fullersguitar.com—we just need to point out that it's not a reliable source by policy (which trumps our guideline anyway). It's "promotional in nature", which makes it off the bat a questionable source. Not that I object to explicitly excluding endorsements, if necessary. My concern is with clarifying user submitted, and, as I've indicated above, I think most of the others can be handled much more succinctly by changing a few words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)#
 * You can read the details at the closed AfD: Articles for deletion/Cary The Label Guy. Self written articles aside the "endorsement deal" issue came up as well in this closed Afd because the editor was using that as a form of notability as well, but that is not the only place where "endorsement deal" has come up. I just stumbled across an AfD today (sorry, I do not have it in front of me so I can not send you to it) that was brought up for NN and an editor brought up in the discussion about the articles subject having an endorsement deal because the article mentioned it, another editor said it was notable. I can give all kinds of AfD example where Editors are basing "notability" on all of the things I have mentioned however I do not feel this is really the place to list them because it might be thought of as canvasing. And to try and over explain myself some more on the "user submitted news" issue - if you take a closer look at what I am saying (in the red) I am not trying to limit their use for verifying things such as a release date, track listing or upcoming concert date, I am only trying to say that items such as this are not allowed to establish "Notability". Most places call these "news submissions" and I am trying to use a general term, "user submitted", that would include all, but not limited to, the following "user submitted news" items that may contain an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates or any combination thereof : "Community events", "Upcoming shows", "Event Calender", "Bars and clubs", "Announcements", "Live listings", "User Picks", "Reader picks" and other like items. We could just go with "user submitted" and leave it, but I think that is too broad. Because of the fact most published (online or in print) call it "news" than it would be easier for editors to "get it". Here are some "submission" pages: Alternative Press: Got something you want to tell us about? Submit your news about your favorite artists here; La Times: Be a trend setter and create a list!; Village Voice: Have an event you want listed? Just fill out the form below to send it to us!; LA Weekly: Submit an Event; Eventful.com : Click the Add Stuff + button (Must be a registered user); Absolute Punk : Post New Article (Recommended to "create an account" if you want credit for your article); Star Pulse: Want to be featured on Starpulse.com? - Celebrities or publicist who would like to contribute to Starpulse.com please use the contact page, and select "Editorial Department" in the drop down box.; Melodic.net To make melodic.net even better we have now a new feature where you readers can submit news to us.; BBC Your News is the first-such show on British television to be made entirely from material sent in by you. and of course you already see the Bass Player magazine one. I mean, those, again, are just examples on how to submit "news", "user-generated content" as the BBC calls it. I am not sure I can make any of this any more clear, so now I think it is just wording.
 * PS - on the "fullers guitar" link - you say it would fall under WP:QS but I actually do not fully agree with that. If the concept is that all advertisements are defined by Wikipedia guidlines as "Questionable sources" because they have a "poor reputation for fact-checking" than I need to suggest a slight re-wording about that. I would for say that "advertisements do not equal notability". I would even go go as far as to say that most advertisements are non neutral because they are trying to sell (thusly promoting) something. But, when all is said an done, if no advertising of any kind should be allowed I would then suggest changing "advertising for the musician/ensemble" to "any form of advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, this includes equipment manufacturers endorsement material." Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern isn't with clarifying here what's meant by "user submitted news articles" but in your proposed change. :) I agree that just calling it "user submitted" is too broad. Maybe the thing to do is to go with a few footnoted examples for clarification. With respects to the "fullers guitar" link, it has a "add to cart" link at the bottom, which seems about as promotional as it gets. I agree with the change to "any form of advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, this includes equipment manufacturers' endorsement material." Of course, endorsement deals that are covered by legitimate press are different; if it's notable enough that Musician A is shilling Product B that Business Week runs a piece on it, it's notable. I rather suspect that if the product or the musician are notable, somebody reliable will point it out, and we won't have to deal with the promotional text from Product B shouting that Musician A, its new bestest friend, is the bestest thing evah. But no amount of guideline clarification is going to prevent things like the Cary the Label Guy AfD, because some people choose to ignore guideline. In that case, of course, we have a COI sock. Such people will grasp at anything they can find (or, sometimes, not bother grasping at anything, but just doggedly continue to pursue their goals unapologetically.) That's not a good faith contributor legitimately misunderstanding guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comment This guideline is an extension of WP:N and essentially what is being proposed here is already outlined at N. Reliable sources need to meet those criteria. Things like press releases and endorsement deal come under the rules about independence, neither would be independent of the artist (though considering it, i cannot see a reason why an endorsement deal shouldn't add to notability). User submitted news would be considered a WP:SPS and therefore not reliable. They've never been acceptable on wikipedia. Also note small lines of 'news' like the absolutepunk example would not be considered 'significant coverage' which states that it must address the subject in detail. Remember guidelines are not intended to legislate for every single eventuality and every single ludicrous claim of notability that pops up in an afd, there is going to be borderline notability, exceptional cases and sources that require editors' judgement, we have deletion discussions for that purpose. If people consider it necessary, an idea might be to repeat the WP:N criteria here rather than offer instructions as predefined do's and dont's. On the matter of 'user submitted content', all newspapers and news stations have a newsdesk for submitting stories, in the end everything is submitted by someone, what matters is that it is published by a source with editorial oversight that we know for sure will have fact checked the story before printing. The principle of this is verifiability and is very well covered there. It's a well known concept that the key policies of notability and verifiability are very much linked but i don't believe we need to unecessary repetition. The problem here is not with these guidelines but with a lack of understanding about core policies and the inaccurate closing of some afds. -- neon white talk 12:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You note " i cannot see a reason why an endorsement deal shouldn't add to notability"--it does, but not if it's only reported by the partner, as in that case it is not independent. :) That said, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't object to clarifying the endorsement deal question (perhaps adding a few words to "Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble."--maybe something along the lines of "including advertisements for products endorsed by the musician/ensemble"?) Otherwise, I'm still inclined to think that most of this could be handled by minimally altering "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. → "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable (excluding self-published sources)". (Admittedly it's hammering home what's already in those linked policies & guidelines, but it only represents three words.) You make a good point about user submitted news. If we do cover it here, perhaps it would be an appropriate footnote to the bit I last quoted, maybe along the lines of "User submitted news, unless subjected to editorial oversight, constitutes a self-published source."? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Second proposal (Changes in red)
Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theater group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
 * 1) * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media and television documentaries except for the following:
 * 2) ** Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, all advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, including equipment manufacturers advertising.1 (With footnote:  1. Endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist )
 * 3) ** Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
 * 4) ** An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Further discussion
The key issues as to why I think these changes are needed are coming out in the responses. I give examples that I know would not be considered good sources for "notability" and the comment back is "Things like that are not allowed per..." and another guideline beyond this one is cited. This set of guidlines was created as there was a need for explaining items that are not explicit in, for example, Notability. These guidlines for musicians are meant to be more explicit than the general guidlines. A book author would not have to be on a "major label" or have "had a record certified gold or higher" to be considered notable. A car manufacturer would not have to won an award "such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award" to be considered notable. A set of numbers would not have to "been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to be considered notable. These are items that are clear and apply to Music. This subject specific set of guidlines exist for a reason - to assist someone who is creating an article on a music related topic. If an editor working on an article looked over any SNG to see if "user submitted news" articles were allowed I do not think that they would automatically end up at WP:SPS unless someone directed them to look there. Aside from being directed there, if an editor is working on an article music related they would most likely look here, and while this set of guidlines is specific with terms such as "press releases" and "performance dates" it is not specific about "release dates" "track listings" or other articles that might be "user submitted". If a one line "news article" about a musical release was in question I would look here - and it does not explicitly say that type of article can not be used. So my question, again, is if we can say "press release" why can't we also say "Endorsement deal publicity/interviews" "release dates" or "track listings"? There is a current foot note that says, in part, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it". However this still does not cover a one - three paragraph (or sentence) "user submitted" article. I could submit "The new Neon White album, "moonriddengirl", is set to be released November 1" to ten online sites that "publish" it. There are various discussions going on going on where exactly that kind of source is being used to show notability. There are articles that have nothing more than myspace links and "user submitted" stories being denied CSD's and having PRODS removed because the articles subject "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". (Actually aside from the "They are notable they have an album!" argument the "They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" is an argument I see used more and more when these types of things are questioned) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the changes you've implemented above. With respect to "further discussion", while it's true that many of the response are "look at policy X", it's important to remember that guidelines and policies on Wikipedia work together. We don't need to duplicate everything here that is already written elsewhere, especially in policy, which trumps guidelines. You say, "If an editor working on an article looked over any SNG to see if "user submitted news" articles were allowed I do not think that they would automatically end up at WP:SPS unless someone directed them to look there"—this is why I have several times suggested directing them to look there. (Alterations to this guideline should not impact CSDs. Articles on musical topics are speedily deletable if they do not indicate that their subject is important or significant--that is, something beyond your typical garage band--not if they do not verify that their subject is notable. And, of course, anyone can contest a PROD for any reason...even after the article has been deleted, at which point it is automatically restored.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad on the WP:SPS link I thought you were only asking if I thought that covered "user submitted" in the large sense, which I don't. In the small sense it does - such as the "Introduce yourself" column because it is the actual player who is doing the writing. But the "Endorsement Deal" issues, no. It would be different if, say, Fender came in and wrote an article about their 2009 line and who is using/endorsing it. Than it would fit. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question I think "release information or track listings" to the second line is good but why do we need to specifically mention equipment endorsements? Isn't this clearly advertising? Plus it's almost inevitable that a musician to say, appear on the front page of fender.com, would have other notability. -- neon white talk 12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: It is needed to specifically mention endorsement deals unless WP:SPAM is reworded. Currently that guideline says "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." The wording is important as it says "Articles considered advertisements..." not "An article that contains links to advertisements as sources..." But even if it did, in the case of an endorsement deal, it is not always "advertising" in the sense most editors would define "advertising". I gave examples above of various forms of "endorsement deal" information and in the case of "musicians and ensembles" an "independent" and "third party" website that has a list of artists who "use this product" may not be looked upon as either "Self-published" or "advertising for the musician/ensemble". The same would go for an "endorsement interview" with the "musicians and ensembles" as the interview is not "Self-published" or "advertising for the musician/ensemble". I guess a sub set of this would information about trade shows such as NAMM, which are huge "endorsement deal" "advertisements" in the making. Slipping off into my own "OS", if you will, for a bit there are various levels of endorsement deals. To an outsider it may seem "Notable" to get one however artists can attend NAMM and start handing out press kits to all the company reps who are there. (Or company reps can talk up the better known musicians who attend in hops they will endorse them - it is a two way street) You do not need to be signed, you do not need to have anything released, you do not need to be on a major label, you do not need to be "famous" - all you need to a press kit. It does not mean a company will endorse you but chances are you can walk away with something. It might be guitar strings, it might be mic cable, it might be sneakers, it might be pick ups, guitar picks, drum sticks, drum heads, straps or any number of other items including an instrument. But even that is subject to discussion if that is "notable" because some artists have a "full endorsement" and others have a partial one. In brief it means the artist gets free gear or the artist pays a reduced price for the gear. A trade show is not the only place to secure an endorsement deal, most companies allow artists to mail in a press kit or even email a link to their myspace page. Yes - artists who have nothing more than a myspace page can, and have, gotten them. All of this combined is why it should explicitly mention "endorsement deal" in the subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the point here, this isnt about advertising being added to article, it's why we need to specifically outline appearances in product endorsements as inappropriate material to assert notability? There's really no business sense in asking a nobody to endorse your product, it's pointless, the whole point of endorsment is to buy the influence of a well respected figure and to be such, would almost certainly entail having a valid claim of notability. Getting free samples is a very different thing to Dave Gilmour on the front of fender.com or Gary numan on the yamaha site. --neon white talk 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if a person asked to endorse a deal is notable, then the endorsement is likely to be covered by reliable sources, not merely advertisements. And even if it isn't, the Dave Gilmours and the Gary Numans of the world don't need to rely on product endorsement partners to broadcast that they meet notability guidelines. The specific types of sources being described here are not independent, since it is in the best interest of Endorsee to make Endorser seem as important as possible. They're already essentially excluded from notability considerations as promotional material; from what I see Soundvisions1 is arguing that there's a need to make it explicit. -Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. It would seem to be such an unlikely occurance that a subject would have an endorsement deal as the sole claim of notability that it seems odd to explicitly outline it. --neon white talk 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it has happened, and continues to happen. I supplied examples above of at least two articles that were brought to AfD based on an "endorsement deal" being given for notability. In one article it was the only citation and in the other it was an endorsement deal along with a self submitted article that were the main claims of "Notability". And there are many more to be found. Articles exist on Wikipedia solely based on citations that are one or two line "user submitted" "news" pieces that contain release date of an album. Articles exist with citations to press releases placed on blogs and forums. Articles exist that contain all of the currently "except" items along with ones that I am proposing to include being used as citations. I keep trying to take out the shop talk to explain the "endorsement deal" issue and somehow it is still not being made clear. Maybe this: if an editor created an article that said "David Gilmore is the guitarist in Pink Floyd" that would be a pretty big indicator of notability. And you could, fairly easy, find many many sources that fit he policies and guidlines. Now if an editor created an article that said "Gil David is the guitarist in Moose Pie Hodown" there would be all sorts of issues brought up and it would be that much harder to establish notability. "The subject has a myspace page" would not work. "The subjects band has a myspace page" would not work. "The band Gil is in released CD's that were paid for by the drummer before Gil was in the band" would not work. "Gil has been in band that played local shows headline by a popular band" would seem impressive but notability buy association is still not accepted. "The band Gil is in has received local press" is a start but if it is just local press does not fully meet the guidlines, and if it is not soley on the subject of the article it does not establish that the individual is notable. "Gil not only play a Rubber Stamp guitar, he is endorsed by them" hmmm...is this notable? The quote from Neon White is "There's really no business sense in asking a nobody to endorse your product, it's pointless, the whole point of endorsment is to buy the influence of a well respected figure and to be such, would almost certainly entail having a valid claim of notability." So by those terms Gil is now notable. But what about the rest of the guidlines? The subject does not meet any of them. It makes no sense to exclude marketing put out by the band, their publicist or their label but not exclude marketing put out by a company trying to sell a product that a member of a band uses, soley because the company is a "third party". We would not allow an article to cite a "list of drummers who live in Florida" to be used, so why should we allow a "List of drummers who use our product" to be used? We would not allow a self interview about how great their own band is to be used so why should we allow an interview where the subject talks about how great a product they are endorsing to be used? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

←Where is this standing right now? Are we prepared to implement the last set of changes? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am ok with it. Neon white and I have a different opinion of what an "endorsement deal" is and/or means. User:Frank voiced "support" for the more detailed version, the "endorsement deal" portion has only been moved to a footnote. I would say you call it Moonriddengirl. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Still Oppose as unecessary instruction creep. There hasn't been an argument put forward yet that sufficiently justifies the inclusion of, what seems to be, quite random particulars and why it is not adequately covered under current notability policy. --neon white talk 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 4
Criterion 4 of the notability guidelines currently reads: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." I see this criterion has been the subject of some discussion in the past, but the question I have doesn't seem to be addressed by those discussions. This is in relation to a comment on an AfD, specifically Articles_for_deletion/The_Capella_of_Calvin_College (please note I am the nominator in this discussion).

As it is presently worded, Criterion 4 is unique (with the trivial exception of criterion 1) in that, rather than asking for the musical act to have done something specific (toured, won an award, released multiple albums) to meet the criterion, it asks for reliable sources to have covered a specific act (touring). By its present reading, the sources are what makes the criterion met, not the fact of the tour. Obviously, WP:V applies to everything, but as an example, criterion 11 could be met by a trivial mention on a radio station website of their rotation list, and WP:MUSIC would be satisfied. Criterion 4 cannot be similarly verified from trivial or first party sources; it must have nontrivial reliable coverage.

My question, therefore, is; is my analysis of the criterion as it stands correct, and if so, is this deliberate, and does this represent present consensus? If present consensus is that the tour is the key element, how could the criterion be reworded to reflect this? gnfnrf (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if this will answer your question but there is the footnote attached the specific guideline you mention: This criterion has been disputed in the past and has been reworded numerous times as a result. Past significant discussions: 1, 2 (permalink). EDIT - sorry, I see you did say your question does not "seem to be addressed by those discussions". WP:GNG defines terms and a mention of a concert on a radio station would not fall under "Significant coverage". The issue is how to verify a tour took place, not a few shows. The ability to verify something such as a release date, track listings, band members or live shows can be done by "official" means, but the "Significant Coverage" (as defined in WP:GNG) can not. I agree it is somewhat vague and some otherwise non-notable artists have slipped through because they have done a handful of shows outside of the United States. Common sense and Logic should allow the WP:NOTE guidlines to be brought into play. The wording of "...is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" suggests otherwise. For example even though Pink Floyd did very few concerts overall in support of The Wall it could be verified as a "notable" tour because of the scope of the actual "show" and the fact the tour received "non-trivial coverage". The other end of the spectrum is that if a "local band" played the same amount of shows it might not be considered as notable, with the exception of "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". So while a "local" band may not be notable for doing three shows in their home state that same band might receive "Significant coverage" in a country outside of the United States for doing three shows.  Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The first discussion is about what range of tours should be considered. "national" vs "significant".  The second is about adding the words "non-trivial" to make the criterion harder to pass.  Neither seem particularly relevant. gnfnrf (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the criterion (based on my probably flawed recall of past discussions) is that the publicity is what makes notability. Hypothetical example: rich college kid cover band A uses its own money to hop from its home base in Boston to play a string of bars in Mexico. The fact that they took their bar band to another country does not inherently make them notable. It becomes notable if respectable media decide it is...at which point it meets criterion 1, anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Little countries
Reading this criterion just now, I wondered (forgive me if I'm misinterpreting things here): how big of countries do we need? Let's say that there's a French band from Nice that goes down the road to have a concert in Monaco — it's small enough that a single concert would easily draw interested people from all over the country — and gets some coverage from Monaco's media. Would that band automatically be notable, despite Monaco's ridiculously small size? Or would it be better to say that they have to go touring a certain distance, so that individual little performances in tiny countries wouldn't count? Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

criteria number 5
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)

i think some extra clarification is needed here on what an 'important indie label'. What is a 'roster of performers', how many are notable and how notable? There are many labels that have been around just a few years have a handful of bands that fit the notability criteria that i certainly wouldn't consider them one of the more important indie labels. --Neon white (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just seeking clarification: if they represent a roster of notable bands, why wouldn't you consider them one of the more important indie labels? What are your personal criteria? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(bump from archive 6) This definition seems cyclical. An indie label is "important" if it has many notable bands signed on it, and a band is notable if it's signed on an "important" indie label... if any of the other notability criterions come in at some point, no problem, but what about when they don't? How do we then decide if an underground indie artist may be notable enuff?

For sake of example, consider Webbed Hand Records. They've been around for more than a few years, and have a roster of musicians, all of which have released several albums. But do we consider them notable? Heck if I knew. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do their musicians meet any of the other criteria of notability? If they've got enough performers that do to meet the "many" criteria, then they should count. If they have one notable act or two, they might not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it needs clarifying in regards to only what is "important", although that word has been a cause for discussion. Mo-Da-Mu is a small label that no longer exists and, based on the criteria a currently written, an artist who appeared on that label does not meet "independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". In this case one band, 54•40, is notable however that is not "many" notable bands. There is an older discussion (Talk:Mo-Da-Mu) as to why an article on the label should be kept, and that is because of the reverse of this criteria - the label is "important", and notable, because of a single band. Although WP:CORP is not what we are talking about here this is relevant as the issues do go hand in hand. (Disclosure - yes, I did a PROD based on failure to meet WP:CORP and it was removed because an independent record label that's released material by 54-40 is notable although I was not involved in the discussion). It should be noted that the two links/citations given are for the band 54•40 and an "article" about the band where information in the article is credited as being supplied by Divine Industries, the bands management company and former owners of the label. So to bring this back to the criteria in question Mo-Da-Mu would not meet the criteria as an independent label with a "roster of performers, many of which are notable" but True North Records, another independent label that 54•40 was on, would. But perhaps the overall issue with this criteria is if the criteria of "independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" is a good description of all labels. It was harder to DIY when you a person had to press product in hops of getting it into brick and mortar shops. Now, because of home recording and the internet, it is a lot easier to really DIY and have product self made at home and sell. But does that make the "Label" important or notable? On the List of record labels there is a one line wording of "This is a list of notable record labels" but no detail about why a label on this list is "notable". As with other lists it might be based on the concept that if an article exists on Wikipedia than the subject of that article is notable. I randomly clicked and found labels such as Sacred Records, Screwgun Records and Seriously Groovy. They do not seem to meet the criteria we are discussing so when "musicians and ensembles" are being considered for their own article these label would not be allowed as one of the "automatically notable" criteria. But (I am not challenging notability of any of these, just showing/asking/relating to this discussion) the description of Screwgun Records says it was started by Tim Berne and that "Most releases have been by Berne". In looking at Tim Berne's article it shows he has released 25 albums between 1979 and 2007. No label is given but I would, at face value, think "Wow - this is impressive and notable". If, and I am saying "if" because I have not done OR on this matter beyond what exists on Wikipedia, these have all been Screwgun Records releases I would think the label is notable because it has put out so many releases. However seeing that it is the musicians own label I would not be so sure anymore. Would changing "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" to read "Has released two or more albums on a major label or indie label" work better? Or would more keeping it as it and more clearly defining "important indie label" work better? Should DIY labels created only for release of "self" and "Self" related product be excluded?   Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that no one here actually works in the independent music industry, for an artist or act to be notable as per WP policy, 99.9% of the time they would also have to be signed to a major commercial label, thus criteria number 5 is a contradiction when applied to almost every case. Also, this policy goes hand in hand with notability and the two must be discussed in conjuction because people slapping tags on things directing others backwards and forwards between the two policies in useless. Nick carson (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia has many artists who are on indy labels and have been for most of their musical lives. Notability comes in many flavors and I am fairly certain that there is no policy on Wikipedia that states "99.9%" of musicians "have to be signed to a major commercial label" in order to be notable. Policy, such as Sources, dictates guideline. The general notability guidlines define the terms that an editor can find throughout all of the subject specific guidelines, of which Notability (music) is one of. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally i dislike the criteria on the principle that notability should not be inherited from label to band. Nick carson is correct that sometimes WP:MUSIC contradicts WP:N in that the basic criteria for notability should be reliable sources. If there's none of those then how is the article not original research or a permanent stub? They could easily be deleted on that basis ignoring these guidelines. --neon white talk 12:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Record labels and speedies
Going through the CSD queue I see that someone has nominated a lot of articles on record labels some of which longstanding, for speedy deletion as per CSD A7. Now, WP:MUSIC isn't explicit but indirectly refers to major independent labels as those "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". As this comes form the section on bands, it may be somewhat circular, but I'd say that an article about a label that is around some time with several linked bands asserts enough importance to warrant discussion. I've declined one speedy, but would appreciate further input.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, strongly. A7's intent is to allow for uncontroversial deletions, which these clearly would not be. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you--there's sufficient assertion of importance there to warrant more investigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So I'll go through them and remove all but any obvious (some have already been deleted but I will double check the as well).--Tikiwont (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was basing this all of of the precedent from Articles for deletion/Red Scare Industries which had a roster of mostly notable bands, but was deemed an unnotable label.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not CSD, though. CSD is for straightforward cases. A7 is a lesser threshold of importance than WP:ORG. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see where you coming from, but that was the outcome of a discussion. Even if most labels that you tagged seem to be less notable than Red Scare Industries, they are not necessarily clear speedy deletion candidates. At least not for someone not much into punk. If you look at above thread we may have a problem here as many bands derive their notability claim also from being singed to an important indie label, but it isn't so clear what that means. So best discuss and if we have more AfDs maybe we can expand this guideline. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I declined some of those on similar grounds as well. Like any band with at least one notable member fails A7 deletion for possible inherited notability, so too any label which signed an notable artist may be notable itself. Mostly they aren't, but as Moonriddengirl says, that's not a job for CSD to decide. Regards  So Why  22:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reign (album)
Is an album by a notable artist, which is limited to a 500-copy release, notable?  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  19:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be, depends on the album itself as usual. A bunch of EPs are limited to low numbers and still are notable, but as with every album it's not just notable because the artist is or because it is limited. Regards  So Why  20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup question: There isn't even an article on Hora, should there be articles on his albums, even if he is notable as being a former member of a notable band?   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend proposing deletion if no reliable sources can be found. --neon white talk 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is Hora (musician). Needs work, but it exists.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability and future single tag
Under what circumstances is a future single notable enough for its own article, given that it will not yet have "been ranked on national or significant music charts" or "won significant awards or honors" or "have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups"?

I'm struggling to see how these guidelines ever allow the future single banner to be legitimately used on an article. 86.133.214.137 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We can easily assume they will. --neon white talk 14:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never come across any other part of Wikipedia where an assumption is sufficient. If it's really the case that an unreleased song is notable if it is expected to chart (expected by who?) then I think this needs to be explicitly stated in the guidelines. 86.152.243.219 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where we don't act, we react. My take is that the template probably served a useful purpose when it was created in 2005, back before we even had a notability guideline. Looking back at the history, it appears that the template survived an attempt at deleting it in May, and in the discussion some of these exact points were raised. I interpret this template as having a very narrow proper use, in the case of an unreleased but anticipated single from a highly notable performer, sort of the musical analog to the pre-release hype surround the Harry Potter books, or certain films. Such a single would almost certainly meet the general notability guideline rather than the sub-guidelines quoted by Anon. I'd love to give a concrete example, but I simply can't think of one. Candidly, if I were a gambler, I'd wager that the template will be deleted before the occasion comes to use it properly. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Whilst we can't specualute that a single might chart in the article it's fair to use specualtion in deciding to keep on article especially if it is well sourced. In summary, if a single has been announced via press releases etc, we have evidence of a scheduled event. Remember that the criteria here are an extention of the ones WP:N, reliable sources are always preferable as the key to notability. --neon white talk 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Press releases can't confirm notability, though. As the guideline says, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you have that, anything else is gravy. But I can think of plenty of cases where we'd get that with a future single. I joined in watching Womanizer (song) prior to its release to help protect it against OR, and it had tons of coverage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical Key in Notable Songs
I would like to propose the addition of the key or keys of a piece when it warrants its own article. I am not sure of the exact area to place this request but this seemed the most relevant. It would be nice if it was located in the document under the main summary table on the right side of the page. From a musician standpoint it is nice to know the key for transposing, figuring out progressions, etc. I have been unable to find a source like this on the net and think it would be wonderful to add this information to the encyclopedia.128.138.108.96 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well firstly, unless the key that a musical piece is in would help to establish notability, this is not the place for a full discussion. Having said that you may want to rephrase the quesiton and bring it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard as what sources might be used to cite what key a song is in. You can add information to any article you want as long as you can cite a source for it. An editor can say that old school Van Halen songs were played half a step down but unless valid citations were given it would be removed. Eddie's tuning is somewhat discussed, although not very well cited. As I say, come up with some examples of sources you would use and ask at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the recommendation on where to propose the article. I am slightly confused about the citation aspect, however, as the song is the primary source.  The song is in a key and that is the source of the information regarding the key.  Any other source would be an article naming the key but it is difficult for me to academically understand the necessity when music theory is very clear about what notes fall into a certain key.  I could understand how the key could be mistaken by someone who is not familiar with music theory but this could happen with anything.  Now the tuning is a different aspect and I could see how a source needs to be given as it is stating "how" they tune their instrument to play the song.  But as published in a recording format the key is established.  I will definitely try the reliable sources area.  Thank you again!128.138.108.96 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The concept is that is you listen to a recording and say "It is in the key of..." it is considered Original research, thusly not usable. As most recordings do not place information such as the key, or the tunings used, anywhere on the recording that information would need to come from another, published, source. That is why it is a good idea to ask at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard what sources would be considered reliable for citing information such as this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just popping in to add here that you might mention the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, but that WikiProject is very quiet. I'd go to the parent project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, instead. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTOR. In a real sense, musical notation is akin to written language.  It has grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, it's own alphabet and literature.  I'd submit that it should come under the same "foreign language" exemption that WP:NOTOR discusses to the WP:NOR rule.  Any competent musicians should be able to agree on the key(s) heard in a published recording, although exceptionally exotic tunings may complicate matters.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Key signatures can easily be translated so a book of music notation might plausably be considered a reliable source for important classical and traditional songs. The problem with keys is that they are very much something that can be changed, it's going to be nearly impossible to cite the particular key a recording is in unless a reliable sources mentions it, something i have never come across in pop music literature, however classical music may be a different case. --neon white talk 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have started a sourcing topic at the reliable source board. If you are interested, please continue this discussion there. Thank you for the suggestions. Occidental (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suitability of individual charts
We are having a discussion of two charts over in WP:Record charts at Top40-charts.com] and Chartblue.com. These are candidates to be added to the WP:BADCHARTS list, so it's best to get a reasonably wide consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Independent Musicians & Ensaumbles
According to Criteria 7 "musicians & ensaumbles" section, and Criteria 5 in the "others" section, the majority of independent artists would be considered notable. However, due to lack of commercial financial success or media attention, are frequently not included in Wikipedia. I present a series of major reasons as to why independent musicians should be included in Wikipedia.

Overview: Many independent artists self-fund international tours, recorded works (such as singles, EPs, LPs, etc). Some such artists are signed or affiliated with independent record labels who provide funding in part or entirely. This means they have released various recorded material, many are far more prolific than those in the commercial music industry. Their contributions to the commercial music industry are seen many years or decades into the future. This is not an exaggeration, if you think it is, please learn more about music in the world.

Financial Factors & Overlooked Promotion: Just because a group or individual, asociated or not, with a record label, management or promotion group, has the financial means, does not make them any more significant or important, in the tangible sense, than anyone else. The majority of the actions required to be broadcast by a media network (including in print) or receive chart success are directly related to how much money the group or individual has to spend on elements such as promotion. Despite this, many independent artists self-promote (create their own press kits, establish their own industry contacts) and much of their promotion is by word of mouth, a difficult element to track.

Contributions and Significance to Music: The contributions independent artists make to not just musical genres and styles, but every aspect of music, should not be underestimated or overlooked, regardless of their financial situations or prominence within the comemercial media sphere. Many such contributions are of far greater significance than those in the commercial music industry as it only represents a very small portion of music on Earth, and mostly the more marketable, saleable styles and genres in accordance with trends of the time.

Notability within Wikipedia: Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias in existance, it contains both broad and specific information, and could potentially provide people access to very detailed and specific information, this is and could increasingly be, of great importance to everyone. Since when did the level of popularity and profit rdictate who or what is significant? For example, many species of plant of animal life may not be popular, or generate profit, or even be known, but this does not make these particular species any less important or significant. Perhaps this is an issue that extends beyond just music and concerns notability in general? Most of the criteria within the "musicians and ensaumbles" section is directly related to financial circumstances and affiliation with commercial entities. This must be discussed in further detail. Nick carson (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Point #7 requires meeting of the policy WP:V. Any band that meets that policy should meet WP:MUSIC under criterion #1. Any band that does not meet WP:V cannot be included on Wikipedia, as arguing for their importance (in the absence of WP:RS) would constitute WP:OR. These seem at first blush to be insurmountable barriers to inclusion of unpublicized independent artists on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They are also insurmountable barriers to the future of Wikipedia. History can't be written by the most commercially sucessful, who've been written about in the mass media, although that is how our past history has been written we all recognise that it is inappromriate as it exculdes vital information as is the case currently in WP regarding independent artists, musicians, writers, etc. Just because they may not comply with WP:V & WP:RS in many cases, does not mean they don't exist and certianly does not mean they are not notable or verifiable in the truest sense of the words. It may seem as though I'm a little voice for a little minority, but in truth I am a little voice for the majority of music that is created, recorded and performed, as most in the independent industry couldn't care less if they're included in something like WP but their apathy towards encyclopedic inclusion is no reflection of their true importance, significance. These policies should be discussed simultaneously as it has emerged that there are some major problems with the way these policies exclude significant historical information of encyclopedic importance. Nick carson (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MUSIC criterion #1 should be elaborated, I think a list of reliable sources is badly needed. Currently deletionist editors tend to accept mainstream papers and magazines and allmusic.com as reliable sources only. I think music websites like www.punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. should be accepted as reliable references. These are accessible for independent artists, unlike most of the mainstream media. Strummer25 (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can ask about sources at Reliable sources/Noticeboard or put out suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, I have just done this. I think something needs to be done about this, since a lot of band bios by clearly notable are being deleted. If you take a look at this AfD article, some editors don't even accept allmusic.com as a reliable source:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stick_to_Your_Guns
 * Strummer25 (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At least somethings being done about it now. I'll be sure to create more articles now that I've learnt a bit more about what reliable sources constitute. Nick carson (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new notability criterion
Several AFDs recently have discussed notability of musicians who are members of notable bands, and whether or not they are independently notable. From those discussions, most importantly Articles for deletion/Bryn Davies (musician), I think I see a vague consensus forming, which might be enough to support the following addition:


 * A musician who is or has been a member of multiple notable ensembles is notable, as long as their membership is verifiable and the ensembles were notable at the time the musician was a member.

This may lead to a number of short articles whose only content is to track a particular musician through the notable bands they have played in, but I think such articles would be a useful and appropriate inclusion in Wikipedia. Comments? JulesH (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Already exists. --neon white talk 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But Notability is not a blanket and WP:Other stuff exists. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability criterion with respect to songs is being completely ignored re: the Beatles
Probably because of the extreme popularity of the Beatles and the existence of many fans who are quite deep into Beatles trivia, it looks like every Beatles song has its own page. This is clearly a flagrant abuse of ANY criterion with respect to notability. Lots of Beatles songs are not notable, e.g., "Dig It", "Her Majesty", "Blue Jay Way", "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid", "Piggies", "If I Needed Someone", etc. These songs clearly WOULD NOT have their own page had they been written by anyone other than the Beatles. Giving every Beatles song its own page makes Wikipedia read like a fan site rather than an encyclopedia.

I don't mean to say this is limited to the Beatles. Almost every song on "Exile on Main St." links to its own page, including songs such as "Casino Boogie" and "Ventilator Blues". Every song on "Blood on the Tracks" gets its own page.

At the same time, it seems to be completely arbitrary what acts get this treatment. Only three songs on "Hotel California" link to their own page-- I don't think this says anything about the notability of "Victim of Love" (which gets quite a bit of radio airplay) but rather that Eagles fans probably haven't been as active creating Wikipedia pages for the group's songs.

Thus, to reference the above discussions re: notability, I think the bigger issue isn't the criterion but the enforcement of it. A whole lot of song pages probably should be deleted or merged back into the pages on the album. Many of these song pages may not be stubs anymore but are filled out with relatively arcane trivia (what else are you really going to say about "Hey Bulldog"?). If we could get some consensus on this I could go through some of the song pages for major acts and recommend a number of them for deletion. 66.92.37.74 (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)A Music Fan


 * Every song by The Beatles has gained a large amount of coverage and commentary and description and analysis in numerous third-party sources. Wikipedia isn't creating this notability, just reflecting what already exists in the outside world.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's clearly not the case, unless you are counting works that simply analyze every Beatles song (in which case numerous other bands would also qualify under that criterion). The songs mentioned above have not generated any large amount of coverage and commentary (a fact which can be seen by reading some of the songs' pages themselves). There's nothing at all notable about them; having separate articles for them not only violates the Notability doctrine but indirectly violates NPOV, because the opinion that all Beatles songs are notable is itself a point of view (and not one that most music scholars would agree with!).


 * You obviously aren't familiar with Beatles literature, and Beatles coverage in music literature. It is vast, and indeed there is a lot of commentary on, say, "Her Majesty" (about how the Song After The End came to be, and how the one note got left off), on "Piggies" (anti-capitalism, etc.), on "If I Needed Someone" (a milestone in Harrison's songwriting progress and a signature guitar figure), on "Hey Bulldog" (proto-metal), and so on.  There's been more written about the median-popularity Beatles song than there have been about some whole charted artists.  In terms of all Beatles songs being notable inherently being a violation of some WP rule, I don't buy it.  The reason why this is so is because the Beatles only recorded for some 8 years, and their song catalogue is thus limited at about 200 songs.  For artists that last much longer, such as Dylan and the Stones, this is not the case, and they both have many recent songs that haven't attracted nearly as much attention.  It's the limited set of songs that has allowed the Beatles literature to focus in depth on every one of them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I own [] and []. I can confirm that they both cover every single beatles song ever released. Then there's the The Beatles Anthology and probably more books. There is enough coverage out there for every song to have an article. --neon white talk 17:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, you didn't answer the point about the Stones and Dylan. Is there any large amount of commentary about "Casino Boogie"? Nor did you answer my point that other important acts are not receiving this treatment, even as to songs that are clearly more notable than the least notable songs in the Beatles' catalogue.

This is a general-interest encyclopedia. The fact that the most avid fans may take an interest in every single song in an artist's catalogue, and even the fact that the most popular artists have books written about them that discuss every song, does not make every song notable. And as I said, the pages are filled with the type of trivia that belongs on fan sites. Let's see some more discussion on this point. (Sorry for the separate IP addresses-- I am signing on from my home this time.)76.83.22.170 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As for Dylan, he's one of the all-time greats, so I don't begrudge the coverage of Blood on the Tracks (although several of the song articles there don't say much, and "Tangled Up in Blue" needs to say more). Regarding other artists, yes song article distribution is very erratic.  Songs by current alt-modern-whatever rock acts are overrepresented and songs by core classic rock acts are overrepresented (check out Pink Floyd or Queen or Zep), while songs by certain great songwriters like Jackson Browne and James Taylor and Joni Mitchell are definitely underrepresented.  And yes this is due to varying levels of editor interest among the demographics that participate in this project.  But that's true of everything in Wikipedia, from popular culture (check out coverage of TV series, the discrepancies in coverage you'll see are immense) to biographies to politics and so on.  This isn't like a real encyclopedia, where there's an overall editing staff that assigns article lengths across the board based on relative notability or merit.  This is a massive, chaotic free-for-all.  If you let the discrepancies bother you here, you'll go crazy.  Instead, the solution is to find the topics or songs or whatever that you think need coverage, and to do it yourself.  In other words, go ahead and write the article on "Victim of Love".  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And you're quite wrong that Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia. It's a bit of that, but it's really a conglomeration of hundreds of different special-interest encyclopedias.  Such that, just to pick one example, it has 135 articles about state highways in New Jersey.  And compared to, say, New Jersey Route 79, yes "Hey Bulldog" is really, really notable.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But here's the thing-- isn't it possible to simply have the song titles revert to the album and have the album page collect whatever ACTUALLY important facts there are about most of the songs? That's how it is handled with many important albums. And then you lose the "fan site" type look where every Beatles song is considered important.


 * Further, the fact that people write books about the Beatles where they treat every song clearly is the result of there being a limited song catalogue and a lot of obsessive Beatles fans. But believe it or not, there are also books that go through every Grateful Dead song as well. And yet I am sure the Beatles fans would be massively offended if someone said that the Grateful Dead was just as good as the Beatles and deserved a page for every song.


 * Also, you need to actually go back an look at the pages at issue. For instance, you cite "If I Needed Someone" as being crucial to Harrison's development of a songwriter. But that's circular. Every song Harrison wrote, one could argue, led up to "Something". But that's not a notability criterion. That's something a Beatles fan would say to justify an article about an unimportant song. (Similarly, your "Hey Bulldog" claim is duplicative of the claim that Beatles fans make about a far more notable song, "Helter Skelter".) And that's why this ends up looking like it's taking a POV. In an encyclopedia that discourages articles on album tracks based on a notability criterion (which is Wikipedia policy), saying that every Beatles song deserves an article is itself a POV. I'm obviously not going to push this to the mat if everyone disagrees with me (though note I got the idea after reading a discussion page on "Dig It" where another Wikipedia user made the same point), but I'd still like to see some more discussion on this. What do Wikipedia users need? Individual articles on all Beatles songs, including the dogs? Or a consistent approach that keeps the pages of certain groups with lots of fans from being larded up with unimportant trivia?76.83.22.170 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Carr-Tyler The Beatles: An Illustrated Record book, which is an influential but also fairly dispassionate book about the group, is generally skeptical of Harrison's songwriting abilities but says that "If I Needed Someone" was his best one to date, and then goes into a musical analysis as to why. They then pan a lot of Harrison songs that came after that, until "While My Guitar" and the Abbey Road two.  So no, it's not circular.  The Wikipedia policy regarding album tracks is somewhat broken, as the notability criteria place too much emphasis on charting singles, while for many groups in the late 1960s and the 1970s, album tracks were often as popular or more than any singles that they released.  This leads to absurd results where for a while, the Dark Star (song) article could only be justified based on the three-minute single that was released into obscurity rather than the Live Dead album track and concert fame, and Box of Rain was in AfD because it wasn't a single.  So no, not every Grateful Dead song needs an article, but the dividing line shouldn't be based on what was a single or not.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you about something not necessarily needing to be a single to be notable. For instance, "Helter Skelter" was never a single, but is clearly notable-- not only because of its influence on metal and hard rock but because of Charles Manson's adoption of it. And lots of great, notable, important album tracks in the 1970's were never released as singles. Similarly the point the guy makes below about sampling is another example-- a song that was never released as a single but which gets frequently sampled could very well be notable.


 * I think the point of saying that album tracks should be given their own page sparingly was to prevent exactly what has happened with the Beatles, i.e., simply having page proliferation for song trivia that could be eliminated or placed on the main album page just as easily. This also causes repetition and potential inconsistencies-- i.e., we know that several songs on the White Album featured McCartney on drums, but having individual song pages requires a repeat of this information on each page as well as the potential that the song pages may be inconsistent with the album page.


 * The other thing is, my point about the Grateful Dead was simply that if the criterion was "some people have written books where they analyze every song", then the Dead should have a page for every song just like the Beatles do, as there are several books that qualify. Again, I think the correct criterion shouldn't be "people have written about the song" but "this song is sufficiently important that simply treating it on the album page isn't sufficient".


 * In any event, nobody agrees with me (except the anonymous commenter on the "Dig It" discussion page), so I'm quite willing to fold my tent on this.66.92.37.74 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)