Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

'ello. Question for anyone who cares to indulge. Regarding point 1 of the notability guidelines for musicians and ensembles (non-trivial published works, etc.). There is an exclusionary point listed, which reads:

• Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.

Interested to get a clarification/interpretation of this. Specifically, the "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" reference. I am participating in an AfD where I've recently altered my opinion on the AfD because of the introduction of a four page interview with a band in a notable source. However, there is a dissenting view on this source that references this particular reference.

My take on this is that it doesn't cover interviews, in general, but specifically covers content that the band or musician started of their own accord. I take as possible support of this interpretation the note appended to this reference, which speaks of "endorsement interviews." I think you can only interpret this as broadly excluding interviews for notability sourcing if you take the phrase "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" out of context.

Basically, I think the wording of this section of the guidelines could be interpreted to refer to literally 100% of interviews with bands and/or musicians, which, in my view, is problematic. Not here to seek a change to the wording, just here to get second opinions. I do think the literal read of this phrase excludes any and all interviews with bands/musicians as sources of notability, but I don't think the literal read gets at the spirit of the rule (yay letter of the law spirit of the law confusion). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, the reason I think the literal read fails to grasp the spirit of the law is that I would be taken aback to learn that (hypothetical example) a band that had a lengthy interview in the New York Times or Rolling Stone (or Pick Your Ludicrously Notable Source Here) couldn't claim this interview as a source of notability. That said, I can actually imagine rational arguments to the effect that a band -couldn't- use such an interview as a notability source. Hence my hope for some helpful second opinions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the intention of the guideline originally was. However, I do agree that it should not be interpreted too literally - certainly interviews from major sources can establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the concentration should be on "press releases" here, guide your interpretation of the sentence from that. When the band self-releases a press release (or has a MySpace, etc), this is obviously not making them notable. Or if their label releases information, an article, or an interview, that is quite problematic in establishing notability. However, third-party interviews which have statements from the band, would be excluded as they have been published by a notable third-party source. Case by case basis required though I think. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add to the pile-on opinion here: of course interviews with independent reliable sources count towards notability. Fences&Windows 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The present text is slightly ambiguous, however, despite the note. It could be made clearer to explain that self-promotion and promotion by individuals and groups with a clear conflict of interest are to be excluded. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Posted this a ways back and somehow neglected to come back to it. Thanks to all for the insightful replies. I am in agreement with the opinions in general, and also agree that this doesn't necessarily call for a revision to the wording -- which is a difficult business and one that could just as easily introduce new problems in the process of fixing this minute concern. Case-by-case review of sourcing against this criteria is indeed appropriate. Regardless, thanks for the replies! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The real issue that this tried to capture was the independence of the source. Publication of artist-supplied biographies with no real editorial oversight is common in periodicals that contain event listings. Local radio and television interviews with artists, with no real fact checking, are also common. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is also a good point. The guidelines really do need to make all of this clearer. I am presently attempting to make sense of the Music MoSes as part of all the present auditing: WT:MOS (you'll see my name plastered at the top of WT:Manual of Style (music) and WT:MUSTARD for starters...) Perhaps these notability guidelines should be next? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete crap

There is no reason that a crap album by a crap band on a crap major label should be automatically notable, while a great band on an obscure label should be excluded. These rules need to be trashed. Let anything go with art. Wikipedia will not run out of storage space and if people care enough to document a band or a release, let it stand! Carrite (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Greatness is a matter of opinion. If something is worthy of attention, wouldn't notable critics write about it? Wikipedia is not a means of promotion for any group, hence the need for coverage from reliable sources. Shawnc (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Echoing that: your personal definition of "crap" is likely to be very different from my personal definition of "crap". These standards have been carefully crafted over many years by many different editors according to consensus and a careful reading of WP:N, WP:V and many other major policies and guidelines that Wikipeida uses. Therefore, JLS, New Kids on the Block and Mud (in my "crap" pile) all stay while many others remain out if they have not at least received decent reviews from indepentent music magazines like Mojo etc. Many lesser bands are indeed included if you hunt around enough: One Night Only, Belle & Sebastian etc etc --Jubilee♫clipman 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the lack of storage space but rather the futility of trying to get an article right regarding a subject for which there are few sources. Trying to referee a dispute between two ex-bandmates is futile and a waste of our most valuable resources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-created songs?

What does this mean?, Any song can go to Wikipedia?, I see the stories of some songs that were on Wikipedia, and only need to edit them a bit. If you ever get to redirect a song, can you re-create but with a little more information? --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you can a) improve the article from its previous state, and b) make sure that it meets the WP:NSONGS guidelines, you can recreate the article. If it was redirected, it was most likely due to notability issues, especially in the case of songs. SKS (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS should include singles

The section for WP:NSONGS mainly talks about the criteria for future albums having existing articles, I think future singles should be specifically included in that section as well. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change notability criteria for singles

• Proposal: I propose changing the wording "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" to "Songs that have been highly ranked on national or significant music charts". The lower places on charts are generally are not enough to make a song notable, unless it is notable by other criteria. Marokwitz (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Highly' is too open to interpretation, and the significance of a particular chart placing will very from one chart to another. There isn't a problem here that this will solve, it would just amount to instruction creep that would be seized on by deletionists.--Michig (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Commment: There is a contradiction between your interpretation to the spirit of the first sentence of the guideline: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". Yet a large proportion of commercial singles are at some point listed on some weekly chart. Being listed on a weekly chart alone is not sufficient. The song must either be at one of the top positions, or should be noteworthy enough to be covered by a reliable secondary source. Marokwitz (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"...a large proportion of commercial singles are at some point listed on some weekly chart" - really?!? I would strongly doubt that... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - most songs don't chart and so are not notable. There is no contradiction. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. as Michig. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment even songs that do rank at number one on the British or American pop charts are not always remembered and thus fail to get an entry unless someone happens to come across them one day in some back issue of NME or where ever. I would not advocate it but you could almost drop the criterion altogether as being superfluous to the others and to the general guidelines...! In fact, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" is probably enough for 99% of cases. That said, the basic advice that a song needs to have charted (top 40), won significant awards or been covered by notable artists is useful and should remain as is --Jubilee♫clipman 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment clipman, I gave it some more thought you are absolutely right. Removing the criterion altogether . A song warranting it's own article should be covered by verifiable material from a secondary source. I would like to refer you to the AfD entry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Was wir sind where a totally unnotable song with zero encyclopedic value is being kept simply because it at some point hit the 15th place in the Austrian charts . This criterion is causing harm by allowing people with commercial interest to promote non-notable artists and works. Marokwitz (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hm... WP:BEANS... sorry everyone. I suspect removal of that criterion will be opposed, however --Jubilee♫clipman 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the word "highly", and oppose removing the criterion altogether. WP:NSONGS already states that charting songs are "probably" (not automatically) notable. More importantly, it explains that all songs "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's also helpful that WP:NSONGS addresses the topic of charting songs; if that sentence were removed, the answer to what I imagine is a fairly common question—"If a song charts, is it notable?"—would be even more unclear. The current wording already suggests to me that the principal criterion when evaluating a song's notability is meeting WP:N, not how high the song peaked (or that it charted it all). That said, I'm certainly open to changes that will better articulate the point.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Gongshow. However, the nom does have something of a point. A song may, theoretically, never chart, never win any awards and never be covered but still be notable because hundreds of reliable sources write about it expansively in a non-trivial manner. OTOH, a song may, theoretically, be number one in the US and the UK, win several notable awards, and be covered several times by notable bands but still not warrant an article because no one writes about it at all. Notability, IMO, is entirely dependent on verifiability: without verifiability, we have no article—QED. Witness the mass of BLPs we have and how they are being deleted if they are unreferenced—claims of notability notwithstanding. OK, my two extemes are unlikely to be reality but the huge grey area between them needs to be addressed. That said, the advice laid down in the guidelines pretty much covers the points I have just made by pointing to WP:N, which itself immeadiately points to WP:V as the more important factor to consider by pointing to WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:NOR etc etc throughout. Especially of note is the section found at WP:NRVE. In general, though, it is true to say that a song that has charted, won a notable award or been covered by notable musicians will be written about somewhere. After all if the public mass-bought it, a notable independent body honoured it or a notable band though it good enough for them to play, then the newspapers, at least, are hardly going to ignore it. Anyway, the page is only meant as a guideline not as The Law-Set-in-Stone-to-be-Obeyed-Always-and-Everywhere. Even policies are not meant that way... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yep I agree that the nom has a point, as I've noticed some "Keep, it charted"/"Delete, it didn't chart" !votes in AfD discussions, so if there's an opportunity to clarify/amend guidelines for the better, I would be all for it.  Gongshow ^Talk 03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thinking cap on... it may take a while, though, and input (active, preferrably) from the various WikiProjects, TaskForces etc would be necessary. One problem, possibly, is the lack of bullet points in that particular section; that may be deliberate, though, so I'll have to scan the archives --Jubilee♫clipman 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Anything that has charted on national or significant music charts will have the ability to have at least one source; the chart body that charted it. If something has charted but is not verified I recommend checking for a source on WP:GOODCHARTS. There you'll find each countries chart listed with links to the official site and because Notability is not temporary a good archive of it in the absence of one from the official body. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pretty obvious stuff, now you come to mention it and similar to what I was thinking due to recent events: I actually linked to a WP:BADCHART, by coincidence, last night and was gently reminded of its status... Shouldn't the guideline explicitly point to GOODCHARTS and reject BADCHARTS? That might go some way towards allaying the fears of the nom above (possibly) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• SunCreator, just being listed in a chart does not constitute "Significant coverage" WP:SIGCOV, which means that sources address the subject directly in detail. I think that's the core of my disagreement with you. I've seen people interpreting this rule as "If it's charted anywhere, it's notable" and ignoring the requirement for significant coverage. That's what I would want to clarify. The word "probably" just adds to the confusion. Marokwitz (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am still trying to figure out how to best deal with this but your point about WP:SIGCOV is well made and undeniably correct. I note you made the same point in the present AfD for Was wir sind, though I suspect a rewrite here will come too late to stop the snow falling over the rolling keep vote there... Anyway, I suspect the German media must have covered that song somehow, we just need to find the coverage. Any more input on how to clarify the present guideline would be appreciated from everone! Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, what do you say about this wording: Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable, as long as they received significant coverage. I know this repeats the general notability guideline, but unless we clearly repeat it, people will continue to use this rule incorrectly. Marokwitz (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• That might help certainly. My current thinking is to state clearly that the "criteria" are actually only pointers to posible notability. Something like: "The following may help guide you when trying to establish notability, but note that claims must always be verifiable (WP:V) and that all the conditions of WP:N must be met especially those in WP:SIGCOV: [bulletpoint]Songs that have charted... but see WP:BADCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS. [bulletpoint]Songs that have won... [bulletpoint]Songs that have been performed...." Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 08:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, its redundant. I would also like to point out that WP:GOODCHARTS is not an exhaustive list of all genuine charts that have ever existed - unfortunately many editors may be apt to interpret it that way. A song that has charted on a major chart will almost certainly have received significant coverage - hundreds of publications review singles every week and publish news stories about them, and it's extremely unlikely that a single will, say, reach the top 40 in the UK without receiving such coverage. Whether we can find them on Google is another matter. Note that we require subjects to have received coverage, not to have this readily available on Google. The purpose of topic-specific guidelines is, I believe, to point to those criteria that will indicate that the subject is notable or can be assumed to be (i.e. coverage will exist) and should not themselves repeat the GNG.--Michig (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah good point. However, they are also not supposed to contradict the GNG nor are they meant as a replacement for it. That said, the lead to this section already states this: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, as that lead points out, the mere claim of notability is not enough: we are required to verify that claim, one way or another. You are correct that not all sources will be freely available (in either sense) online, however editors are still required to find a source and cite that source. That is fundamental to all the Notability guidelines, being, as it is, a policy. Without that verification, any claim in-article can be deleted more or less at will and any article can also be deleted if the sources are not produced. "Almost certainly" is not good enough: it has to be "definately and here's the proof". Witness the deletion of unreferenced and poorly referenced BLPs and the "Sticky PROD" now ready to be put into general usage... Of course, the GOOD/BADCHARTS are not excusive listings but they are a pretty good guide as to what to avoid and what to trust. UK and US songs are likely easily sourced, indeed, but what about those from other countries whose music is less widely distributed beyond its own borders? The question remains then: is one solitary RS that merely states the song's place on a chart enough to satisfy the significant coverage criterion? There is also a "too long; didn't read" issue with this particular section of the Music NG, IMO, which also needs to be addressed --Jubilee♫clipman 10:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jubileeclipman, I agree completely, and support your proposal. Redundancy is not a bad thing when it makes the criteria more clear and accessible. Marokwitz (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surpised at the current state of the guidelines - they've been hacked about a lot with little discussion by people aiming to get more articles deleted. They were fairly sensible a few years ago. Specific guidelines shouldn't contradict WP:N, which clearly states "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right.". In the case of your 'other countries' single with only one source verifying a chart position, we simply wouldn't have enough verifiable content for an article, so notability would be moot and it would likely be redirected anyway. Where we may have an issue is for example a single that was a top 20 hit in 1974, enough verifiable information for a well-sourced stub, but no significant coverage available online (even though it is bound to exist in print sources from the era) - deletion here would not be beneficial. --Michig (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How would you vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Was wir sind? One a related matter, there is considerable discussion over at WT:MOS about a rewrite of that guide and all of its related MoSes. A coordinated effort to sort out both MoS and NG together would not be a bad thing. I have already signed up over there to take on the Music MoS and MUSTARD etc --Jubilee♫clipman 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Michig, unfortunately even the 'other countries' single is currently about to be kept and not redirected, much due to the unclear phrasing of the present criteria. Do you support any of the rephrasing proposals? Regarding the 1974 single in your example, Wikipedia is more than a summary of information on the public Internet. An editor believing a certain 1974 song is important enough to merit it's own article, is expected to go to a library and do proper scholarly research before creating the article. Marokwitz (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer Jubileeclipman's question, I voted Merge and Redirect - the guidelines are never intended to be followed as hard and fast rules and the sooner more people appreciate that the better - every AFD should refer to guidelines but should be considered on its own merits. If we're discussing 'importance', a single that reached the top 20 in one of the major markets (I'm not sure whether Austria falls into this category) is certainly important enough to be included and of encyclopedic value. I would agree that it's highly preferable for editors to gather enough sources before even creating a stub, but it doesn't always happen, and we would have far fewer articles if we had insisted on it from the start. If we have enough verifiable content for at least a stub (which isn't the case in the AFD mentioned above) and some evidence of encyclopedic importance (that's what the guidelines are for) then we should have an article. --Michig (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction of this guideline with general WP:Notability guidline

No open issue on this one, although I recently learned from an AFD on a band. Long story short, I had barked up the wrong tree, focusing only on wp:music, while the finding was based on wp:notability (I'll call that the wp:notability "has been published" standard) being the operative policy, and wp:music standards (I'll call those the wp:music "prominence" wording) being more of an indicator of whether they meet the wp:notability "has been published". I'll take it as a learned reality that meeting wp:music does not exempt a band from also having to meet wp:notability-has-been-published, and highlighting such in any discussion. But to try to fully understand use of wp:music, I (and I think others) would find it useful to hear from the regulars here:

Question #1. In addition to reflecting on wp:notability compliance, does wp:music set up a SECOND "prominence" type criteria that must ALSO be met? (of course there is the overlap where one could say that meeting #1 of the 12 in wp:music addresses both)

Question #2. And, if so, would it be required that statements in the article and sources directly deal with such "prominence" (i.e. addressing the wp:music prominence criteria if any other but #1 of the 12 are used) If so, it would seem that this would essentially require peacock and out-of-place-in-an-article type wording. And that it would require less common type coverage, where the article writer would have to be giving their assessment about the band's prominence (along the lines of wp:music criteria) instead of writing about the band, it's people, performances and music.

Thanks Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right." WP:MUSIC is part of Wikipedia:Notability. So for Q1 above: if it meets the WP:GNG (the part of WP:N that deems a subject notable if it has received multiple significant coverage in reliable sources) it is notable. If it meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC it is also notable. It's one and/or the other not a requirement for GNG + specific guideline - since any subject passing GNG is by definition notable and GNG+MUSIC would be a redundant combination. Re. Q2, the article should contain citations of reliable sources that allow the passing of one or more criteria to be verified. Most if not all of the criteria in WP:MUSIC are indicators that significant coverage will exist. A subject is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage, even if that coverage is not yet demonstrated in the article, or readily available from a Google search. WP:MUSIC is a rule of thumb - editors need to exercise some (un)common sense to judge whether the subject of an article is suitable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• My take on this is that the specific guidelines are here to help establish notability in certain circumstances where the criteria in GNG are not obviously meet. In other words it is not either/or it is actually both but that is not always obvious. "Prominence" should be established not so much by the wording itself but by the simple sourced inclusion of any relevent facts relating to criteria 1 to 12 without hyping the band or introducing POV or OR. Inclusion of those facts with sources will probably establish that band's notability. Note the "probably": there are exceptions that need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis but 99% of the time these criteria will hold true.
• These guidelines could probably do with an overhaul, actually, to clarify all of this. Care to help out sometime, Michig? I'm on the MOSes at the moment as part of the general audit (see WT:MOS if you dare...!). I could do with help on those too. Talk via my talkpage, if you can help. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that these guidelines effectively already incorporate GNG as one of the criteria for notability (see option 1). The essential thing is some criterion to justify inclusion plus Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's very difficult to reword these guidelines without making them instantly usable by some editors to justify either including or deleting more articles. If anything, they need to make it clearer (perhaps in big flashing text - only joking!) that these are a rule of thumb to indicate when a music-related subject is suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, and that reasoned, logical arguments should be used when discussing the notability of individual subjects, which explain why a particular article is/is not suitable for inclusion.--Michig (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Michig & Jubilee. And just to make sure I understand correctly, Michig's answer to my Q2 the later part of Jubilee's first paragraph is for cases where it's not obvious that GNG is met, and so a criteria from WP:Music is being used as an alternate way to potentially establish or review notability? If so, I think that some clarification would be good, as there are some very expert & conscientious admins who interpret it exactly the opposite.

While this example I just described is one case, there is another case where there are emotionally invested people on BOTH sides of an AFD debate. If a band solidly meets GNG, and also solidly meets criteria #1 of WP:Music, can a "delete" person claim that they still don't meet notability unless the article/ a band / a "keep" person ALSO proves "prominence" and I think that the answer from both of you was "no" on that?

Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG is difficult to apply in specific cases, which is why we have WP:MUSIC. A band that meets WP:MUSIC is presumed to meet WP:GNG, and a band that fails to meet WP:MUSIC is presumed to fail WP:GNG. Documenting that a band meets WP:GNG is more work than listing a discography and label affiliation, so it's rarely done, but it's possible. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that three experts responded. But on this interaction question, I think that what you said on the interaction is the opposite of what Michig & Jubilee said, which could mean that this is complicated, not clear cut. But what I think that I clearly learned is that the WP:Music does not establish a separate "prominence" criteria that must be met separately from / in addition to notability. Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Notability has nothing to do with public prominance. Look at the criteria for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions" (Other). In fact, most modern classical composers and musicians fall into that category, in my experience; the mass sourcing drive by the classical music wikiprojects confirmed that much for me (as if I did't know anyway). Although "Pop" acts are specifically designed with mass-marketing and the widest-possible-public in mind, many rock/RnB/rap/soul/etc acts, just like their classical counterparts, might be largely unknown by the "public" but acclaimed by critics etc. (Perhaps that fact should be made clearer.) In other words, it is about the sourcing, not the publicity machine that attempts to drive that sourcing. WP:N is entirely dependent on WP:V and makes no bones about that fact: find the sources to establish that at least one of these criteria are meet with then you have a case that the band or whatever is notable. Prove significant coverage in several independent and reliable sources then you have a strong case for a standalone article. If an experienced admin feels that the case isn't strong enough, however, and deletes anyway, then I suspect they must have very good reasons for that making decision and I would doubt that they have misinterpreted the guidelines. There are always exceptions to every rule, of course (including all those linked, directly quoted, or mentioned in this comment) --Jubilee♫clipman 20:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• One other point that should be borne in mind: Biographies of Living People (often shortened to BLPs) must be extremely well sourced. This is because they are about people who are actually alive to read the content and therefore to object to that content... Thus, even a well-sourced article might not be enough in these cases: we might need an exceptionally-well-sourced article. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, no open issue on this one, just trying to learn and hopefully it will also be useful for others. And I think that what you said further reinforces my 20:46 5 April recap above. In short, I think that even you experts see th opposite on one point, whether:

-wp:music merely helps interpret / implement GNG vs.

-WP:music being an alternate way to meet notability, where GNG compliance is not obvious.

And again, I think that you all have said the exact same thing on my other underlying question, which is that wp:music does NOTt establish a SECOND "prominence" test that must also be met. And, so, a band that SOLIDY meets GNG does not need to address wp:music. (Although I think that solidly meeting GNG inherently solidly meets #1 of 12 in wp:music.) Thank you again. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

P.B.G(PRETTY BOY GANG)

P.B.G is an american underground hip hop group cincinnati based group,the group consist of six members reese,deezy,d-money,dre dre,flocka,and yung-e also known as(yung mulan,and yung elmo).P.B.G performed downtown CINCINNATI,they perfored the two songs off there the 3 muskiteers mixtape,i wanna know,and six million ways to die.the mixtape the 3 muskiteers is scheduled to be released in 2013.

P.B.G-the 3 muskiteers2013