Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines

Proposal withdrawn facing snow outcome. See also Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Inclusion of Amazon, Spotify, iTunes, Beatport under digital charts Mkdwtalk 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Criteria for musicians and ensembles §2, states QUOTE Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. This includes genre-specific charts. END
Thus, this part could be interpreted as the inclusion for genre specific charts from digital music distributors such as Beatport. Even though it conflicts with the guideline Single-vendor/single-network charts, from Wikipedia:Record charts, we have to sort this out.
Here i make the case to acknowledge Beatport for notability, in regards to genre-specific charts. The motivation is to include some EDM genres, which are not yet covered at all by the current inclusion policies from Wikipedia. Resulting currently of the exclusion of entire music genres.
  • The case - Digital music tracked by IFPI, generated 39 percent of the music industries revenue in 2013 (5.9BN), trend growing, especially for album sales. Now there are what can be considered the main stream genres, which can be tracked already via the classic music charts (conducted via Nielsen ratings), which is based on national country sales. However, digital music distributors are accessible via many countries, thus digital distributors of music are currently not covered by Wikipedia, since it depends on Nielsen ratings. Though, the major criticism of digital charts is their vulnerability to fake sales, when an artist literally buys sales, to push his ranking into the top charts. This is an apparant problem of the digital platforms and addressed differently, in the following the Beatport approach. Beatport announced in March 2014, to address fake sales. The outcome of these affords can be currently measured via blogs, who track ousted fake attempts or covered here. Suggesting, that main stream genre charts appear to be the main target for fakers, at Beatport, and that the problem is taken seriously. This stance has been recently echoed by the new Beatport CEO, who also elaborated a bit more on the technology, affords, and the importance.
The proposal here does not interfere with the current process of music notability at Wikipedia. It serves to clarify currently debatable guideline additions, as mentioned above. This way we can include genre specific charts and entire music genres which are currently absent from Wikipedia, such as Progressive Trance, Dubstep, Chill Out, Minimal, Progressive House, Techno, Psy-Trance and a few more (see for full genre list http://beatport.com) prokaryotes (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposal

Add Beatport as a source for notability, for genre-specific charts, and this should only apply to artists, or songs - which are not yet covered by the current national charts. In addition, to prevent fake attempts to reach artificial notability at Wikipedia, a title should have reached the overall TOP100 for all genres at Beatport (which includes all music genres at Beatport).

.

Comments

  • Comment Could you provide me with a few examples of "charts" from Beatport? The ones I am finding are "DJ Charts" which in no way would be admissible. I also have concerns that Beatport is liable to the same problems as Amazon, in that their commercial interests would represent a conflict in the actual true charting of artists/creative people. Lastly, I've never heard of Beatport, which doesn't mean much, but I've heard of iTunes and Amazon etc. What market share does Beatport have of online digital downloads of music? Mkdwtalk 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Beatport had an estimated $18 million dollars in revenue. The IFPI estimated the digital download market (edit: music industry) at $15 billion. There's no way I would support a company who has 0.12% of the market share to determine notability. Mkdwtalk 00:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Where do you get those numbers from? http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/1549955/sfx-buys-beatport (49M in 2013) And the IFIP report 2014 states 5.9BN revenue. The TOP100 charts are here http://www.beatport.com/top-100 or for single genres http://www.beatport.com/genre/house/ It appears that the genre specific Top100 are currently unavailable (They were available yesterday, when i checked). However, the scope here is the TOP100, which lists all genres.
In regards to notability check out this article, which echoes "Beatport, the world’s leading online retailer of EDM", which has a lot of insights http://verse69.com/biggest-social-experiment-edm-begin/ Im still looking into this myself, but a 50M annual revenue figure + leader in EDM (which is the topic here) should suffice. Ofc, you can't compare it to a service such as iTunes, which dominates the digital market. Also there are streaming services, which many consumers use. Here are the Alexa stats for Beatport. Here is an investor article about SFX/beatport from yesterday http://seekingalpha.com/article/2429615-sfx-entertainment-reports-stellar-second-quarter-remains-undervalued Here is an NPR article, which begins with "Beatport, one of the most popular online stores for fans of dance music" about SFX and Beatport http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/02/27/173080163/sfx-entertainment-buys-beatport prokaryotes (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The genre specific charts are still there, go to the TOP100 page, click a genre and on the right sidebar is the TOP10, with a link to the genre-specific TOP100 at the bottom of the sidebar, for instance http://www.beatport.com/genre/progressive-house/15/top-100 prokaryotes (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Re notability, also check out the articles from Google News for Beatport (currently 1600, Google U.S. edition), there are many articles which underline the growing importance of EDM, for instance this recent article http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/dining/271274621.html - Which states "Beatport — the iTunes of the EDM world" prokaryotes (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Even at $5.9 billion, that still only gives them a 0.3% market share of all global digital download. It doesn't matter how many Google hits beatport.com has. They represent such a small fraction of the marketplace that their charts would in no way be representative of what's notable or not. Mkdwtalk 02:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
But this is very genre-specific and BP is when it comes to EDM a major source, there are a few others but i think BP is the biggest of those. Ps. Thanks for the announcement. Mkdw, when it comes to money and investments, check out that EDM article, if you judge buy those standards you have to acknowledge the scene specific overall investments too. prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Mkdw. I really have never heard of Beatport, despite reading a lot of news and tweets. Paraphrasing a couple of Mkdw's comments: the market share is too small and Google hits don't count. I'd add that potential chart manipulation, whatever Beatport may say, is still a potential problem.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason why you not heard of Beatport is probably because BP is primarily used by artists, DJ's or music producers. Another scenario could be, when you go clubbing or visit a festival, you dance to music which came from BP. Further does Wikipedia:Notability means impact, hence coverage and impact through the dance culture by DJ's are relevant here. prokaryotes (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if I did go clubbing or visit festivals, I don't see how that could possibly affect the notability of Beatport stats.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it impacts you? Btw, is there a WP guideline in regards to market share? There are also high profile deals http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/07/10/tmobile-sfx (TMobile Partners with SFX Entertainment and Beatport) and in regards to manipulations, it happens everywhere, Soundscandal: Rigging the Retail Charts http://www.csuchico.edu/~jalexander/MusInd/452_259/Downloads/Soundscandal.pdf, and BP is actually banning artists for doing it. A more recent article about the Billboard charts: The Billboard “Hot 100″ Is a Joke and Zumic Will Not Report Those Numbers Anymore http://zumic.com/2013/10/15/the-billboard-hot-100-is-a-joke-and-zumic-will-not-report-it-not-100/ --prokaryotes (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "conflicts with the guideline Single-vendor/single-network charts" agreed, it certainly does. Beatport is big, but it is not the only point of sale for dance music downloads, are you planning on including charts for other digital vendors? and genre based streaming charts? what next, Soundcloud charts? Bandcamp? etc. etc. Semitransgenic talk. 11:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This proposal concerns Beatport only, and digital music distributors for EDM need to be judged on a case-per-case basis, in regards to genre-specific charts. It conflicts with Single Vendor, since the current charts are based on national sales, while Beatport sells globally. Thus, BP sales have to ramp up considerably to hit a national chart, while globally they might even sell more. prokaryotes (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
that's irrelevant, the main point here is that Beatport is a commercial entity, it is a music retailer, it is therefore not suitable for inclusion, I don't see the need for further discussion on this, it's pretty clear cut. Semitransgenic talk. 12:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
However, Billboard (magazine) is also a commercial entity. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
you are being pedantic. Does Billboard sell/distribute/produce digital music, and market directly to music consumers? Semitransgenic talk. 12:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE The publishing agency describes itself as "a leading publisher of music and entertainment titles" http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/billboard-books/ The digital music store from Billboard, https://www.billboardmusicstore.com/ prokaryotes (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
books, irrelevant, you are discussing music sales and the charting of said sales, sorry, but I have nothing more to offer on this topic. Semitransgenic talk. 12:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe read again what i posted, Billboard distributes music to their own digital music store, thus rendering your argument irrelevant. prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I now have, there may be a point here, I would need to look further, but it is a territory specific service, so differs somewhat from Beatport. Semitransgenic talk. 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If you view both Billboard and Beatport as equal, in terms of their status as commercial entities, and you view this as inconsequential, what are your objections then to the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart? Wouldn’t this suffice? If the sales of a dance record warrant inclusion on this chart then the notability criteria for dance music would be met, no? Why do you feel the Beatport Top 100 is more important as a point of reference? I would question the relevance of providing the Beatport genre specific charting, particularly for the niche sub/micro categories, the sales figures are relatively low, so, notability is questionable. Why do we need this level of granularity at this time? An additional issue with the use of Beatport charts relates to the problem of differing definitions of genre, for instance there are very good reasons why the term "Beatport techno" arose, are we now resigned to letting Beatport define what a certain style of music is or isn't? Semitransgenic talk. 14:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
My motivation for the inclusion of BP for genre-specific music is simply because many successful artists are considered not notable by Wikipedia, unless they sell so many tracks/albums that they somehow appear in the mainstream charts. However, today's fast evolving electric dance music genres doesn't necessarily work by these standards. Often in the EDM music scene, artists establish themself through the various events/music festivals - a multi-billion dollar industry (4.5BN). But these artists only manage to rank at EDM specific charts (for the most parts), and never appear at Billboard. And because of this discrepancy, there is a gap between the Billboard charts and what many young people listen. If you compare sales, iTunes has the biggest chunk of this market (63%), other big providers, include many streaming services. Though, there aren't really much alternatives to BP. If an artists manages to get into the overall TOP100 ranking at BP, which is still a considerable challenge, they should qualify as notable here at the Wikipedia. 1.) There are currently no real alternatives for EDM charts, the quality of the Billboard EDM charts is unclear, and why support monopolization? 2) Wikipedia should acknowledge artists which are most successful in the EDM music genre, because often they establish their fame through the EDM scene, and not only those few who get pushed through the mainstream markets 3) Billboard itself has issues to track their genre-specific music (see below related link), and much could be written about their methodology, especially since they include streaming - which may be prone to chart abuse too. The inclusion of BP would benefit the music industry, who gets better informed about newcomers, fans can finally begin to look-up their stars at Wikipedia, and artists get more reputation, what they deserve.(win-win) --prokaryotes (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your line of argumentation does not convince me that the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart is inadequate. I also find your statement "The inclusion of BP would benefit the music industry, who gets better informed about newcomers, fans can finally begin to look-up their stars at Wikipedia, and artists get more reputation, what they deserve" particularly off-putting, and indicates to me that you simply do not understand what Wikipedia is all about. We are already plagued with non-notables using Wikipedia entries to help their SEO campaigns, your proposal would simply make this situation worse - an artist charting at no. 33 on a Beatport glitch-dub-hop-step chart does not automatically infer notability. Semitransgenic talk. 15:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You have misunderstood the proposal, the inclusion criteria proposed is for specific BP genre releases, which make it into the overall TOP100 charts, not the genre specific TOP100's. There are different charts, TOP100's for the genre-specific charts, which you mentioned, and a ranking for the TOP100 of all genres, which has been suggested here. Thus ranking in the TOP100's or TOP10's of a specific genre, won't be enough, unless they make it into the main TOP100 (which consists of all genres). http://www.beatport.com/top-100 And many of the artists ranked there, are already mentioned on Wikipedia, the extension criteria just would allow a few more artists. --prokaryotes (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you wish to present the Beatport Top 100 as being more authoritative than the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart and that you view it as being somehow less prone to industry manipulation. Semitransgenic talk. 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact, i think we should use both. Each has it's strength and weaknesses. prokaryotes (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes: I would also like to add to this conversation that "charting" is not the only way to establish notability on Wikipedia. If a band tours or makes significant headway in their genre, they will receive plenty of coverage and thus would qualify for our notability guidelines. Mkdwtalk 15:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, often coverage of "EDM" festivals in the mainstream media, is rather limited, unless it is about a Billboard artist... and is EDM sub-genre-specific. --prokaryotes (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for many reasons.
Proposer is venue shopping to try win an afd.
Proposal is designed to give special treatment to a subset of musical artists.
For reasons detailed in Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Inclusion of Amazon, Spotify, iTunes, Beatport under digital charts were the first proposal was spectacularly shot down.
Beatport is not the countries national chart.
Online sales are already counted by the likes of Billboard. No need for double counting. If they sell enough at Beatport they will appear on the countries national chart.
Single vendor charts are too subject to manipulation, especially relatively smaller ones like Beatport.
Single vendor charts are largely about promotion.
Wikipedia is not here to advance the commercial interests of any particular retailer.
How charts are determined is not available, there is no sign of editorial control or oversight.
If iTunes, a much much larger online retailer, has been rejected for inclusion, why should Beatport be given special treatment.
Single vendor charts are not archived properly.
Single vendor charts are often continuously updated, not put out on a regular fixed time frame.
Have a read of this interesting blog post for problems with iTunes charts which represent a much larger slice of the market. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a lot of speculation, and sorry but 5-year old blog post about iTunes charts are indeed irrelevant. Did you read anything from above discussion? I don't see how your arguments can hold up, to the information provided above. --prokaryotes (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't see how hey? More importantly, why did you refactor my comment? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Why did you accuse me of several baseless claims? I act in bad faith? Seriously, if you do not stop making such claims i will file an AN against your behavior. prokaryotes (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Why did you refactor my comment? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned it in the edit history and on my talk page where you accuse me of disruptive behavior. prokaryotes (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
you made a vague reference to layout. Are you saying you refactored my comment for your viewing pleasure? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Summary So far, arguments against the inclusion of Beatport as a notable source include marginal market shares, per Mkdw. Because someone doesn't know Beatport isn't really a reason for objection. Potential chart manipulation as a reason for exclusion of BP, a problem which has been addressed recently by BP, thus, doesn't appear as a growing issue, and current notable sources can be manipulated too. Semitransgenic's argument about BP being a commercial entity, does not hold up, since Billboard also distributes digital music and other stuff. Thus, the question so far is if we should object per market share alone, or if we should value the entire market too, under special circumstances of this particular music scene(Festivals, DJ culture). Or if market share should count at all as a criteria, i couldn't find a Wikipedia guideline in that regard. --prokaryotes (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
inaccurate, see discussion above, I entertained your suggestion that both are commercial entities, my concern is that you failed to provide sufficient rationale for substituting the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart with the Beatport Top 100 (in the context of the latter being a more reliable source). Stating that "the quality of the Billboard EDM charts is unclear" simply isn't enough. Semitransgenic talk. 22:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice summary, I like how you've ignored most of the arguments presented. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Billboard and other national charts are what is used by reliable sources. I have not seen any reliable source use Beatport instead. Wikipedia policy for identifying a reliable source is that it should be what other reliable sources treat as a reliable source on an issue. By that test, Beatport fails. LK (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be a TOP 20 Beatport chart at a Clear Channel radio station, announcement from January (WSJ), Billboard article from June outlines some changes, the show was first broadcasted on 107.7, but moved to CC's iHeartRadio station since. The current playlists suggest it's playing Beatport TOP charts. There are some news in reliable sources in regards to the Beatport charts, especially in the EDM media, though not comparable with Billboard. These are all relatively new developments. --prokaryotes (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per this. Beatport charts are too easily gamed and many tracks end up there that shouldn't due to their chart position being boosted through fraudulent means. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 22:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I retract my proposal. Though, if there is substantial coverage in secondary sources and evidence that they have the potential fake attempts under control, i might re-propose this. Thank you all for participating. prokaryotes (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Related

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

did the criteria for albums change?

I seem to recall that "charting" was present for it. Regardless, it's not there now and it should be added to match NSONG and NMUSICBIO, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is no discussion and no objection, I will expand NALBUM to harmonize it with NSONG and the biography section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

India

For musicians from India, it would seem to me that once a musician has reached the level of being commonly referred to as Pandit or Ustad, that should suffice for notability. I recently removed a notability tag from the article on Tejendra Majumdar, one of the most prominent players of the sarod today. - Jmabel | Talk 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the appellation alone is sufficient proof of notability. In Western music tradition, every conductor, and many other related professions, are called maestro; they still need their notability to be established to have an article.-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe then add some things like the (Indian) President's Gold Medal, etc. to the list of major awards? Because the criteria here are very Western-oriented, and quite major figures in Indian music might have trouble making the cut. It just seems absurd to me to have to make a case for someone who is certainly among the dozen prominent contemporary players of his instrument. The criteria here seem very biased in favor of popular music. - Jmabel | Talk 16:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not find references and settle the question? Criteria here are meant to be for subjects very likely to have adequate referencing. If these wouldn't in many cases, a criteria shouldn't be added so they can "sneak by". If they do, the article's going to do fine anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:: you ask "Why not find references and settle the question?". On the particular article in question (Tejendra Majumdar) there were plenty of references, and I removed the tag. But my main involvement with en-wiki lately has simply been adding photos (that's where I came to that article), not doing research, and when I have more time on my hands again and am doing research, it will probably not be on Indian classical music. I'm just suggesting that the specific notability criteria here are very biased toward the popular music world, and toward performers whose milieu is primarily in English or another major European language, where there are normally a great number of easily found online references. Researching things that are mostly written about in print media in India is a much tougher undertaking. When we say, for example, "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources," the simple fact is that there are probably not five present-day performers from the entire continent of India whose tours are covered routinely in the Western press. Surely you would not say there are only five notable present-day performers of Indian classical music.
To run down many of the criteria given here: "national music charts" are useless outside of popular music, classical records (Western classical, North Indian classical, whatever) simply don't sell in those quantities. Similarly for records being certified gold, being on major record labels, etc. Things like "major music competitions" are more relevant, but who defines what is "major"? Apparently

Majumdar's winning an All India Radio competition as a young man wasn't sufficient in someone's mind to settle the notability question. Etc. If there is question as to whether winning the [Indian] President's Gold Medal qualifies as major, it seems to me we reach the point of absurdity: I don't think there is a higher award for an Indian classical musician. Would we ever talk about a "questionably notable" winner of the [U.S.] National Medal of Arts? - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Chinese Democracy" exception

Can we get rid of this exception as both vague and overused?

First, "being like Chinese Democracy" is a pretty vague criterion. What is it about Chinese Democracy that made it warrant an article?

Second, it's constantly misused in AFD debates. Take a look at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pinkprint (second nomination), for example: a perfect example of what WP:NALBUMS (and the earlier essay, WP:HAMMER) were trying to prevent. The article isn't really about the album, it's about the publicity campaign, complete with such utter puffery as Nicki Minaj crowing about the "raw talent, emotion, hard spitting and everything that people have come to love about Nicki Minaj". I'm glad the Nicki Minaj has such high self-esteem, but there's no reason to write Wikipedia articles about it. It's been a magnet for forged tracklists ([1][2][3][4][5][6]). Perhaps good judgment could have prevailed if it weren't for fans trying to claim the Chinese Democracy exception.—Kww(talk) 23:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

20 Rihanna songs nominated for deletion

An AfD is currently going on here that involves a controversial aspect of this notability guideline. Interested editors are invited to discuss. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NSONG needs re-evaluating and re-wording

The whole set of guidelines for songs needs to be re-written. It is hugely contradictory and is causing mass tension amongst editors across a range of different music articles pertaining to different artists. The guidelines are so incredibly problematic and is prompting various editors to mass AFD articles willy nilly, despite the fact that song articles pass criteria. If anyone wants me to, I will write out what is wrong with the guidelines sentence by sentence. It's getting so out of hand now that something really needs to be done about it. Whoever wrote the current guidelines should be ashamed and embarrassed as the situations, or battles, that it has unquestionably caused.  — ₳aron 10:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with Calvin. The new guidelines are just so over the edge. Also if they imply to the articles, written before they came in motion, isn't it sad that a lot of users will lose their work they spent on this free encyclopedia ? I suggest also re-writing and re-voting for the same "guidelines". — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, they were fairly well thought out, reviewed via a long RFC, and only contradictory when viewed through the lens of "my favorite artist is important, and that other artist obviously isn't". If one views them objectively they work pretty well. The problem is fans that believe that every album particular artists create are somehow immune to the "title, tracklist, release date" rule or that every album track their favourite artist records deserves an article. These people then constantly argue at AFD that somehow the rules don't apply to them. There's also a group of people that simply don't understand logic and English. Some people try to read "Notability aside ..." as meaning "Once it passes the notability test, nothing else matters" when it actually means "Even if it passes the notability test, it still may not get an article if it fails what follows".—Kww(talk) 11:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, they aren't thought out in the slightest. Saying comments about songs as part of album reviews not being allowed is entirely stupid. Not even singles get that many single reviews now,, they are made up of comments made in album reviews. Critics talk about most if not all songs on an album, describing and writing about each one which is important and valuable information. How else are we supposed to gather information about critics opinion, genre, style, composition etc.? Times have moved on, we live in a digital world. Even songs from albums released can chart extremely well without being a single, look at Taylor Swift. A non-single that charts purely on downloads without any promo has notability, otherwise it wouldn't have charted. Also, saying that people who talk about the song who were involved with the production process are not allowed to have information included on the article being it's a matter of "self published interest" is utterly ridiculous, too. How else are we supposed to the background of a song and how it come together, who was involved with it, the ideas behind it? Come on, the guidelines are so flawed. But everyone seems to be forgetting they are just that: guidelines. Not rules. People keep saying that "it only charted at number 98 in one small country" is not acceptable, either. Billboard is not the only chart system in the world and we should not be being US-centric. It doesn't matter if it charted at number one on the Hot 100 or 200 in South Korea, a chart is a chart, and in the view of South Koreans for example, the only chart that matters. We shouldn't be favouring "good" charting songs on Billboard only.  — ₳aron 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This guideline does not now, nor has it ever, prohibited information from album reviews or from people involved in the production of a song from being included in an article. What it does say is that if that is all you can find, the song isn't notable enough to have a stand-alone article. That's an important distinction. The flaw would appear to be in your reading of the guideline, Calvin999, not the guideline itself.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly so, Kww, since he voted in favor of the RfC that made the set of changes to NSONG that he's complaining about. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kww: You haven't really addressed anything I said. Albums reviews should be allowed to be used for song articles whether they are or are not the only source of critical review. You can't apply single reviews to song articles if the song wasn't released as a single. So many songs now chart as non-single releases and are notable, but aren't singles, so they don't get single reviews. With the current guidelines, that means that a song article cannot be created despite there being a lot of information for a non-single. Either way, the song is still being written about. If single articles are virtually made up of album review comments and not single reviews.  — ₳aron 10:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Then say it better: Album reviews are allowed to be used in song articles. What your problem seems to be is the fact that the vast majority of songs shouldn't have standalone articles. The purpose of this guideline is to prevent people from writing articles about most album tracks, and to permit them only for those notable cases where the album track has gained individual attention. You want to create articles about songs that have never gained individual critical attention. You shouldn't do that.—Kww(talk) 11:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What? You are saying that album reviews are allowed to be used in conjunction with standalone reviews, but most songs are written about only in album reviews. Why are you say that I don't think song articles shouldn't have standalone articles? I think they should providing there is enough information, not just if standalone critical reviews exist. You need to define what you think "individual critical attention" is. If a critic writes about every song on an album, that is individual critical attention. Obviously, non-singles do not get single reviews (not all singles get that many single reviews, either). And that is the flaw.  — ₳aron 11:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, some do: see the example of Nobody's Fault but Mine below. Yes, that's the exception case. "Most songs are written about only in album reviews" is exactly true. I'll put the obvious conclusion in bold and italic so that you don't miss it: most songs should not have individual articles written about them. That's what the guideline is attempting to explain. Is there a part of most songs should not have individual articles written about them that you need explained in greater detail? The purpose of that sentence in the guideline was to clarify the exact case you are discussing: a song that never attracted any individual attention, that people only talked about in the context of the album it was on when they were writing material about the album. It says that, and it says that well. That it means that much of your effort has been wasted on articles that you should not have created doesn't mean the guideline should be changed, it means that you should stop writing articles about run-of-the-mill album tracks.—Kww(talk) 11:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • But they always have other information which makes them notable too! It's not just about album reviews or song reviews. It's about all the other factors, too. Who says that we "should not" have created them? They are relevant and they are notable because there is enough information that makes them so. FYI, the "run of the mill" tracks haven't got articles and never have, because I knew they there wasn't enough info to create them as standalone articles. And I never said that the current articles never attracted individual attention, so I don't know where you got that from.  — ₳aron 12:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Show me an example: show me an example where the only critical comments were from album reviews where the remaining material wasn't either about the album, self-serving statements by the artist, self-serving statements by the production team, general statements about the artist, a synopsis of the music video, or, worst of all, discussions about what pretty dresses the performer wore when she danced to the song in concerts. If there's actually independent discussion about the song, nothing in this guideline is going to prevent you from creating the article. If there's no independent discussion about the song, there shouldn't be an article. The problem with these articles is that they tend to have one or two lines about the song, a chunk of promotional material about the artist, and a WP:NFCC-violating screenshot from a music video.—Kww(talk) 12:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One of many: "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" composition and critical reception is pretty much derived from album reviews only, and look at how much info there is. There is more compositional and critical info here than in a lot of single released articles on Wikipedia. No interviews by Rihanna (though I don't see what is wrong with the singer or production team talking about the background of a song in an interview and including that info, who else would know the background or ideas behind a song??), no general statements, no synopsis of music video because there wasn't one (it wasn't a single), and no description of any outfits (though I don't see what is wrong with briefly mentioning what they wore, especially if it is not conventional, see Lady Gaga articles). Furthermore, it charted in France purely on the strength of downloads, and on two UK charts, despite not being a single or being promoted in any way shape or form, apart from being sung as the intro on her tour. This article is a perfect example of why album reviews are so valuable, especially in the case of non-single articles. There is nothing wrong with this article at all, and it passes criteria. Comparatively, this article has more info than the single release "Pour It Up" from the same album, which has composition and critical response sections which are far less detail and made up of pretty much only album reviews. See what I mean? Some non-singles in this day and age get more coverage than single releases with all the promotional trimmings.  — ₳aron 12:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You are blatantly ignoring what Kevin has explained to you quite clearly. It's not an issue of how much info you can get out of album reviews. The fact is that album reviews, even if they mention a song in passing, demonstrate the notability of the album, not the song. "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" has zero articles written specifically about it like "Pour It Up" does, which is why the former was nominated for deletion and the latter wasn't.

    Charting on a few national record charts is nice, but WP:NSONG says that regardless of chart position, a song should still satisfy the criteria of being "be[ing] the subject [this excludes album reviews that may mention the song but are not ABOUT the song] of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label [this excludes interviews conducted with / public statements made by Rihanna, her record label, her songwriters/producers, or any other invested parties]".

    "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" does NOT meet these criteria and thus an article about it should not exist - and the same goes for the other songs whose articles were nominated for deletion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not ignoring it. "Pour It Up" makes use of at least eight ALBUM reviews, and from what I can see, ONE single review. So what you just said is wrong. And that is why the guidelines next to be changed. For you to say that "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" does not pass criteria when it is more informational and better than a lot of single release songs is ridiculous. It clearly passes GNG. There is more critical info about this non-single than "Lovebird (song)" which was a single.  — ₳aron 09:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There are more to sources than just album/single reviews. There were numerous articles written about "Pour It Up"'s music video, for example. There were articles written about its remix. The only sources that discuss "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" are album reviews of Unapologetic. So regardless of how much information you can extract from those album reviews, they do not establish the NOTABILITY of the song, and thus your the "LWTMM" information should be condensed and included in the album article.

    You've gone on and on about how much information is in these articles, yet you've repeatedly danced around the fact that Wikipedia's notability guidelines state explicitly that significant coverage of the subject - not passing mentions of the subject in coverage about related topics - is a requirement. How is this song (and the others that were nominated for deletion) NOTABLE? –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well of course there is for "Pour It Up", it was a single! If it hadn't of had a music video or remix, then they would be near enough the same. My point is that the critical reception is made up of 90% album reviews, and that is what is contradictory about the guidelines. ou can't have one set of rules for one thing, and another set of rules for another. It's not fair that album reviews can be the sole source of critical reception if other sources for other sections exist, but not for non-singles which have been significantly covered by critics in their reviews, which you cannot deny. The fact that there is so much info written about it in album reviews, more than nearly any other song on the album, shows how much it was significantly covered, more than "Raining Men (Rihanna song)" (a single made up of album reviews only, no music video, no remix).  — ₳aron 17:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What part of most songs should not have individual articles written about them that Kww explained to you earlier do you not understand? It has nothing to do with whether a song received a single release or not, whether it had a music video or not, or how much information you can stuff in an article. If a song doesn't receive coverage in sources beyond passing mentions, it should not have an article (and the "Raining Men" song probably shouldn't have one either, for that matter). –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't adopt that tone with me, Chase. Arguably all mentions of all songs in all articles are passable, so technically that means that means THOUSANDS of articles need to be deleted. Have fun with that, that should keep you occupied for a few months. It's very rare to get full length sources written about just song (not to be confused with music video). You aren't listening to or answering anything I am saying, because you can't. At least I am responding to what you are saying directly. You're not listening to me so I am done with this conversation, I shall not be looking to see if you leave another response which doesn't address what I have previously said.  — ₳aron 09:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Causing mass tension amongst editors across a range of different music articles" is overstating matters a little. Calvin and Tomica, the two editors who have initiated this section, have had several articles they've created nominated for deletion and are (understandably) very unhappy about it. I, however, am disinclined to believe that upset caused to two editors is indicative of a fatal flaw in Wikipedia's guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    It is. Look at the Fool in Love AfD.  — ₳aron 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rihanna is not my favorite artist. I think the manner in which WP:NSONG is being used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fool in Love in an attempt to disappear sourced content from this site is absurd. WP:GNG/WP:NOTE should override WP:NSONG. Especially in cases of WP:GA articles. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Several is not the right word here... 20+ would be more indicative, out which maybe 16+ have passed WP:GA status and now someone came with a desire to delete all of our work? Because some policy changed? What can I do about that change? Maybe it's a good rule if we can't change the policy, at least keep those article created before the policy came in motion. And yeah, I don't make conspiracy, but I can say a lot of users like the one who started the AfD and SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) stalk my edits, trying to delete or "fix" my work, which is kinda pretty rude (I don't usually do that!). So yeah, since I work on Rihanna and JT related articles, most of them suffer. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What Kww said. Also, the recent change to this notability guideline wasn't that dramatic; it seems to have just brought it into line with the parent guideline, WP:N (significant coverage in reliable, third party sources). Adabow (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And there is significant coverage in sources for most of the song articles! However, they claim there has to be separate reviews of the songs, which is kinda funny, nowadays only lead singles get separate reviews (eventually the second single also), however, rest of them 'Composition' and 'Critical reception' are written from the review of the parent album professional reviews. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps such songs aren't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles. Adabow (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
You want to say that 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. singles are not notable either? Because some of them don't get music video or a live performance, and chart moderately... — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Non-singles a lot of the time perform better than singles now too.  — ₳aron 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking back at things, it seems I voted for the change. NSONG isn't the issue; the issue is a select group of people who seem to be trying to violate every practice in the book by pushing NSONG over GNG to such an extent that they will not listen to GNG-based arguments, or will make things up in order to avoid following them. GNG trumps individual guidelines, and that has always been the place; NSONG does not get to decide what meets GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The current wording of NSONG is essentially the GNG interpreted in the context of a song recording. The GNG mandates significant coverage, which passing mentions in album reviews are not. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, you're flat-out wrong here. It is 100% incorrect to automatically decide that, just because the coverage is in album reviews, that it is automatically invalid; you, or some of the other people in that AfD, were dismissing whole paragraphs dedicated to individual songs, not to mention that someone totally made up a definition for primary sources that wasn't even remotely similar to standard practice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Chase specifically says "passing mentions", ie. trivial coverage. That isn't assuming anything is automatically invalid. It is quite correctly stating that trivial coverage of a subject does not denote notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Nobody said an album review can't be used to improve an article about a song -- that's just to demonstrate notability as a basic extrapolation of WP:NOTINHERITED. The subject-specific notability guidelines are intended to be applications of general notability guidelines, and where they're seen to conflict it's probably due to an interpretation of the GNG that doesn't jibe with consensus (e.g. not considering WP:NOTINHERITED). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no problems seeing proposed changes to the section, but I disagree that it is "hugely contradictory and is causing mass tension amongst editors". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – I think we need a threshold of when a non-single is exactly passing the notability clause. I believe the non-singles are the main point and the specifics coming up in the recent AFDs and we need to evaluate NSONGS on that. For singles, GNG is pretty solidly acceptable imo. PS: I do believe that passable mentions in album reviews do not indicate notability. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
If it's used in another media (film, TV show) and receives credit for it.
If it passes WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - building off of IndianBio's comment: Can someone provide an example of a song that didn't see release independent of an album (I'm including leaks and advanced downloads/streaming, and also digital singles, as some editors don't consider those singles), and/or featured in a music video, that is actually discussed by sources NOT in context of the album? I fully agree that passing mentions in a review are not enough, but that's not what WP:NSONGS says.--¿3family6 contribs 15:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course. "Nobody's Fault but Mine" is one that I watch. Never released as a single. However, there was controversy over the song as to whether they deserved to apply a copyright to it or not. Also, as with most Led Zeppelin songs, a great deal has been written about individual tracks. It's been covered multiple times as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
An excellent example of what an article about a song is supposed to look like, as well. Not a single mention of what outfit Jimmy Page wore while performing it in concert or promotional statements about Led Zeppelin.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Walter Görlitz - that's what I was looking for.--¿3family6 contribs 19:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It should be kept in mind that an "album review" is typically a short piece in the popular press that comes out not long after it is released. Longer, more detailed discussions about an album in a book should not be considered the same and usually are written later and provide a more informed, longer term view. The fact that many of these articles are so short (700–800 words) suggests that there isn't enough material for a comprehensive treatment. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be clarified on the criteria page? From what I understand of the rationale, the criteria wasn't so much to say "absolutely no songs unless discussed outside of an album review," but rather that album reviews alone typically do not provide enough coverage. Is that a correct understanding?--¿3family6 contribs 05:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it states that an article is not warranted if the only reliable secondary sources it gets coverage from album reviews. There also must be enough information on the song to expand beyond a stub. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with those guidelines then, though I certainly agree that there should be enough information on the song to expand beyond a stub.--¿3family6 contribs 18:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've skimmed through this discussion. I was very much in favour of reducing the number of song articles which were based entirely on brief mentions in album reviews (in the age of digital downloads this was becoming an epidemic). Wikipedia isn't meant to be a compendium of every piece of music ever created. However, there are very occasional circumstances where a critique of an individual music track will form a substantial part of an album review. Why not simply add the word "normally" into WP:NSONG e.g. "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not normally establish notability"? After all, WP:GNG is not an exact science and is open to common sense interpretation by the community. As I've said, overall I'm generally very much in favour of the sentiment of NSONG. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at this from a different angle, why aren't these songs discussed in books, encyclopedias, music references, textbooks, etc.? These are the types of sources used for most all GAs and FAs. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM it would be. Rarely song articles released within the recent 5 years will have book or academic content about them. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. That essay defines it as "writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention". Although more applicable to news developments, it adds, "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time." Perhaps some of these ideas could be incorporated into NSONGS. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes a "national" chart

Hi. An interesting question has arisen regarding just what constitutes a national chart, in terms of the #2 criteria for notability on WP:NMUSIC. Hooray lion has written an article which I reviewed on AfC, declining it for notability reasons. The group had a single which charted on the Hot AC charts (AC standing for Adult Contemporary). Here's the link to the reference. When I think of a national chart, I think of lists like Billboard. Can I get some opinions on this? Thanks.Onel5969 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Record charts#Suitable charts should answer your question. Billboard is indeed the canonical example of a chart that does count for our purposes, although it's far from the only one that does — but I'm not seeing any evidence that the link you gave here would qualify as one of them. It looks for all the world like a marketing tipsheet rather than any kind of certified chart — it doesn't even rank the songs it lists or suggest any objective criteria for inclusion (e.g. sales? airplay? sales or airplay where?), and it contains statements like My prediction is that this song is going to be a major staple in every radio station’s playlist. Wanna guess which one word in that sentence singlehandedly bombs any possibility of this being a citable "national chart"? Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Work Song

Hi music gurus,

There's a bit of an odd situation involving the WP coverage of songs called Work Song. The article Work Song (song) is about a fairly recent number by Hozier. I looked it up on YouTube; it's a lovely song.

But I doubt it's more notable than the title track from the Work Song album by Nat Adderly, a song that has been covered by, inter alia, Bobby Darin, Nina Simone, Dion, and The Animals. Shouldn't that song have its own page, separate from the album? Probably the current content of Work Song (song) should be moved to Work Song (Hozier song), and Work Song (song) should point to work song (disambiguation). Also, the articles work song and Work Song are distinguished only by capitalization, which is almost always bad. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can write a decent, well-sourced article about the Adderly song, there's nothing preventing you from doing what you suggest. The key is to write the decent, well-sourced article first, and then change names around.—Kww(talk) 05:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, I disagree with you on that. --Trovatore (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have made a little stub for the Adderly song. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Oh, my apologies; I posted this in totally the wrong place. I was looking for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Must have typed in abbreviations, assuming I knew where they would point, but they didn't. --Trovatore (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone find the nutshell statement and the first sentence of this policy redundant? Mkdwtalk 08:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Similar, yes. Redundant, no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

iTunes

Quick question... are the iTunes charts considered a major national chart for notability purposes? Onel5969 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. iTunes charts are single-vendor charts and "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used." (Wikipedia:Record charts) Random86 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:BADCHARTS. They're not even charts, they're sales records. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Do all of these guidelines imply GNG or are they stand-alone?

Do the guidelines here, the criteria for musicians and ensembles, for composers and lyricists, others, recordings and songs have stand-alone merit, or do they imply ways that WP:GNG could be met? In other words, if a band has had a single or album on any country's national music chart and has released two or more albums on a notable record label, but has no general coverage, should it be exempt from having a notability tag on it? If a single has appeared on a music chart in Scotland, and has been nominated for Mercury Prize, but fails to generate any press, does it merit an article? Please clarify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume that they are specific examples of how a subject can satisfy the GNG requirements. I think the assumption here is that if an artist or work meets these criteria, there will be reliable coverage of them. What single are you referring too? I would think it would be a rather rare occurrence that a nominee for a major award would generate zero press.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The single is hypothetical. The band is not.
So if they meet the criteria, but don't have coverage, they do not meet WP:N. (I know the answer, but I want another editor, or editors, to state it). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
In fact, I would like to suggest that we modify the opening sentence. It currently reads:
This page provides a guideline of how editors should apply the concept of notability regarding topics related to music, including artists, bands, albums, and songs.
I would like to change it to the following:
This page provides specific examples of how the general notability guideline may be demonstrated regarding topics related to music, including artists, bands, albums, and songs. It is not a stand-alone guideline but assumes that subjects that meet one or more of the criteria below will have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
We may need to take the changes to the town pump or a larger group. Let's start by agreeing on a new lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to disagree. Meeting the GNG is the bare minimum for consideration of creating an article: no one should ever, under any circumstances, create an article until they can demonstrate that the GNG is actually met. Not "may be met in the future" or "is probably met", but actually met as demonstrated through sources. That leaves the SNGs to define the way sources can be used or how it applies to a specific subject area, such as this guideline's guidance that mentions of a song in the context of an album review don't contribute to notability. Right now, this guideline is a mix of the wishful thinking that your proposed nutshell describes and the useful material that I describe. First step is to remove all the wishful thinking.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to see topic-specific notability criteria as shortcuts. That a song has charted shouldn't itself mean that it's notable, but stands in for extensive experience which shows that when a song is listed on a national chart, sufficient sources will exist. In practice, however, citing the shortcuts is taken as enough in deletion debates. In other words, showing that it charted is enough; other sources not required. I don't know that this is a bad thing, but it does mean that we need to be really careful about how we're wording the criteria. WP:NFILM has a good approach which clearly defines the criteria as shortcuts that are contingent on sources, etc.
The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: ... These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film.
We could adopt something like that here. I've long had a problem with the specific criterion in question here. A song charting at the bottom of one of the Billboard charts, according to these rules, is an automatic in for the song, the album, and the band, regardless of sources, which just doesn't make sense to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we're all in agreement. Can we propose an update to the opening paragraph here? I took a stab at one. The one from NFILM is also good and, with appropriate modifications for music, wouldn't have a problem adding it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
On what portion do you think I agree?—Kww(talk) 16:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
On the idea that GNG is the foundation and that the criteria here are ways that may result in significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Are you suggesting that we do not agree in principle on that or are you being terse because you're playing a political game? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
GNG is a requirement, but not the sole requirement. I think Kww said it best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to be terse at all, and thought I had been quite clear earlier. The SNG isn't a way that suggests that the GNG may be met, because we don't care if the GNG may be met: we only care if it actually is met, and only the existence of reliable sources counts towards that. Meeting the GNG is an absolute bare minimum, and no one should ever create an article that doesn't meet it. All parts of this guideline that engage in that kind of wishful thinking about things that suggest something should meet the GNG should be removed. All that should remain is guidance about what kinds of sources are suitable and unsuitable (i.e, that album reviews do not demonstrate notability for individual songs on the album).Kww, (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Rhododendrites. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Kww on this matter, because either something is notable or it is not per GNG and nothing else. This is just some of the criteria to look to in order to show GNG. A charting no matter the placement on what chart, either shows commercial viability of music (sales/streaming) or the amount it has been played (rotation/radio). So, it does not matter to me what chart or what number, only if it does chart. A musician or band does not even have to chart to show significant coverage to satisfy GNG because some people make music that is not commercial or radio friendly, yet they can receive numerous reviews for their music. So, I am fine with the criteria and wording as it is presently spelled out.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not the case that simply claiming that a topic meets any one of the criteria here becomes an automatic entitlement to keep a Wikipedia article regardless of the quality of sourcing that's available. Emerging musicians are especially prone (though not uniquely so, as film directors and writers and actors and other people in "self-employed" creative fields also do it) to making promotional claims that would appear to pass NMUSIC, but actually aren't verifiable anywhere — such as claiming "hit single" status, on the basis that it got playlisted on one or two individual radio stations, for a song that was never actually a hit on any of the IFPI-certified charts that it takes to satisfy NMUSIC's criterion for charting hits. I've often pointed out in AFD debates that it's not the claim of passing NMUSIC that gets a musician or a band over NMUSIC, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to properly verify the claim.

Conversely, however, we often see AFD attempts on musicians who do have the necessary and properly sourced notability. I've seen people try to make AFD cases that a musician is non-notable if they haven't had a conventional Top 40 hit (or if they had one or more hits on a genre chart rather than a mainstream pop chart), or if their music wasn't released on a major label. I've seen people claim in AFDs that indie vs. mainstream in music should be treated as directly analogous to minor league vs. major league in sports, thus excluding the indie artists from Wikipedia in the same way that we exclude minor league hockey or baseball players. So while it's true that I've seen a lot of people argue that we have to keep an article about a musical artist because of an unsourced or unverifiable claim to passing this guideline, I've also seen a lot of people try to make up their own personal notability criteria, outside of whether the topic objectively meets a Wikipedia inclusion standard or not, to get artists deleted on the basis of the nominator personally not having heard of them before. Which is, needless to say, just as wrong as creating an article based entirely on primary sources — and is precisely why we need to have some objective standards in place for what constitutes a valid claim of notability for a musician or band.

The only real issue I have with WP:GNG is that since there's no single objective standard for measuring whether that rule is met or not, we have a lot of topics who fall into a range where there ends up being subjective debate about that. At the extremes, some people will argue that GNG is met if they can find just one news article about the band in their own hometown's local community weekly newspaper — while others will argue that GNG isn't met until the volume of coverage is comparable to what Beyoncé gets. Which is one of the reasons why we have subject-specific corollary guidelines: to clarify some of the points that Wikipedia accepts as valid claims of notability to support a Wikipedia article. They don't constitute an exemption from having to reliably source the content — they just clarify the kinds of things that the reliable sources have to state about the topic to make them eligible for inclusion here, and the claim itself still does have to be reliably sourced.

All of that said, I've often argued in favour of Wikipedia maintaining a stricter level of minimum quality standards, such as how much sourcing should be present in the article from the start — but the established consensus at AFD has always been that a WP:GNG-satisfying level of reliable sourcing merely has to exist, and does not necessarily have to already be in the article as written. For instance, if a politician gets elected to an WP:NPOL-satisfying office, then you get to start, and Wikipedia must keep, at least a stub article about them as soon as you can add just one reliable source confirming that they hold (or have been declared elected to) the office. Yes, that article still requires content and sourcing improvement — but since we know for a fact that people holding those levels of political office are a thing that reliable media sources do write about, its keepability is not a question of how much sourcing has already been added to the initial version of the article, but of the fact that improved sourcing already does and will exist. (It can and will still be deleted if evidence is shown that the RS was wrong — such as the source incorrectly ascribing to the topic an office that they didn't actually hold, or the topic having been declared elected to the office on the initial election count but then losing on a recount and thus not actually taking the office — but the article doesn't actually have to assert or source any additional evidence of notability, beyond the simple fact of holding the office, to be keepable.)

And similarly, it certainly isn't impossible that a band or musician could nominally meet one of these criteria while actually failing to be the subject of enough RS coverage to satisfy GNG — for example, within the past few months I personally AFDed an article about a musician who had managed the neat trick of peaking #94 on a Billboard specialty genre chart while not actually having any genuinely substantive RS coverage locatable anywhere, and whose article was thus relying entirely on primary sourcing with no imminent prospects of improvement — but it is rare enough that as long as the basic claim is properly sourced, we grant the article an opportunity to get improved rather than rushing it out the door right away, while still reserving the right to kill it off if somebody puts in the effort and determines that the necessary level of RS coverage isn't there.

So to summarize, while I do understand and accept that this guideline has been misunderstood at times, the intention of NMUSIC is as follows:

  1. The claimed notability criterion must still be supported by at least one reliable source, and simply claiming it is not an exemption from sourcing requirements.
  2. If the claim is made and properly sourced, then the article is granted a presumption of notability, which can also be thought of as a "grace period" for content and sourcing improvements to be added.
  3. The article does not, however, gain "inherent notability", or a permanent entitlement to keep an article on Wikipedia regardless of its sourceability; if an editor makes a reasonable WP:BEFORE effort to locate improved sourcing and comes up dry, then the article can still be listed for AFD — and can still be deleted — if that "presumption of notability" fails to actually pan out in RS.

So I agree with modifying this guideline's wording to make that clearer — I like Rhododendrites' wording, and agree that NFILM does a much better job of articulating essentially the same principles. But a band or musician satisfying GNG is a question of whether quality reliable sources exist, not of whether any particular >1 number of reliable sources have already been added to the existing version of an article. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is second proposal:

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist. These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying topics related to music, including artists, bands, albums, and songs, that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a topic meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the subject.

Are there any concerns or suggestions for improvement? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a fine place to start to me, without getting into the messiness of addressing/removing individual criteria. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A topic is of encyclopedic relevance if it has generated sufficient interest or had sufficient impact. This guideline, and also the GNG are there to indicate when topics are likely to be of encyclopedic relevance - the GNG is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Subject-specific guidelines have never been there as a temporary 'grace period' indicator. Sourcing is a requirement of WP:V, which is a policy and therefore more crucial than any guideline. I find the obsession with the GNG obstructive to building a good encyclopedia. If we have sufficient verifiable and relevant information on a topic with encyclopedic relevance, we should have an article, if we don't we summarise the topic elsewhere if appropriate. Properly sourced stubs are fine, however. So in summary, I oppose any suggestion of this guideline indicating a 'grace period'. We get far too many attempts to change these guidelines simply because an editor disagreed with someone else or misinterpreted it (e.g. by misinterpreting the guideline as stating that any position on any Billboard chart is an indicator of notability - it isn't and the guideline doesn't say it is). The guideline is fine as it is. --Michig (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, however, that Wikipedia's consensus has always been that a GNG-satisfying level of sourcing does not have to already be in the article as written — it merely has to demonstrably exist. Nobody's said here that any article is allowed to exist while containing no sourcing — but if it contains one RS which demonstrates that a criterion has been met which Wikipedia accepts as a legitimate notability claim, then the current quality of the article is not legitimate grounds for deletion anymore. It could still be deleted if somebody puts in the effort and can't find the necessary level of RS coverage, absolutely — but an article's keepability is conditional on whether it can be improved and not, as much as I might wish otherwise sometimes, on its current state of content and referencing. Once one RS, properly supporting a legitimate notability claim, is present in an article, the onus is on you to prove that further RS coverage doesn't exist before you have any serious chance of getting it deleted. No policy requires the article to already be in a better state of referencing than it is — once a basic claim of notability is supported by a reliable source, you have to do enough WP:BEFORE to know that additional sourcing isn't there to improve the article with before it can be considered a deletion candidate. Until somebody has done that and determined that proper sourcing isn't there, an inadequately written article may only be tagged for {{notability}} and/or {{refimprove}} — as long as RS coverage can be shown to exist, an article cannot be rushed out the deletion door just because it isn't already up to GA/FA standards. That's what I meant by "grace period". Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Our guidelines are, by definition, imprecise and fuzzy, as compared with the policies which are more exacting. We have numerous articles for topics which are based upon the status of the subject rather than the demonstrable existence of significant coverage. Olympic athletes, for example. It seems likely that number one position in a major chart; gold record or other such achievement would be regarded as adequate evidence of notability. But a guideline is, by its nature, never going to provide a hard rule for such situations; they have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Andrew D. (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record

  • For the record, the discussion that caused me to become frustrated enough to suggest a change here was at Talk:Sleeping Giant (band) and I'm afraid that I will write something I may regret later, so perhaps an editor or two could weigh-in on the lone topic there as we consider if and how to change the foundational statement here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Sleeping Giant are 100 percent notable, and I proved that fact, which means for us to move onto something else more pertinent.The Cross Bearer (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability standard for record labels

There have been some discussions in the past about what makes a record label notable and how we would evaluate that, such as in 2008, in 2009, in 2010, in 2012, in 2014, but I see that nothing has actually been added to this guideline about it. Based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Four Inc. and partly on my talk page, I think it is worthwhile to establish criteria for record labels specifically. I don't have a lot of experience in this topic area or in evaluating notability guidelines, but I'd like to see this happen. Previous discussions have suggested pointing users interested in notability guidelines for record labels to WP:CORP, which is proper, but may be too vague for this.

There's an indication from discussions that some editors think labels are inherently notable because of their impact on culture, but, for one thing, nothing is inherently notable and notability is separate from "importance", and this has to hold up to WP:GNG: if it's notable, reliable sources will have written about it. This is about creating a guideline for users to quickly evaluate if reliable sources are likely to exist. This seems to be a two-part question: what about a record label makes it so that independent authors are likely to write in-depth material about it, and who are those reliable sources? The sources, I think, are music magazines, books, newspapers, and probably others that I'm not thinking of, but this part is not the hard part.

The hard part is the criteria. What is a minimum threshold for a label to be likely to have independent coverage? Being a prolific producer of content in a particular genre, significant distribution, winning certain major awards, signing a roster of notable artists? This is outside my area of knowledge somewhat. The guideline currently defines "one of the more important indie labels" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". Although that's a sentence about importance and not about notability, that seems like a decent place to start.

From past conversations, there is a concern that creating this guideline would have a walled garden effect, where a non-notable label and a non-notable artist signed to the label could be seen to inherit notability from each other. I don't share that concern: notability is not inherited; if a label is only noteworthy because it is owned by a notable performer, it should be written about in the performer's article, and so on. Avoiding this effect means that we should be careful to create a guideline that doesn't depend on the notability of other topics, i.e. a label is not likely to be notable just because its founder is notable, nor just because it has signed notable performers.

Okay, that's a lot of words, so how about a short question. Why do reliable sources write about record labels?

Looking forward to hearing ideas. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, has there been a survey of record label outcomes at AFD? One thing that may want to be considered is adding a section at WP:OUTCOMES rather than giving record labels specifically a second set of guidelines for notability. This is what happened with schools where the discussion about inherent notability kept coming up. Mkdwtalk 18:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. No survey has been done that I know of. I don't exactly know how to request one, or where to request one. I guess I could do it myself but I don't really know what I'm doing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I've started to build a survey at User:Ivanvector/Record labels AfD survey. If anyone would like to contribute, please do. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why music labels are any different than any other corporation. We have WP:CORP. Beyond that, a product that a company sells doesn't make the company notable. While Heineken beer is notable, distributors of Heineken are not notable merely because they distribute or promote Heineken. The Dissident Aggressor 20:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy is accurate. Beer distributors do not have a say in how the beer is made, or influence the public taste in beer, or influence beer culture in general. They just deliver product. Record labels have had a huge impact on musical culture, both on a macro and micro level. They often have a "sound" that transcends any one particular group. They often have created whole genres. They influence, for bad and for good, the output/flavor of a the artists they distribute. With the advent of the internet and the preponderance of self-distribution and a more direct-marketing method than existed in the past, a record label's influence is certainly not today what it was in the past, but when a record label shows clear signs of importance/influence to high/low/medium musical culture, I think some thought ought to be given before just judging it by WP:CORP. This is a quick summary, and I hope to expand on my thoughts later. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You show a gross misunderstanding of beverage retailing if you don't think beer distributors influence consumer behavior. . They influence, "for bad and for good, the content" delivered to a market. The Dissident Aggressor 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
How about we stick to record labels? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that we don't need any special criteria since we know that it all relates back to WP:GNG. If there's enough press, they'll meet that criteria. Otherwise, they won't and no criteria we invent can supersede that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NTOUR needs clarification about concert reviews

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Bass Tour (2nd nomination) where editors are divided about whether reviews of individual concerts count toward notability for a concert tour, as two different interpretations of WP:NTOUR. It would be helpful for this notability discussion, and I imagine many similar future discussions, to make the guideline explicit about this. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki should develop a set of notability guidelines for special interest music of past and antique eras

I have written a lot about 60s garage rock bands and other specialty genres, but I realize that many of the acts from such genres are undeniably obscure. If a unique, but obscure performing artist or group came from fifty years ago, but is still of interest to specialists, fans, collectors, musicologists, and/or anthropologists (even a half century later), should we treat them same way that we would a more recent smalltime act that is unlikely to be of any permanent or collectable interest in the future? How, do we make the distinction? I realize that this one is a tough call. But, I think that there is a difference. Obviously, we must find reliable sources for any act. But, sometimes older acts are at a disadvantage, when it comes to passing the same kind of bar. Recently, I had to defend an article against deletion (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (2nd nomination)). So maybe this Wiki project needs to come up with a set of guidelines for dealing with older musical acts that are obscure, but are still of collectable/specialist interest. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't offer any advice that would go against WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but could new policies and guidelines be considered? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is that if a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. In cases like this, print sources are usually required. If you don't have access to those, it's not likely going to be easy to defend a subject's notability. So if you can indicate that the subject is notable using some other means, then you can try to wiggle in that "presumed" clause. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate what you just said. I feel more confident now that well-sourced articles covering rare/antique acts can be protected under the current guidelines--that is assuming that the articles are properly sourced, truthful, and well-written. I realize that if printed sources are unavailable, then that may cause a problem. Usually, if I cannot find a printed source, then I try to find multiple corroborating internet sources for each point mentioned, as a way to compensate, but I realize that may not be enough in every case. I suppose that comes down to a judgment by consensus of editors to have an article deleted. There is always the chance that a rare act may later become better known, and that printed sources may later become available. I have seen this happen before (i.e. the band, Death, who were almost unknown just five years ago, but now have achieved much larger level of fanfare--they even now even have a glossy documentary film about them on DVD). Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a couple of things it's important to understand when it comes to satisfying GNG:
Firstly, while sources do have to exist, Wikipedia does not have any requirement that those sources be web-published — you can cite stuff to old print newspapers, books, magazines and other content that isn't instantly accessible via the web, as long as you provide enough citation details that somebody can find the content in question if they have a need to go looking for it. We do have a bit of an unintentional recentist bias on here, because websourcing is easier for most people than digging into old archives is, but paper-only-no-web sourcing is allowed if you've got it.
Secondly, even if an article does get deleted, that isn't actually a permanent ban on the band ever having a Wikipedia article. If you can compile stronger sourcing than was brought to bear the first time, or if circumstances change and the band now satisfies one or more NMUSIC criteria that it didn't satisfy at the time of the original discussion, then you are allowed to create a better article than the deleted version. We have plenty of articles about musicians where an early version got deleted, because at the time it was a promotional spiel about an aspiring wannabe who hadn't actually crossed the bar yet — but then at some later point they did achieve something more than they had at the time of the original AFD discussion, the availability of quality sourcing improved, and presto, they qualified for a new article again. Even Beyoncé was once an aspiring musician who wouldn't have qualified for a Wikipedia article yet if we had actually existed at the time. So the fact that a band may become more notable in the future than they are today doesn't actually create a conflict with our rules — for some bands or musicians, an AFD deletion is not so much a case of "never" as it is one of "not yet".)
And finally, mass popularity is one way that a musician or band can attain wikinotability — but it already isn't the only way. We have lots of articles about "obscure" acts who never came close to matching the commercial achievements or the "household name" recognition of Beyoncé, The Beatles or U2 — while mainstream commercial success is one of the criteria listed here, it's by no means a prerequisite that all acts have to meet. Several of the other criteria listed here can be easily passed by "obscure" garage bands, as long as quality sourcing is present to support them — so I don't see that any new "special case" criteria would need to be added.
Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Genre-specific charts

I noted that User:Michig removed a long-standing note that genre-specific charts count towards the "national music chart" requirement. The note was originally added by User:Adam Cuerden in September 2013 with no objections. This has a significant impact on article notability, as I come across many articles in WP:AFC who only pass WP:MUSIC because they charted on something like "Billboard Hot Country". What is the consensus here? Do genre-specific charts count? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It was added without prior discussion and was being misinterpreted as any placing on any genre chart equalling notability, which did not reflect consensus reached in several AfD discussions that I am aware of. I have no objection to a suitably-worded addition re. genre charts that is based on prior discussion and consensus. It should be remembered that this is merely a guideline and no article should be kept, deleted, or promoted from AfC simply because it technically passes or fails one of these criteria. --Michig (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter.
If it doesn't meet GNG, it doesn't matter if it has a genre-specific chart. The criteria are ways that editors may look for ways that a work may meet GNG, not stand-alone criteria that confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No, this guideline, just like GNG, is a guideline to indicate when a topic is likely to be notable. --Michig (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Your are in the minority with that opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
To the detriment of Wikipedia. Walter, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, because I deeply admire what you do here. GNG is being treated as a pillar, the be all and end all of notability, but it is not, it is a highly useful guideline to help determine if something is notable, absent other evidence. The definition of "notable" in WP:N is "worthy of notice." Now, there are very, very few instances where a topic is notable, and GNG isn't met, but they do exist. WP:V must *always* be met. What is my point? I am of the opinion it is possible to build a whole, verifiable article on a notable subject based on reliable sources that, when taken individually, do not provide "substantial" coverage of the topic. Again, I feel the need to stress that this is the rare exception, not the rule. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
What I wrote is exactly what is stated at Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". What you stated Walter is just your opinion. --Michig (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability for non-Western Music

I want to challenge the notability standards here, and how they would apply to non-Western (US, England, Europe, Australia) music. It seems that many of those guidelines of what can be notable is based off an American concept of notability. Pertaining to how much American songs monopolize the views of what's "popular", for several political and linguistic reasons. My question here is that it could ultimately be ignorant to assess notability based on information we can get in English (not every source is being translated), how it's relevant to the U.S population, which only makes up 0.04% of the world's population by the way, 314million vs 7 billion, just ask google for the numbers.

In other words, unless an editor is fairly well acquainted with the topic, or is from the country where the artists originate, they would be the worst judge of notability. In a country like the U.S where you need to have gone through x's and squares before being considered notable, it's understandable that there be so many rules. But let's say a country like the Dominican Republic, what they will consider popular and notable, doesn't accord with what you consider notable.

I'm bringing this up because I've met with lots of conflicts about edits and removals done of Korean artists, that are being considered notable by those that are part of the scene, and these acts are receiving views and attention from their home country and international fans, however they do not meet your standards because you're expecting them to reach Michael Jackson level, or Lady Gaga. Plus, for various reasons, as Americans dominate the international market for Media exports, there's an incredible bias towards their artists. There's a difference in political outreach, electronic outreach, social economic status and population of countries, that really make it a Herculean task to be "notable". Even if new artists get assessed in comparison to their peers like Big Bang or Girls Generation, there needs to be basic knowledge about the K-pop scene and how it works. One would actually never compare 9 year old bands with rookies of the year. The way to assess rookies is in accordance to other rookies, and whether or not in that pool of acts their relevance is actual. Compare their album sales, chart rankings and youtube views between each other that debuted the same year. It'll be easy to tell which where flops, and later in the year, if they are still relevant, they can be tagged one hit wonders or not, become regulars in the scene.

Just saying that the current notability guidelines don't put the artists that aren't American on equal footing as their more marketed peers.--Yenamare (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long. Mkdwtalk 17:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's because the guidelines are only suggestions as to how WP:GNG may be fulfilled. If you want to suggest other ways we might find published sources for musicians or music feel free to, however, sockpuppeting should not be the way to behave on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not, for the record, have any requirement that our sources have to be in English — they still have to be reliable sources, but the language they're published in doesn't have any bearing on their reliability or unreliability in and of itself. As long as somebody on Wikipedia has the ability to read the language in question for verification purposes, sourcing in any language is acceptable as long as the reference in question meets the definition of a reliable source. YouTube views, for example, count for nothing toward establishing whether an artist meets our inclusion rules or not — and that's true regardless of whether the musician in question is "Western" or "non-Western". Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A close call on draft article

Hey, I need some extra eyes on an article at AfC. The article in question is Draft:Watch What U Wish.... The sourcing on it isn't the best- I removed a Sputnikmusic review that was written by a random user and there are a few other sources that have some issues, like Faygoluvers and HotNewHipHop, the latter of which seems to be a press release added by a random user. Now what shows some notability is the HipHopDX review and the Billboard Heatseekers chart placement. The other sources (most of which are from HipHopDX) are kind of brief and shaky, so this is essentially being decided on two sources. Is the Heatseekers chart enough for this to pass NALBUMS? I'm leaning towards yes, but the sourcing here is so weak that I want to make sure about this before accepting the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I saw this past discussion and I've seen some argument for its notability at AfD, but nothing that is really definite and concrete. AfC articles tend to be pretty heavily scrutinized, so I want to make sure that this is kosher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of the sources out there are things like this one. XXL Mag is reliable but the article puts off huge press release vibes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, WP:CHART doesn't currently list Heatseekers as either an ineligble chart or a recommended one, so I think we're left making a judgment call. My own view would be that if charting on Heatseekers is the only real claim of notability, then that isn't sufficient in and of itself — it would be fine if there were other claims of notability to bolster it with, but if it's standing alone as the sole real pillar of notability then it's just not enough. The group is notable enough — spinoff of an earlier notable group — that a good, keepable article about the album would probably be possible, but an album doesn't automatically inherit notability just because the artist who recorded it is notable, and the quality of sourcing just isn't there yet as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a review, but this is pretty much a case where I'm looking at it in an "absolute notability" sort of claim. In other words, that this chart alone would be strong enough to pass criteria on its own. There is a review, but if this is a chart that would only give partial notability then that'd just leave us with two sources, which isn't really enough in this instance to where I'd be comfortable accepting it into the mainspace. I figure that I'm going to decline to decline the article and look to see how others at AfC feel about the article. It's just in that weird, inbetween stage with notability and I can't help but get the feeling that if I were to accept it, it'd likely just get nominated for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

# 189?

Is Swagg Man notable by virtue of having a song that charted at #189 in Singles Fusionnes for one week per SNEP? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, definitely not. If charts started listing the top 5000 songs, would someone that was #4879 for a week be notable? Come on, we have to draw the line somewhere. I favor sticking to WP:GNG, discussion of the person in multiple reliable sources. LK (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it should be. I was considering AfDing the article -- but saw the language about "charting" in our notability criteria. At the same time, since I wrote this the article creator has been edit-warring over maintenance tags, regarding the reliability of some of the sources. Epeefleche (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Did it get any media coverage as a result of charting? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but is 'Singles Fusionnés' the same as the French national singles chart? Even if it is then #189 isn't really a hit, it just means that some sales were recorded, probably not many at that level in the chart. Even for major music-buying countries I would suggest that charting outside the top 100 these days isn't much of an indication of notability in itself. The coverage in Le Monde, however, may be. --Michig (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know either. Google translate tells me it is "merged singles". Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The article in Le Monde is definitely a start, but one good reference doesn't satisfy WP:GNG by itself if it's the only reliable source in the entire article — everything else here is an unreliable (blogspotty and/or promotional) source, and there's no claim in the article that's substantive enough to satisfy this guideline by itself in the absence of more solid sourcing than has been shown. I consider that deletion bait.
"Singles fusionnés", for the record, does appear to be the "overall" singles chart — all of the other singles charts listed on SNEP's website are on specific criteria like radio airplay, sales, downloads and the like, so the "fusionné" chart would be the Billboard Hot 100 equivalent, calculated by weighting all of the other criteria to arrive at the overall rankings. So while a #189 peak would be enough if the article were sourced properly (this guideline already clarifies that it grants no freebies for unsourced articles just because the topic technically meets one of its criteria), it's not enough if the article is resting entirely on one source.
I'll take it to AFD. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerts in the Park (Sacramento)

So I was considering whether or not to write an article on this annual summer event. They have been around for over two decades, and feature popular regional artists. Weekly attendance is in the thousands, but coverage is almost exclusively in California papers. Any thoughts on whether it would meet notability guidelines? I think it might, but I might be biased since I would really like to create the article. :) -Pax85 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the concern would be as to whether the local coverage was also WP:ROUTINE. Would it be possible to demonstrate that the coverage from these sources are not part of their regular current affairs programming? Avoiding things like arts and music sections, morning programs, etc. Mkdwtalk 06:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah I had not thought of that. Thank you. I will take a look around and see, but I think that the chances of the article being created are getting even more slim. I may, however, be able to add more info about the event to the venue article, which I know is here. Thanks again! -Pax85 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Articles covering the event in regional newspapers of record would be enough to establish notability. But, like User:Mkdw said, they have to actually cover the event, not just announce that it's happening as part of their regular announcements of local events. Darx9url (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Number of criteria to pass

The section for musicians starts with "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". The sections for composers, others and recordings have no introduction. This seems to imply that in those sections, all the criteria must be passed and not just the one for musicians. I'm also not happy about 'it' in that intro as used to refer to a musician. I'm a musician, and definitely not an 'it'. Comments, please. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a change in wording.
In short, the section should not imply that anyone who meets the criteria could be notable, but that the criteria implies that there may be sources related to those things that will help the subject to meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I edited to address your concerns: Changed 'it' to 'they', and added "may be notable if they meet at least one ...". Hopefully not controversial. Let's see if it sticks. Darx9url (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yoga (Janelle Monáe song) article

There is blanking of material going on at Yoga (Janelle Monáe song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I reverted. Perhaps one or more editors watching this talk page or passing by and seeing this post would be interested in seeing if some of the blanking is okay? Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_18&oldid=1136750963"