Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Performer Notability

Would a performer who plays in a band that has a billboard charting album, has won awards grammy/juno, and the band has a large fan base be considered notable? For example, with under WP:NSPORT players are deemed notable if they participate on a professional team, regardless of news coverage. Does this same standard apply to musicians? For example Adrian_Young does not have significant news coverage as an individual However, No Doubt has significant coverage. Would he be considered notable by association, muchlike how soccer players are notable for playing on a good team? Nicweber (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Chart notability

Given that an article for a song should be a significant hit on at least one music chart, where do we draw the line on what constitutes a significant hit? Top 10, top 20, top 40? I would imagine anything below this (on only one chart) wouldn't be significant enough. But perhaps it's time to consider where the line should be drawn - or perhaps it could relate also to number of weeks on the chart? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Songs don't need to be chart hits to be notable.--Michig (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Michig is correct in that awards and multiple cover versions are sufficient to clear WP:NSONGS as well. The charting test in WP:NSONGS is a nice bright-line test, and, with very few exceptions (apparently songs by Beyonce, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles are immune to the test), everyone seems to generally agree that uncharted songs don't get articles. If we try to muck around with it, all it will do is cause more fights and won't actually change much. The only charts that people seem to informally agree aren't enough to count are the Bubbling Under and Heatseekers charts, but, if there's a decent article to be written, you won't get far redirecting or deleting articles about singles on those charts either.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of other criteria that allow songs to have articles of course, but given that a charted hit is one of them - how well does it have to chart? I'm guessing that agreement probably wouldn't be reached, but I have noticed one editor (in the archives) say that he doesn't create articles for anything below the top 20, which I think is maybe about right. This is of course assuming the song doesn't meet any other of the criteria.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Everybody's free to have higher personal standard for when it's time to create an article. I, for example, don't create articles about singles because I don't think there should be articles about singles. Trying to reset the general line won't go anywhere productive.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Any chart position on an an official national chart is fine. However note that there should be sufficient information to make a detailed article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reinforcing what Lil-unique said, for example if an album track charts from digital downloads/airplay, it probably does not warrant an article unless it was supported by artwork/video/performances etc. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Any chart position on an any official national chart? How about number 98 on the chart from the Republic of Malta (pop. 416,333). Also, what if studios start releasing chart positions down to number 1000 – is a song that charts to 998 for a month in the UK notable? I don't think it's a good idea to just have a blanket statement that 'if it charts, it's notable'. We should stick with the criteria 'multiple reviews from independent reliable sources'. LK (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Malta doesn't have a chart and the UK chart doesn't go as high as 998. For genuine charts see WP:GOODCHARTS. There are other criteria to songs and WP:NSONGS does quite a good job of summarising it. Something that does chart doesn't automatically become notabilty(think charting songs that has no or little other media covers) and something that hasn't charted isn't automatically none notable because it may still have a high cultural impact(think traditional songs before charts, unreleaased songs from big albums, national anthems etc). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

I just created the article for Patiently Waiting and i'm not sure if it is notable enough for its own article. It was charted on the Billboard charts, but it wasnt a single, so i'm not sure if that is enough for notability. So can anybody tell me if it is? Thanks.--Yankees10 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, but it depends whether you can find coverage in third-party sources. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find material to expand it significantly, it shouldn't be a stand-alone article.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Album reviews

It was brought to my attention in a AfD that a review of an album or song is enough to establish the significant coverage criteria, in that case I'm sure most if not all music is reviewed so how does it establish notability? Mo ainm~Talk 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the individual album. Most, if not all studio albums by notable artists are themselves notable. Other albums are notable if they meet the WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources. Reviews are some of the best sources we have. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this page meet criteria?

I just created a user page and was about to make into an article. Before I do, please review this page and tell me if it meets any criteria. --Djc wi (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it meets notability standards. Jesusfreakhideout can't be the only source with coverage. And some of the links aren't direct references. For example, you use this link as a reference but all it is is a page summarizing the tournament. It shows nothing about the band winning said tournament. And the tournament itself isn't necessarily notable. :T I don't mean to rain on your parade, but...I can't see this article being kept. SKS (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your honesty. --Djc wi (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

They're on a national tour though. Doesn't that count? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What might help is if you used more third-party sources. It seems easy enough to find them. Like:[1][2][3]. Avoid using things like the band's MySpace as a source. Start quoting what others have seen fit to publish about the band and the awards, albums, and tours will appear to be more notable to other readers/editors. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Tooth & Nail Records count as a third-party source? --Djc wi (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link to Wikipedia:Third-party sources and you can read about "non-independent sources." Due to the business relationship between a record company and an artist, I would not consider that to be a third-party source. That does not mean that their information is not reliable or usable, but another editor/reader might expect the source to come with some bias in favor of the band. However, the fact that a notable record label has signed them may help make your case. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Does a song...

Does a song need to chart or receive an award or get covered by multiple artists to receive an article within Wikipedia? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends on who you ask. What it all boils down to is coverage in third-party sources; if you can write a decent article about it, it is probably notable. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless an article looks like this The Way You Love Me (Keri Hilson song)(without charting) then a song must chart in order to get a page. WP:NSONG is crystal clear. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Unless a song has charted or won something like a Grammy then it doesnt get a page, even if it has charted the article must not be a stub in order to get a page. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than simply saying no, let me bounce the question back: Under what circumstances should non-charting song should be covered independently, rather than just as a part of an album article? Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A non-single may be notable if it has been ranked on several charts or been performed by the artist quite a bit (see Monster) or it has a music video. At the end of the day, it comes down to how much coverage in reliable third-party sources (ie meets the WP:GNG). Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Charting aside, there needs to be enough information for a detailed and reliably sourced article. An article should not be created until that exists. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 10:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NSONG is inclusive, not exclusive. That is, WP:NSONG is crystal clear that a charting song is going to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article (because of the ease in locating reliable sources documenting that chart position) but it isn't so clear on a non charting song. WP:NSONG really doesn't do much to help here and we must use WP:GNG instead. The Way You Love Me (Keri Hilson song) is an excellent example, another more recent one is Perform This Way which hasn't even been released for sale but controversy about it generated plenty of press in reliable sources making a decent article possible.--RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Concert tours

Any objection to adding the following to the concert tours section?--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Individual tours which cannot be sufficiently referenced in 3rd party sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article.

Criterion 5 of WP:BAND, elecronic music bias

Criterion 5 reads: Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Currently, artists who release large numbers of singles on notable record labels are excluded. This seems quite unfavourable to electronic dance music artists, where the scene thrives on singles/EPs and albums are rather rare to come across (unless these are compilation albums). I am not sure how I would word an update to this criterion, but I would be interested to hear what other editors think. doomgaze (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Those artists can still meet notability guidelines should those EPs or singles chart. WP:NALBUMS puts emphasis on the albums (from a notable label) because this indicates a level of commitment from the labels, presumably a reliable source. The level of commitment necessary to put out an EP or especially a single, especially today just isn't comparable. --RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of there are many other criteria these artists could meet, you're quite right. Just referring to this one though, it seems rather arbitrary that albums should be the only releases counted. Of course having the threshold at 2 singles would be silly, but if it was set to let's say 10 singles (2 songs per single = 20 songs, roughly the same as 2 albums) I think this would show the same about of commitment from a label. A large portion of this market is purchases from DJs so the singles are often pressed on vinyl; 10 (or however many) of these would suggest at notability? doomgaze (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)