Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Should Criteria 11 include music television stations?

I wanted to inquire if there has been discussion about music television stations such as MTV and VH1 being included in Criteria 11 under "criteria for musicians and ensembles". I think that being in rotation on MTV, VH1 or another music television station is just as noteworthy as being in rotation on a radio station. Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Music Network

Hi, so me and a couple of other users have been having this conversation regarding wether or not to put Australian radio adds dates in the release history section of music articles the site is is Australia’s #1 source for music industry news and information, and has been for 15 years.....One user said that he talked with another user, and said that because airplay in australia doesn't count toward sales on the Australian charts, that the Australian radio adds are not needed to be put in the release history, but just because they don't count exclusevly towards the sales on the chart, doesn't mean they cant be mentioned, the label sends the song to radio as a way to promote the song, people will hear it on the radio and then go buy it on iTunes.....like US radio adds are allowed, this should be to....also, people should know when is the time-frame the label sent it to radio in the country and that is important and notable.......one other thing, one other user said it's better to include the CD single Australian date instead of the radio adds date, but there is problem because recently Australia is not releasing CD singles and relying on digital downloads only for their charts, so in lue of that, the australian radio adds date is notable, because it's the sole thing we have for australian dates now, ofcourse unless an iTunes digital download date for a single might be more notable in some cases, but labels dont release a second single, third single, fourth single etc to iTunes because people can already but the song separately from it's parent album.....so, for lead singles, yes, it's best to put the digital download date....but for second, third, and fourth singles etc, where the song is already aviailable for download, the radio adds date is best, that's the intention of the label, people will hear it on the radio then buy it on itunes....68.62.240.86 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

this is not the proper place for this discussion. I will say though that simply because something is documented and you can list it, is no reason to list it. There is such a thing as too much information. Ridernyc (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's more an issue of WP:SOAP. -- kosboot (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Writing a page Wiki page for Spanish/Uk based band The Breakdowns

Hi guys n gals.

I wanted to undertake my first project- writing a page for the band The Breakdowns. I have noted many bands on Wikipdeia who have had a lot less success than this band, and also other bands that they share a label with, but seeing as I am new, I don't really know where to start.

I've been doing some research, compiling a good list of reliable refernces (live reviews, album reviews, mentions in national media, references to festival appearances, information on offical releases etc) but I am worried that whatever I do will be deleted.

A quick lowdown of the band:

They are signed to Spanish label Rock Indiana

They have just been on a full UK tour with Terrorvision

They have released a song on a Stiff Records compilation album, a cover of a Nick Lowe song.

Their new album is called 'The Kids Don't wanna Bop Anymore' and has received plenty of reviews already.

They played at Summer Sundae fetsival in 2009.

There's loads. I don't know a great deal about their personal details, apart from their names and what they play and where they are from, but I guess that's enough isn't it?

Any help wold be grealy appreciated.

Thanks

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalindiana (talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the deal with charting?

Okay, this is really getting to me. Why do people still think a song or single needs to chart to have it's article? Nowhere in the guidelines does it say a song needs to chart to be probably. All it says that songs that have charted are "probably notable", not that it needs to, but too many times I see a song article get redirected to the album or proposed for deletion all because it didn't chart, even if it's reasonably detailed. This is really ridiculous and needs to be sorted out. I know I sound ranty, but it's just annoying. I mean, if the song article is detailed enough, why should anyone care if the song charted or not? Kokoro20 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Satisfying any one of the accepted criteria should indicate notability. If anyone is saying that a non-charting single cannot be notable, they're wrong. Being 'reasonably detailed' is great but that detail needs to come from reliable sources which need to be cited in the article for many editors to accept its notability.--Michig (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO

"Has won or placed in a major music competition." How would "placed" apply to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest? Cheers. – Kosm1fent 06:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC : Notability of foreign language works

A proposal that : As this is the English Wikipedia, and the primary users of this wiki are English speakers

Works which are in a foreign language

must have one of

  • a) coverage in English language sources
  • b) significant charting/sales/airtime/tours in markets which are primarily (or significantly) English speaking
  • c) a higher standard of notability in foreign language sources, indicating that the work is likely of lasting value and interest.

(Basically, do we need an article on every Scandanavian/Korean/Indian/Japanese/Etc pop star and song? Those interested in that artist are likely to be using the applicable language wikipedia in any case. Works that would be of interest to those who are not using the applicable language wiki are covered by a-c

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference what language the work is in - having higher requirements because an artist sings in a different language would be ridiculous. It isn't a question of what we 'need'. You shouldn't assume that English-readers are only interested in English-language works.--Michig (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not assuming that. I am assuming that works which are interesting to even a small minority of English users, would meet a, b, or c as they would have to have some way of even finding out about it.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose the English Wikipedia covers the world. It's the English Wikipedia only in the sense that the articles are written in English. (The same, is true of the other language encyclopedias -- though they may emphasise a little the topics of their language area, they cover the world also, including the Anglophone countries). What we sometimes have is the difficulty in finding sources, because good sources for some countries are not readily available, but when we do have sources, and people who know enough to use them, they should be included on the same basis as those with English sources. People reading this encyclopedia will, after all, benefit from learning about things elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DGG here. Speaking just as a WP reader, I have heard songs before by may non-English bands and wanted to know more information about them. I'm not a fluent speaker of any language other than English, though, so having the pages on Wikipedia (assuming they're put together properly) is by far the best and easiest way for me to learn about those bands. I do think that there should be at least one English source, even if it's just an amazon link, just to verify that the whole thing isn't entirely made up, but that's more a personal preference and crossing over into WP:BEANS category. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose It's good to give that area extra thought and a proposal, but I don't think that this particular proposal is a good idea. I think that the extra thought is good because having the sources in a language other the the language of the article makes it very difficult to review the wp:notability of the subject. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons already stated above and WP:BIAS [...though I guess this would still qualify, despite the limited airtime etc...] --MistyMorn (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow Oppose (if there is such a thing). For all the reasons cited above (more or less). There is enough natural bias against such coverage, but we certainly shouldn't increase that to require English sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I concede to SNOW, but would just like to clarify - my RFC was not to require any english sources, but just to require a higher bar of foreign language sources to indicate some lasting notability. Pretty much every mid sized artist or album gets enough coverage now (in their native language) to justify an article under current policy. I was just suggesting that we raise the bar to something other than routine "new album" PR reviews - to get things that were actually significantly recieved or critically reviewed in depth. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I understand. My personal view is that the bar should not be raised. Interestingly, we have on the other hand those who !vote at AfDs as though the bar has been lowered for subjects, where the languages of the country do not include English -- or even, as in India, where they do. The thought of those editors seems to be that we should have a lower bar for subjects from such countries -- and presume RS coverage to exist in some form, even though we have not verifiably seen it in any form. I'm not in that camp either, so I guess I sit in the middle between the 2 of you on these issues. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The recent song "Kolaveri Di" is a notable example. It is a Tamil language song with few english words. It has recorded 30 million hits on Youtube but is yet to be charted on bilboards as it is not being sold commercially. It has been translated to Arabic and a Duth Version is also in makes. But, the listeners of this song use English on the Internet and youtube is an english site. So does this Tamil song become Not Noteworthy? Wikishagnik (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Contestants in American Idol, and its progeny

I've noticed a spike in articles written on contestants in American Idol, and its progeny (especially outside the US). We now have hundreds of such articles.

Is there a music-specific guideline that applies here? Or do we just follow GNG? I'm especially curious as to those contestants who fall outside the top 3, and who have no coverage outside of their American Idol performing. As interpreted by some, it appears that one could expect that all contestants in American Idol performances (and their progeny) could be considered notable, as such contests are often covered by multiple media articles. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think these articles generally get redirected to the article about the season/series of the show, unless they won the competition or have otherwise gone on to have meaningful careers leading to sufficient coverage to support an article, as several do from each series. I think every time we have one of these series we get a slew of articles created that eventually get redirected. I'm not sure we have a specific guideline, although at a stretch coverage related only to appearing in such a show may be considered to verge on BLP1E territory. I think the 'Idol' format was a British invention by the way.--Michig (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I would say that individual singers should not have pages based on WP:BLP1E and should essentially be treated as "minor characters" in their show, until they independently meet GNG/MUSIC guidelines. Such pages should be pruned aggressively. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The difficulty is that subsequent media coverage for at least a while afterwards will almost always mention the artist's appearance on the TV show, and some editors will take the position that if the artist would otherwise likely have remained virtually unknown then all such coverage is a direct result of the TV show and as such should be excluded from the usual notability guidelines, even if the coverage is mainly about activities beyond the TV show (e.g. relating to an album release). I think this needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis. It is not appropriate to have numerous separate articles on contestants which describe only their participation in the talent contest; nor it is appropriate to impose a blanket exclusion on separate articles on any contestant who didn't make the finals even if they then go on to have a moderately notable career in music. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I would think a RS mention for any activity that isnt directly idol related, would count. (later albums etc). The fact that that notability is ultimately traceble back to IA is true of any kind of notability. Tom Cruise's latest exploits are ultimately traceable back to risky business and top gun, but you cant say thats all BLP1E. However, things related to idol compilations, tours etc, should count as BLP1E Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
On the basis of the above, I've nominated for AfD a few articles relating to contestants who: a) didn't place in the top 3, and b) didn't engage in other activities (e.g., appropriate albums/tours) or attract other coverage that would pass our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I think any candidate who qualifies for the final phase (Top 13 in AMerican Idol, Top 10 in DSDS, etc) of the competition should qualify as a notable reality television star. Of course WP:BLP is effectively applied here since any candidate at must have least one source that supports at least one statement. Kingjeff (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the conversation, King. Question -- Given that we consider one notable if he "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award", and if he "Has won or placed in a major music competition", why would you think that Top 10/Top 13/etc. would be most fitting here?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason is because within this specific competition, there is a distinct difference between the final phase and all the previous phases. The final phase tends to draw more national media coverage than the previous rounds. I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this. It states "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show. Semi-finalists who are not otherwise notable are redirected to their season's article." Kingjeff (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting. But this would seem to be perhaps the more relevant page when it comes to stating what the notability criteria are. And that seems to be a rather moribund wikiproject, with very few contributors ever (only 2 editors made more than 10 edits ever on that page, and none made more than 7 edits on its talk page), and especially few in the past months.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought everyone in the discussion should be aware of it. However, I do disagree that WikiProjects should have the final say over policy. Kingjeff (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point and question in the next discussion below. Criterion 9 states "Has won or placed in a major music competition." How would "placed" apply to the Pop Idol franchise? As I mentioned above, I think the Top 10 (in Germany), Top 13 (in United States) and so on would be considered "placed". Kingjeff (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem, as always, is reliable sourcing. "Placing" Top 10 or Top 13 in an Idol series does not, in and of itself, result in the ready availability of quality sources — it still results in a glut of articles that can only be sourced to the Idol series' own webpage (failing independence) and/or entertainment blogs (failing notability). So no, merely placing Top 13 can't constitute notability, because it doesn't automatically confer the availability of decent or valid sources. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Any new article on a living person I think must iclude at least credible one source. So, even if it does meet notability, it can still be deleted if the article is not properly sourced. Kingjeff (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem — if we say that everybody in the Top Ten (or 13, or whatever) is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then many editors hold that up as an absolute entitlement that sticks regardless of whether that article can actually be properly sourced or not (which is really not a good precedent for us to set, and isn't consistent with our content rules anyway.) And, of course, most of the Idol series have had contestants who fell short (sometimes far short) of winning, but went on to achieve legitimate and properly sourceable notability anyway for other reasons besides the fact that they competed on Idol. Which is why the rule has always been that the winner of an Idol series is the only person who gets to claim notability just on the basis of Idol alone. Certainly, any non-winning contestant who goes on to have a successful career in music anyway, or to get signed to the cast of Glee: The Next Generation or whatever, can obviously also have an article — if anybody tells you otherwise, then they're wrong. But they don't get to have an article as long as "competed on Idol and lost" is the only claim of notability they can make, because that essentially just makes them a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I never said it was madatory that an article must be made at all cost. Sourcing is a completely seperate issue and I would have no problem having it deleted if I thought there was an issue with sourcing. Kingjeff (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I never said that you said that. But a lot of other editors have said it in the past — and even with some pretty hardcore zero tolerance policies in place for unsourced BLPs and the like, we still run into the problem on a regular basis. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
"Placed" should nonetheless be clarified in WP:NMUSIC, especially with regards to shows like American Idol and similar. Placed, per its definition, means you have a numbered place on a list of contestants. This would in American Idol be the top 12 (13 this season). Before that point, you are not placed - you are not given a number on a list, you are just part of a group elimination. At present, some interpret "placed" as first place, runner up and second runner up. If this interpretation should be used as a guideline, "Placed" should be changed to "Placed in the top three". If placed should mean anyone qualifying for the finals, clarify this as well. Kenneaal (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, nearly all top 10/12/13 contestants of the American AI receive significant media coverage, which is to say have articles that are biographical in nature written about them. Thus, in my opinion, they are notable. (Of course almost all doesn't equal all, so it should be handled on a case-by-case basis.) This is generally not true of any other show. (I.E. in general, most reality show contestants are not notable because no RS cares enough to write biographical type articles.) I do not agree that reality show contestants should be treated as BLP1E cases, as the guideline was originally intended to protect private individuals who got caught up in some news event accidentally, not to prevent anyone known for only 1 thing form being notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I do think this is something that would benefit from a policy clarification one way or the other. At the moment, despite the strict sourcing requirements of WP:BLP, it seems unfeasible to me to reject lots of articles about otherwise non-notable characters unless this is made clear by an amendment/clarification to WP:MUSIC 9. At the moment, it seems we have two real problems - "that guy gets an article, therefore this guy gets an article" (especially looking at international versions, and regional variations of international versions - who decides which versions are more notable than others?), and stubs with no third party sources being justified along the lines of "this guy was in the Canadian version in 2005, everyone knows that!" I believe we should have a clear policy - either everyone who was in the final stages is presumed to be notable, OR only people who placed top 3 in the Final on their local version get notability conferred from being on the show. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 12:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Names

Why are some artists listed with their nicknames, while others are listed with their real name? What is the standard naming? See Ivan Shopov and Federico Ágreda, versus Gridlok and Deadmau5, for example. Gravitoweak (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not an issue of notability. The relevant policy is wp:AT. Further guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), but that is secondary to the policy. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed modification to Others category

For Musicians outside Mass media traditions I believe the following set of rules are quite unhelpful and impractical Specifically the rule that states "5.Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". Errr... What exactly is a publication of subculture? The US is the only country that has commercial media specificallly for subcultures. In India traditional musicians dont rely on magazines or journals for establishing their work but instead rely on recognition amongst peers, critics and listeners. They tend to scoff at self promotion or even publicity. They believe that the responsibility of educating and publishing any literature about music is the specific responsibility of students (academic not artistic), scholars and historians. For all of the above any attempt to setup reputable magazines or litterature in this field meets with failure. I would like to instead draw attention to the concept of patrons. Most musicians in history (even european musicians) were known for their patrons (including kings, royal families etc.) In India this holds true. I would suggest that notability for classical musicians should instead include (1) awards and recognitions won (2) notable events to which they are invited to perform and (3) notable critics (ummm... notably criticised is a better word). Wikishagnik (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

By "publication of subculture" I think the authors want to accept "underground" publications, i.e. publications that may not be covered by general reference sources. Of course there is a lot of this in the U.S. but it stems from European traditions of publications that might not have been acceptable by censors who wanted to control information (just think of the enormous amount of underground publications that existed in formerly Communist countries in Eastern Europe). So even though a person might not make, e.g. the New York Times, they might be found in numerous publications that used to be circulated among fans and adherents. As a recent discussion argued, the mere existence of one award is not enough for a person to be notable, and I believe if a person's only claim to fame is having a patron, that too is not enough. If they are already notable, then this information can be folded into their article. -- kosboot (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response but I don't think you understand my dilemma completely. These are some of the problems I face
  1. Their is no reputed journal of Hindustani Classical Music. Their is no magazine or printed Journal which will meet the Wikipedia standards. In absence of these there are a couple of websites that discuss about these artists but I don't think Wikipedia encourages that
  2. The awards I am talking about are National Awards that offer a lifetime of benefits to the recipients. A suitable comparison would be the medal of honor. Does a medal of honor recipient require to be mentioned by reputed journals to be mentioned on Wikipedia (O.k. I Know that medal of honor is not given to artists, but the awards I am talking about like the Bharat Ratna are lifetime achievement awards given by the government.
  3. Some artists like Lata Mangeshkar and even the poet Rabindranath Thakur was never mentioned in any journal in India. A few European and American journals might mention them in the passing. But Lata Mangeshkar has been a Guiness Record Holder and Rabindranath Tagore is Nobel Laureate. My point is that these standards cannot be used for all artists all over the world. In most places around the world artists are better known from their reputation than their presence on billboards or journals Wikishagnik (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I share the sort of concerns that Wikishagnik is raising. Especially about publication discrepancies in different contexts. Language issues aside, my experience suggests that it's easier to find citable material for a contemporary British composer than for an Italian one (here saved mainly by allmusic.com). Such discrepancies may arguably end up tilting content in certain directions even within articles. For instance, it might appear that the musician in this stub is primarily a crossover artist, whereas in reality that's just one aspect of his work which also focuses very much on extending the artistic traditions of his gharana. Citation availability may affect content in subtle ways: although more balanced, this article shows some signs of a similar distortion. To tackle these issues, I feel it's important for Wikipedia guidelines (and their implementation) to remain flexible and sensitive to context. Otherwise, "We Will Rock You" risks taking on an unintended meaning. My two pebbles, MistyMorn (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks, Wikishagnik, for explaining it better. I see it in a complex way now. I still think that verifiable information is necessary, but I accept that different cultural practices might mandate a special response. You can always create the article, and then see what administrators say about it. I've never been to India (for example), so I have a hard time imagining a popular performer who has absolutely nothing written about them. But I'll be willing to follow what happens when a few articles are created with a dearth of the typical documentation one expects. -- kosboot (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

While I am sensitive to systemic bias problems, I don't see how we can do away with the needs for reliable sources. Otherwise, how would we (random editors who've never heard the music) tell the difference between someone who is legitimately "notable" and someone who is just trying to promote themselves on Wikipedia? At a bare minimum, we would need an article that verified that they had been a recipient of the medal; that article itself should have information. If it didn't--i.e., if all we had was proof that a medal was awarded (like "Name: Awarded X on this year") how could we even write the article? Where would the information come from? And what would be the value in having an article with only one sentence in it--wouldn't it be better to create an article titled, "List of Prize X recipients"? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I take the arguments of Mistymom, Kosboot and Qwyrxian, Thanks for reading through my suggestions but maybe I have more work cutout for me. There is a Page about Padmabhushan awards but does not mention the year 1993, the year when the artist I am interested in. I will have to do some more research on that. I dont mind all the work. Its just that I find it unfair that artists who do not enjoy the same literary cover of established European or American artists should be at a disadvantage. But I am not loosing hope. I will get this article posted. Oh, BTW I think Qwyrxian is confusing my artist with some wannabe's but trust me that's not the case. As I mentioned in my earlier argument the artist is not printed about, not that he is not recognised or respected, In India of course Wikishagnik (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Roxx Gang

Roxx Gang is meeting WP:NBAND? Dalit Llama (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It's close, I think. There appears to be some coverage of the band (mostly in the St. Petersburg Times, the band's hometown newspaper). Then there's a Billboard article here in which an A&R guy describes for a couple paragraphs why signing Roxx Gang was one of his "biggest mistakes". They have an entry in a book called American Hair Metal, which notes the band's debut album sold more than 250,000 copies. There is probably enough material from online sources to meet WP:BAND, but I doubt their albums meet WP:NALBUMS. Those articles can be nominated for deletion or be redirected to the band's main page if you prefer. Have a look and see if you agree.  Gongshow Talk 07:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

inherent notability via chart

Do itunes sales charts count for this purpose? I am aware of several songs/albums that are otherwise not notable, but seem to be using this as the criteria for keepGaijin42 (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Chart notability

"The musician must meet one of the following crieria: Has had a single or album on any national music chart." Is this really enough? If an artist has one song charting at #73, then surely that's not notable? I once considered creating an article on UK band Two People, but decided not to as there was no way they could be considered notable enough. Here(Link redirected to OCC website) is their UK chart discography : two hits - one charting at #63 the other at #87. Their planned album never even got a release in the end. Perhaps the criteria could be redefined to at least one top 40 (or even top 20) single/album perhaps. The following criteria of at least one gold record is a far cry from one charting single.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think those charts may not be notable enough for the inclusion of their articles on wikipedia, but if they had a song or something chart on the Official Charts Company, then they are in fact notable. As long as, the band or song had a hit on a chart on the official reputable chart by the any nation then they are notable. It does not specify number because the charts company decide what to chart and what not to, so we need to respect that! If they chart they are notable if not they are not.HotHat (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That is the Official Charts Company (or Gallup as it was back in the 80s). Here is their entry on the official website - just officially a top 75. So yes, this particular group did chart in the UK, but I still don't think that they are notable for just this (they don't meet any other criteria). But I'm curious, you say The Official Charts Company decides what charts? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
It's rare for a band to have a top 75 hit without anybody writing about them, and it's inconceivable that Two People didn't receive any coverage, although unsurprisingly for a band that came and went in the mid-80s, most of it will be offline. They had a live concert broadcast as part of BBC Radio 1's In Concert series, so there's another of the notability criteria met. They also appeared on television - clip here. So, I would say that having a top 75 hit in the UK is a pretty good indicator of notability. --Michig (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
What Michig said. It's very rarely possible for anyone to reach even the bottom of a chart and get no attention. For example, there are one or two country music artists who only got to #60 or #59 for a week (the country chart only has 60 positions) and were never heard from again — those artists might be on the fence for notability at best. The band in question here is on the fence, but the proof that they were on a BBC series adds to their notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'll have to accept the criteria as given, but the difference between having a chart hit is having a #63 against another factor which says they must have had a gold disc which indicates a song which must have at least hit the top three (and even then, many No.1 singles don't achieve gold status). As for this band in particular, I'm sure there was coverage in music magazines back then, but all that can be found online is chart links to their hit (other than that it's all blogs and YouTube, which don't count towards an article).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

One-off group that won Eurovision Song Contest

Hi, I have a question regarding an ensemble of two separate artists Ell & Nikki who won the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 that were chosen to compete for an event by singing "Running Scared". So they eventually won that event and now have an article based on the ensemble itself. The event is highly notable in Wikipedia. But after the event they didn't record anymore material together. They began working separately as solo artists. I have a feeling that they were just separate artists. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why have you brought this here? The result of your nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki was a snowall keep. Did that not answer your question?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I tend to think that AFD is indicative of the problem we have with the Eurovision song contest. People are insistent on documenting every detail of the contest and every winner, with each song in the contest being given individual articles. Many of these songs and artists have no notability outside the context of the contest and would be better off being document as part of an omnibus article.—Kww(talk) 12:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Well that's not really my point but I think that there should be a guideline to what makes a group an actual "group" in this site. Just because two individual artists competed together in a notable competition and won plus their song charted around the world, an article should be created that states that they are a group (which meets one of the notabilities of this article). Then why isn't there an article called "Kanye West and Jay-Z" then? (they won a Grammy, an achievement that makes them notable enough). Bleubeatle (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Possibly true that not every songs needs its own article, but certainly every artist who has ever appeared in Eurovision would meet WP:NOTABILITY, so yes, they should have an article, but perhaps the songs for many of them should be merged into the artists' page.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Every song performed and every singer/group/duo who has performed in Eurovision is notable beyond WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Only if you treat the contest's "awards" as meeting WP:MUSIC. It's a perversion of the guideline to treat every element of the contest as notable because the contest gives awards: it's self-referential notability.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
A contest with over 100 million viewers has inherit notability. Most songs in the contest charts within days of being performed so mostly it's not a problem.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
A group performing in the contest would have instant notability, but not necessarily the songs themselves. As the guideline for song articles state; Song articles should only be created if there is enough information for a worthy article as well as saying that most songs do not merit their own article and information should be merged with a parent album article or group article. If you look at examples like this: The Mullans and When You Need Me, neither article is decent (nor ever will be, let's face it). The song information could (and should) easily be merged with the group. And even if neither article existed, you still have this: Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999. So we have three articles concerning one song which placed badly in the contest and flopped in every chart in Europe.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing, nothing at all, is inherently notable.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Those articles require some expansion though. If they won a national song selection for example and you put sources about that in there they can become notable. Winning a national song selection contest can make it notable. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok just forget what I initially asked here but are there guidelines to what makes a group, a "group" in Wikipedia articles? Like about how they were formed. Do group/band articles have to meet a criteria? Ell & Nikki are already notable since they took part in the contest and I understand that. I just have my doubts if they were actually a group or were just separate artists that competed together. That's what I'm wondering. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite all the dissenting opinions, I have to agree with what Bleubeatle is saying -- famous musicians often made albums together than are classics, but we have articles on the album and of course on the individuals, but they aren't a 'group'. The question is, because they only preformed together specifically for the event, are they a group or did they simply combine their talents for the event? I'm thinking potentially the Ell & Nikki article could be merged into the article on the song they sung (and keep their separate articles as well, of course). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree with Melodia. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, thank you so much for the input. I completely agree with this. There should be something in Wikipedia that 'defines' what a musical group is and not just rely on notability. If they can be meet the definition then an article should be written about them. Anyways I don't want to question the notability now since that would be canvassing and going against consensus but if you guys have any more input to give feel free to post them at Ell & Nikki's talk page. Bleubeatle (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In the AfD I said I alluded to a combined group/individuals article and a separate song article, but I can see merit in the similar proposal of two separate biographies plus a combined song and group article, as this may display the information better in the long-term, presuming this group was indeed only temporary and will not make a come back - if it does, that position will be changed. In any case, I remain opposed to a straight deletion and suggest the group article be re-directed to the song it is connected to with information merged in as appropriate. The status quo is hardly terrible, but some merging will make things more complete and less fragmented. CT Cooper · talk 09:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I still oppose any merging of the article Ell & Nikki. Clearly it should have its own article and the song should have its own article. Now lets end this discussion. BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Why 'clearly'? Saying "I'm right, now shut up" doesn't help anyone. But you're free to stop participating if you want. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Given the history of this issue, I can understand the reluctance to support this proposal. However, just because the song is notable and the group is notable doesn't mean there has to be an article on both, sometimes discretion can be used to merge two notable topics together to make one improved article. I have never had a strong opinion on this, and as long as no information is lost, I don't see it as a big deal. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In the AfD I also commented about the Rock 'n' Roll Kids article. Something like this could be done in the future. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Working towards some notability guidelines for record labels?

Hi there!

A question came up at Teahouse ( here) about the notability of record labels. I had a go at looking into it but felt like I'd strayed into some pretty murky waters. I noticed that this question has come up lots before, like here, here, here and here. I figure that the general principle here would be the policy on Notability of companies and organizations, but I wondered whether it might be helpful for editors and reviewers alike (and folk who might like to tackle the many articles on record labels that are tagged for notability issues) if there were some more specific quidelines, like the ones for bands on this page? I think that some similar guidelines that spelt out a list of criteria that articles should meet two or more of (like substantial coverage in media + awards + roster of notable bands/musicians) might really help clarify things (it certainly would have done for me) and stop editors from falling into the trap of Other Stuff Exists or of relying solely on the somewhat circular principles suggested by the music notability guidelines: 'a notable band/musician is one that is signed to a notable record label; a notable record label is one that has signed a number of notable bands/musicians'. Just a thought (and I'm a bit of a newby so this is written in good faith, but please ignore me if I'm being dumb)...

All best,

Loriski (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I also came across the 'circular principle' earlier this year when I nominated a record label company for deletion. The problem was a number of 'their' bands had WP articles, but were unreferenced or had dubious notability too. Personally I'd prefer to rely on WP:NCORP, or where will it all end? What about art galleries and book publishers? What about any company that has notable products? Music is part of popular culture, with a higher public profile, which already gives record labels more chance of being widely noticed and discussed. Sionk (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sionk, thanks for your comment. I think you're right - endlessly proliferating sub-genres of companies isn't really helpful to anyone. However, I wonder whether it would be useful - as it seems that a lot of editors working on articles about record labels probably come to this page for guidance - just to have a note saying something like 'for record labels, see the guidelines on Notability of companies and organizations'? And perhaps also with an extra comment saying that even a label with a roster of 'notable' groups needs to meet the other criterion i.e. substantial coverage in multiple, third-party reliable sources - just to break that circular loop a bit (which, as I think someone else commented, seems to be very open to wikilawyering)... Might help save some frustration at AFC perhaps too? Loriski (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Or (come to think of it!) perhaps another alternative would be to think about changing that troublesome line in point 5 of the musicians/bands notability guidelines - i.e. a notable band/musician ...'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 with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable) to say something like 'i.e. an independent label that meets the criterion of notable companies'. Perhaps this would be a better option (?) as it seems to me that it is this line that's generating some confusion in that it seems to set up a particular rule for indie record labels that is different from those applying to other companies, and suggests that they might be exempt from those more general criterion... Loriski (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:ORG is problematic for record companies and labels because many important independent labels are not run as businesses as much as labours of love, and for many it's all about the music rather than self-promotion. In my view any record company that has been an important part of any musical movement of where the label's releases have generated significant coverage should have an article, subject to verifiability of course. Also, in terms of Wikiworld 'notability', whether or not we can find enough direct coverage of a record label to demonstrate notability of the label should have no bearing on whether a band or artist on that label is considered notable. The gist of the guideline at present is that any artist releasing substantial numbers of records on proper record labels is going to have enough coverage out there to be considered 'notable', whether or not we can find it via Google. I don't see a reason to change that. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Michig, thanks for your comment - I totally see what you're saying. I was approaching this more from the angle of what seems to be a small but significant number of people that read this bit of policy with an eye for what makes an independent record label notable, rather than people that are reading it (more appropriately!) as a guideline for what makes bands/musicians notable. And I can see that the line I suggested would be really unhelpful for the latter. I would have thought though that a small seperate section or simply a disambiguation link saying 'for notability of record labels see here' would have helped to clear things up, and to make it clear that the notability of a record label, and the notability of a band are (as you say) two separate things and shouldn't be conditional upon each other. I totally agree with what you say about notable record labels, but I think this is covered by the Company notability thing, where the main emphasis is on significant coverage. And in this respect I think the folk that want to write about Indie record labels would perhaps be more helpfully redirected there, in terms of knowing how to establish notability and get articles through/not have them endlessly tagged with notability/verification issues... I'm definitely no expert on this though, I just spotted an issue that seemed to be causing some confusion for a few editors and wondered if there might be a way to clear it up... Loriski (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's still important to differentiate between established music labels and johny-come-lately self-publishing musicians. The description of "more important" music labels helps this. In the age of the computer and the internet it is so much easier to create and publish music. AfC is filled with new bands and musicians trying to establish themselves. "more important" doesn't necessarily mean "important" or "notable". Sionk (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
As a shellac/vinyl collector, it biases me against "internet labels", many of which are run by an artist/band or their promoters. Just for disclosure. When looking at notability of record labels, I consider the following things, in order of importance. 1. General public awareness (chart action, sales) 2. Longevity. 3. Influence within a particular genre or social group. 4. Interest to collectors. Take for example Chapel Records, which I worked on after the article was PRODded. Sometimes it's hard to find independent coverage on labels, even on ones that have been around for more than 60 years, because the labels are "business" and boring, and don't tend to attract a lot of attention. But the label has had a profound affect on Seventh-Day Adventist musical culture. Or take a look at the pitiful entry for Sacred Records, a much more significant label than Chapel, as Sacred was a major label to mainstream Christian music in the 1950s. The Maloof Records does not have an entry, at least not the 1920s version. It was the major producer of Arabic/Syrian/Lebanese music in the United States for about a decade. Probably there is some coverage on it's artists in local ethnic papers, but you'd have to read Syrian, probably. I would say the label is notable under #2, 3, and 4. I'm not trying to give a definitive notability guideline, but I would like the above points to be considered by the community. 78.26 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi again! I personally found this really helpful information 78.26, thanks :) The more I've thought about it, the more I've wondered whether some useful guidelines on ways of establishing notability for record labels (rather than different guidelines on notability), probably at the Record Labels WikiProject rather than here, might be helpful. Basically, I started this discussion because I didn't know where to send a new editor, writing an article on record label that had been knocked back for notability once, for more information about how they could work towards establishing notability. I've noticed that there are helpful pages or comments on articles about notability for bands, and, for example, about notability for journals/papers that explain - as would seem to be the case here - that in these instances it can be hard to establish notability in the usual ways (in papers/journals because other papers/journals will rarely mention them because they don't want to advertise each other; and, with independent bands, because the sources aren't so readily available). And I've seen pages around (I forget where now) that give useful information about places that people might go to to find sources, as well as listings of journals/webpages etc that are recognized as 'reliable sources' in a particular area. I don't know if something similar might be helpful in this case too? Loriski (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that following WP:CORP is the right answer here. It would be good for this page to mention it. Also, whenever you're thinking about notability guidelines, it's wrth reading WP:WHYN again. No special characteristic (like having released a certain number of albums) can help you write a neutral article if in-depth sources simply cannot be found. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove mixtapes from 'Unreleased material' section?

The Unreleased material section currently states: "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I propose that 'mixtapes' is removed from this for two reasons: Firstly, mixtapes (as they exist in rap music) are released, and secondly, many of them get just as much coverage as other albums. I'm sick of seeing notable mixtapes nominated for deletion simply because it suggests here that they are generally not notable. I don't see any logic in lumping them in with demos and bootlegs. Otherwise I would propose a more positive wording that states first that these recordings are notable if they receive significant coverage in reliable sources, but those that do not are not notable. People might then actually go and look for sources before trying to get them deleted. --Michig (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying notability for contestant artists

Is there any objection to placing additional language at WP:MUSICBIO that would help clarify what to do with artists that emerge from contestant shows? There continues to be considerable debate with each season of X Factor, American Idol, and the like as to when artists from these shows deserve their own article. The debates seem to always circle around getting consensus for a higher notability than what is found at WP:MUSICBIO, which I think is unfair and means that we need to improve the WP:MUSICBIO language to reduce the amount of debating.

In particular, I came in as a reviewer for Misha B., who is an X Factor U.K. 4th place winner. She met the notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO, and so I accepted the article with some recommendations for content improvement. Then, the article was sent to speedy deletion by a group of editors that said she had to meet an unwritten higher standard of notability. I have since resurrected the article twice, and now it is awaiting her to release a single on July 15 so that I can attempt to get her article into the public space again, including solving redirect issues -- User:NewzealanderA/Misha_B. The whole process has been unnecessarily maddening -- see User_talk:NewzealanderA/Misha_B. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As you should know by now, there is no 'higher standard of notability'. Reality TV contestants are often described in a combined article such as List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) or List of Big Brother 13 housemates (UK). This is because they meet WP:N but their notability is as a participant in the TV programme, which picks them, gives them a platform and promotes them. They have an entry on Wikipedia. Misha B already has a very substantial entry (maybe too substantial) at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). WP:N says it "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article". X-factor (UK) has been running for 8 years and the "considerable debate" seems always to agree with that the status quo works fine. Sionk (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this "status quo" only insider knowledge and not posted anywhere as notability guidelines? -- NewzealanderA (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Also it is a contradiction to say that there is "no higher standard of notability" and then go on to describe all the reasons why there is a higher and more confusing standard than what is written at WP:MUSICBIO. Look, I'm trying to come to a helpful conclusion here. I can accept if there is a higher standard of notability. But what I have a hard time accepting is that the notability guidelines really mean nothing when it comes to these artists. It does not help future reviewers to be left in the dark about what is a "status quo" or unwritten consensus and then be met with speedy deletions and redirects for no overtly good reason; this is not motivating for Wikipedia editors, and it certainly has not been motivating for me. I would rather have the real focus be on improving articles that have met the notability guidelines (whatever they may be) -- this is a much more positive tone and effort and in line with how Wikipedia professes to be. A helpful place. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I see there is a sentence in italics, at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO, about individual members of a band. Maybe agreement can be found to add a sentence about reality TV singers here. Maybe something simple like Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable. Sionk (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is the area in which I was thinking too. I also like your proposed sentence. At least a good portion of the early debating might be avoided with such a phrase -- this would be helpful for new reviewers to this genre. And it also gives those who have "gone the rounds" something more concrete and a bit less subjective to fall back on. Something like this would also move editors' attention to more positive work (along with any potential debating) to demonstrate how the artist is independently notable -- which would, hopefully, help us not debate the notability guidelines so much. What do you think? -- NewzealanderA (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Though, is there a way to write it so that it does not contradict with criteria #9? "Has won or placed in a major music competition." -- NewzealanderA (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this improve upon (or not) your proposed addition? "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable or have won or placed in a major music competition." I suppose the word "placed" could be cause for debate for some people, since there is no current written definition (at least here) as to what that means. Some of these shows don't give out awards for 1st place, 2nd place, etc.

And, do you know how this works here to get a proposed change on these guidelines? I mean, we talk about it and come up with our best effort. But then no one else here is making any comment. So, what happens if one of us actually makes the change? Just don't know what is the protocol here for these types of Wikipedia pages. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone else seriously believes a TV talent show is a "major music competition". This discussion has only been going for a few days, I'd be inclined to wait for imput from other people. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any other kind of talent competition these days that would be considered more major than a TV talent show? I guess it is perception here. But the general public would probably say TV talent shows are major music competitions.-- NewzealanderA (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't a tv show (even a reality tv show) just like Jeopardy!? - contestants come on, win or lose, and eventually get on with their lives. Every now and then someone gains notability not from their tv appearance, but from some other situation. There are numerous books and magazines devoted to lists of competitions in the world. Do any of them consider a tv show to be a competition? I don't believe so. -- kosboot (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that WP:MUSICBIO #9 was written at a time when it was presumed that significant coverage for singers/musicians would naturally follow their "major music competition" appearance. However, not only is that not always the case, but there appears to be some discrepancy over what constitutes a "major music competition": American Idol, The X-Factor, The Voice, Duets, CMT's Next Superstar, Platinum Hit ... where do we draw the line? Concurrent AfDs involving reality series contestants sometimes get different results. For example, Ashthon Jones (Idol) was kept, and Lakoda Rayne (X-Factor) was redirected, even though neither had coverage that established their notability independent of their respective shows. Granted, the Jones article was better referenced, but I'm sure I can find a few more sources for the other act too. Bottom line: I see no reason why we can't clarify WP:MUSICBIO #9 similar to the way #10 was written ("But if this is the only claim", etc). I think adding a sentence like the one Sionk wrote above would create less confusion moving forward.  Gongshow Talk 20:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of placing such a clarification at #9. Makes sense to me.-- NewzealanderA (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

St. Jimmy

There is an RfC at Talk:St. Jimmy concerning notability of b-sides and covered songs. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the treatment of EPs in chronologies

See Talk:Hurt:_The_EP#Chronology. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Songs v. Singles

Can some clarification be included in the guidelines to differentiate songs from singles? At the moment singles need to meet WP:GNG requirements, while songs need only to be "ranked on national or significant music charts". Numerous AfD's are using this clause to write articles on tracks off albums, which have not been released as singles but (via I-tunes or other download sites) have charted all the same. It would seem to make more sense to me that officially released singles have more chance of being 'notable' than unofficially released tracks. Sionk (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarify what "composition" means

In the WP:COMPOSER #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.", what does "composition" stand for? Does this mean musical composition or does any media suffice -- theater, film, video game, etc.? As a side question, what does "notable" stand for -- Wikipedia's notability? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How is music written for "theater, film, video game, etc." not compositions? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
So the wording should be "notable musical composition" (irregardless if it is or is not a part of some bigger media), not just "composition", right? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I think what Melodia is saying is that "composition" refers to all music created, regardless of media. I concur. However, please note that just because a particular game or movie is notable, this does not mean that the soundtrack is notable. Notability is not inherited. LK (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's pretty much how I interpreted that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I was puzzling over what kind of non-musical composition might be at issue in your question, trying to read between the lines. Perhaps you were thinking of something like the spoken dialogue in the book of a musical play or movie? Anyhow, LK's hit the mark. The GNG is clear, and to be verifiably notable, there must be a RS that has already taken note. (I've always thought that wp:Notability should be called wp:Noted, it would be much less confusing to newbies). LeadSongDog come howl! 15:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried to stay pretty neutral with my question, but the AfD that prompted me to clarify is here. To me GNG is also clear, but this clause makes it seem like composing for any composition (musical or otherwise) would make one notable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability of tours

Hi. I'm seeking input on a few articles about tours that I believe fail WP:NCONCERT. I also have a few concerns regarding the content of them (see here for example). These are both created by the same user who has a history of similar articles and content. I've had little success getting him to collaborate or follow policy and guidelines, so second opinions and input would be much appreciated. Articles are;

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC about iTunes as a source for release histories

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could please take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. Thanks — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:23, 3 December 2012 (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.

NSONG

WP:NSONG is very difficult to read a glance and its prose is meshed into two separate ideas. The guidelines are very ambiguous and seem to warn editors over circumstances than providing clear criteria to warrant any outline for inclusion. It also contains some very instructions for A9 for which there is already criteria. I know policies usually don't reference each other but it seems traditional songs tend to be a common problem. Could I propose the following changes and format (if this is the right place for this discussion): *Please see the latest version below

-Any feedback would be appreciated. Mkdwtalk 03:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I raised the Song v. Single question a short while back and got no response. I always thought that WP:NSONG was meant to refer to traditional songs. However, it is currently used to justify writing articles on any music track that has ever charted anywhere (making the advice on singles in WP:NALBUM redundant). I definitely agree WP:NSONG needs clarification. "Has been ranked..." and "Has won ...awards or honours" aren't really pertinent to traditional songs, are they? Sionk (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The other aspect of this is that many of us (me included) read this guideline as telling us not to create articles about singles that didn't meet the criteria, even if they would pass WP:GNG. Your changes would explicitly state that once a song became released as a single, only the GNG needs to be considered. I'll strongly object to that.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The GNG is simply a minimum threshold for creation of an article. Passing the GNG does not, in any way shape or form, mandate the creation of an article. It's perfectly legitimate for other guidelines to indicate that some articles should not be created, and WP:NSONG has normally functioned that way. Doesn't meant that the topic isn't "notable" in the Wikisense of the word, but still means that it shouldn't get a standalone article.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What about NSONG covering for both songs and singles, and ultimately making no distinction between the two? Mkdwtalk 08:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In regards to traditional and classical songs, then WP:GNG might be suitable enough. It's definitely a much more difficult subject but at the same time if notable would also be the subject of more third party publications. Mkdwtalk 08:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

*Please see the latest version below

  • I find the "Has been the direct focus of several notable third party publications where music is not their primary focus" one a bit mystifying, and we require sources to be independent and reliable, not 'notable'. Why would we want to exclude a song that has received copious coverage in music-focused sources? The 'redirect' part is also problematic - a merge will often be appropriate. The list above for traditional songs is redundant as it is already covered by WP:GNG and policy. All in all I don't see any improvement over what we have already. --Michig (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
All in all, as stated at the top, I mainly wanted to change the formatting of the section and used a vast majority of the previously existing content. The prose aspect of the current policy was very ambiguous. Copious coverage would likely include coverage from media outside music if notable. The main problem we're seeing at the AfD's are interviews and promotions for songs and singles around the release from songs before the song is even released to the public and subsequently being argued as suitable third party sources. Also, major record labels generally arrange base coverage with any release via music sources and through subsidiaries such as Universal and Sony. This coverage is fairly consistent whether it's a notable single or not. Forcing the sources to be diverse will avoid this baseline for songs that did not meet the first three criteria. The redirect part is already existent in the policy and again I'm hesitant to change anything that was introduced in previous consenus this time around and more focused on cleaning up and adding criteria clarity. Mkdwtalk 20:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
We require sources to be reliable and independent. Insisting on coverage in sources other than music-focused sources simply makes no sense. The existing wording does *not* indicate that songs where standalone articles are not justified should simply be redirected. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The very first sentence of NSONG says "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". If you replace standalone with independent article it literally says what you said it does not propose. Mkdwtalk 10:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the sentence " 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." There are two issues here, the first being that many songs are not really notable at all and should redirect, that later sentence indicates that when a song is notable but where there isn't much that can be written about, then the content should be merged. I don't really see this proposed change going anywhere. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added it to version 3. Mkdwtalk 00:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You've also removed the long qualification beginning "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article... " These qualifying sentences are at least some barrier to music fans adding articles on every download that has reached number 78 (etc.) in a download chart! I don't think formatting is the problem with NSONG, rather it's the content. Sionk (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Michig. The phrase "where music is not their primary focus" is inappropriate. If a song has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources, whether or not "music" is the primary focus, they are notable and an article about them is appropriate (assuming they are consistent other requirements). If a song has only been covered in interviews and press releases that would not meet the independence requirement, and so that is not an issue. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Interviews would count as acceptable sources from notable third party sources. Mkdwtalk 00:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

*Please see the latest version below

Okay, I feel like I'm being punk'd here. Michig, you're a considerably established editor with the creation of hundreds of articles and tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia. So I'm deeply mystified about this particular comment. Are you taking 'notable third party publications' to mean something different than 'reliable independent sources'? For clarity sake, a publication is simply a source available to the public. If you're not mistaking the meaning and seriously suggesting that mentioning third party sources is inappropriate then I'm hugely concerned. WP:GNG opens with: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Wikipedia:Notability's second sentence reads: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Lastly, almost every subject notability guideline such as WP:BAND to WP:NALBUMS require reliable third party sources... Also, this was not mentioned previously. Yourself and other editors highlighted "where music is not their primary focus" as the troublesome wording in which was already removed in version 3. Mkdwtalk 09:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This was mentioned before but you don't seem to be listening (see my comment from 17 December dated 19:03). Yes 'notable third party publications' is very different from 'reliable independent sources'. Whether or not a source is notable has little bearing on whether it is reliable, and vice versa. There are many books, magazines, etc. that are perfectly good as reliable sources, but are not considered 'notable' by WP standards. There are notable publications that are in many cases not considered reliable sources - 2 completely different things. You may notice that in all of the sentences from existing guidelines that you have quoted above there isn't one that mentions 'notable sources'. --Michig (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

*Please see the latest version below

Better? It's not that I'm not listening Michig. I'm just having trouble following some of your thought processes when you mention things in runs ons and later when its clear I didn't catch everything you mentioned you say, "Why do you insist on this 'notable third party publications' clause? It has already been explained above that this isn't appropriate" when you could have politely said you forgot to change notable with reliable. I'm not insisting, or undermining, or acting out of ill-will and not listening. I really am here because I thought I could help. If you strongly feel about not making any changes to the existing policy we should talk about withdrawing the proposal as well. Mkdwtalk 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I give up. This is too much like hard work. There really isn't a complex thought process to be followed, just a few simple statements to be read, without going off on a rant every time something that's wrong is pointed out. I oppose the changes. --Michig (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I've implemented all the changes you've requested unless I've forgotten something. What specifically do you oppose so that it can be worked upon or are you simply opposing because its "too much like hard work"? Mkdwtalk 00:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't see rants, I just see some misunderstandings (everyone's human, after all). At the end of the day, I think what Mkdw is aiming for will be an improvement. They are ultimately transforming prose into simple bullet points. I like the fact Version 4 deals with both songs and singles, thereby capturing what is already being followed in practise. Are we suggesting "Recordings" and "Songs" are combined in a single section? Sionk (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea. Always open to taking that part out but it seems reasonable to make it the same policy as nearly all songs of notability these days are released as singles. Singles was only covered under the GNG which this policy would include -- or if not clear enough could add more clauses. Mkdwtalk 00:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This is one of two "latest versions" continue scrolling down for a modified alternative.

Most notably in this version I found a line that was saying what I was meaning from another notability guideline. Line item 1. is taken from WP:BAND and WP:NBOOK and specific words changed to 'song/single' *Please see the latest version below

  • Comments:
  • This looks ok to me, although note 2 really addresses independence, not non-triviality. It does seem to expand the notability somewhat, since currently charting or covers are just indications that that there are likely to be appropriate sources, while the appropriate sources are still the determinant. This seems to indicate that songs that meet these criteria are notable even if sources per (1) don't exist. I really don't have a problem with that, since if there are not adqequate sources to expand beyond a stub they would meet the criteria for redirecting anyway, but others may object. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The phrase "published works whose sources are independent of the song/single itself" doesn't make sense. It should probably be something like "published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". All works are independent of the song/single other than any liner notes it may have been published with. Is there really any reason to spell out "writer, singer, musician, band" when "artist" will do? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" is very problematic; some charts go up to 200 or more. It needs to have a cut-off point, such as top 10 or top 20. Being #200 on a 1-200 chart doesn't make a song notable, it makes it utterly forgettable trivia that nearly no one ever listened to. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis..." is logically nonsensical. I think you mean "Articles about traditional songs" or more accurately "Editors of articles about traditional songs". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Changes done. See below to the latest version.

Notes

  1. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
  2. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way interested in any third party source.
  3. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its writer, singer, musician, band, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.


If you don't understand something, simply say so, and you clearly were not getting the distinction between notable and reliable, so it needed to be explained. Accusing me of 'punking' you for doing so wasn't helpful. The existing prose could be transformed using bullet points very simply without changing any of the meaning or words used. e.g.:
Minimal change for layout only

Most songs [note 1] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.

Songs are probably notable if they:

  1. have been ranked on national or significant music charts
  2. have won significant awards or honors, or
  3. have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups

Notability aside, a separate article on a song or single 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.

There are problems with this and the existing text because songs and singles are not the same thing (a song can be recorded by several notable artists but a single cannot, for example - a single is a release of a recording of usually more than one song). It would probably be worth adding a GNG-type criteria to the above as many people have a tendency to look at these guidelines in isolation.

We really don't need a bulleted list for the traditional songs section which simply states things which apply to every article. I don't think we need the "tidbits from jam sessions" sentence that is in the existing wording there either. The whole section on traditional songs was added without any real discussion. I wonder if we need it there at all as passing GNG or being recorded by several notable artists would be the routes to notability for a traditional song, and these would already be covered. If any of this isn't clear, please ask me to clarify. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't understand something, simply say so
I was not aware there was a misunderstanding until after discussing back and forth and at which point I did say so. I asked you flat out, "Are you taking 'notable third party publications' to mean something different than 'reliable independent sources'?" in which you were and it was corrected. Mkdwtalk 08:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Michig, respectfully, this proposal does not include any of the suggestions or comments by the other editors in this discussion. You've asked me to listen, but this alternate proposal does not. Subsequently, I oppose. I would like to see specific instructions for singles (as requested by other editors) and the requirement of sources where the song or single is the direct focus or "subject". This is very commonly found in many other guidelines. I also oppose the removal of the instructions for traditional songs such as the note about synthesis material as I think its a good guideline. I do like the part about GNG, but you did not add it to this current proposal. Mkdwtalk 08:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You asked me to clarify and I did - if all is now clear shall we leave it at that? The above is not an alternate/alternative proposal, it was simply showing how the existing wording could be arranged using bullet points without altering the meaning, which the first three proposals didn't achieve, with an additional comment re traditional songs. On the synthesis issue, we really don't need to state other policies and guidelines, which apply to all articles and are not directly related to notability, within this guideline. Remember that this is supposed to be a notability guideline, not general advice on writing articles about songs and singles. Conciseness is desirable. --Michig (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Opposition to adding the following? Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the song/single itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the writer, singer, musician, band, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Mkdwtalk 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Chart placements don't really establish notability for songs. They are merely rankings of the highest selling songs in a given week; that's not significant coverage. If a song has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple sources, and the content is verifiable by reliable sources, there is no reason to refrain from creating an article for that song. Thank You for the Heartbreak is one example. Till 14:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's an example of an article that never, ever should have been created. It's primarily a restatement of songwriting and production credits dressed up in paragraph form, and little snippets of album reviews that went through small discussions of each song on the album. Much of the material comes from sites that specialize in being second-hand PR for record labels. You could build such a thing for nearly every album track ever written. But you shouldn't.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The GNG discusses establishing encyclopedic relevance via coverage alone. The SNGs such as this one deal with other criteria that indicate encyclopedic relevance. They don't need to be in themselves indicators of significant coverage (although some are) as this would make the SNGs redundant, and consensus has remained that SNGs are an alternative way of establishing encyclopedic relevance, or notability if you prefer, and this is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Notability. Not meeting any of these specific criteria is not an indicator of non-notability, so a single failing to chart for example is not an indicator that it isn't notable, just that that one criteria isn't met. --Michig (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Michig, the community has long been split on whether you have to meet the GNG and the relevant SNG or the GNG or the relevant SNG. Last RFC I remember on it was a couple of years ago, and the community was divided. Have anything more recent?—Kww(talk) 18:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This has always been clearly stated in Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". There will always be editors who disagree with this but it has stood for years. --Michig (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
When it's nearly half of the editors, you have to question whether the statement improperly represents policy. I'll have to dig up the RFC. It was during the WP:FICT controversy.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Kww asked me about this on my page, the RFC that he's probably thinking of is here Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. Only 27% of the responders felt that with an SNG, both the GNG and SNG had to be met. In other words, my take is that current WP:N head, GNG or SNG, is current practice. That said, SNG criteria need to be selected that should be assurance that, in time (w.r.t. to DEADLINE), the topic will gain sources to meet the GNG (though there will be some exceptions). If a criteria is not based on the presumption that sources will come about, it is generally considered a bad criteria. But that's just my take on it. The key to keep in mind is that notability is always a presumption; the topic's notability can always be challenged even if it is claimed to meet the GNG or SNG. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
My memory was self-serving. Per Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, it was 26% in favor of requiring both. There's not a slam-dunk consensus for your position, but I'd be wrong to argue that consensus isn't on your side. In practice, it seems that people are willing to treat some SNGs as "and" cases but most as "or".—Kww(talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
As a guideline rather than a policy, WP:N is only a rule of thumb, and the 'GNG or SNG' represents a consensus that has stood for years despite being challenged. An issue generally with these sort of guidelines is that we have many thousands of editors working on many thousands of articles and you can see from the articles that we have, AfD discussions etc. what the real consensus is, but a discussion on a notability talk page, which could affect thousands of articles, will typically only involve half a dozen people. I'll agree that what we have at the moment is a muddle with some SNGs adding additional criteria and others alternative criteria, and some effectively restating the GNG as part of the SNG. The GNG on its own would include a lot of stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and would exclude a lot of stuff that does, which is why we need alternative criteria and a little sense to be applied. The GNG works a lot of the time, but we can have perfectly acceptable short articles simply by having enough sources to verify enough content to have a meaningful article, whether or not that coverage is 'significant' - other encyclopedias (e.g. Britannica, Longman) don't seem to have the aversion to short factual articles that a lot of people here seem to have. But we're getting off topic - I don't think it's necessary a bad thing to include the coverage route in a SNG as one of the notability criteria. Getting back to songs and singles, I would hope that most people would agree that a song or single that has received plenty of significant independent coverage doesn't also need to have charted, won awards, or been recorded by several different artists in order for us to have an article. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
As a rule, I think songs that have only been discussed in the context of being a track on an album should rarely ever be split from the album coverage. It's a losing battle, but I think our practice of covering singles separately from their parent albums simply leads to unnecessary bloat, as huge chunks of the background sections, credits, and release information on multiple singles from the same album are common. About the only time I think a song should have an independent article is when it exists in multiple versions so that discussion of the song as an independent entity makes sense.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A thing to remember is that even if something is notable, it doesn't need to have separate article if one believes the coverage is better discussed in a larger context. I can see this being the case for some singles off a notable album/soundtrack, where, say, the song ranked high on play lists/billboard lists but never received any critical discussion. (We're trying to write this advice into WP:N). --MASEM (t) 19:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the good things about what we have at the moment in this guideline is that we say 'these are the things that indicate notability' but then we say 'but even if these are met, if there isn't enough content they should be merged'. I think whether or not a merge is appropriate comes down to how much genuinely encyclopedic content there is rather than something as arbitrary as how many versions have been recorded, although several versions by different artists will make finding a sensible merge target difficult. Most album-only tracks don't have enough and should be merged, and in my experience that is usually what happens when they're taken to AfD. Some singles and songs do have enough content, and singles often don't have parent albums to merge to. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What we don't emphasize enough is the need to avoid redundant content. It's generally possible to flesh out an article on an album track with enough sourced material to create an article that's well beyond a stub. The problem is that if you create an article about a different track from the same album, it's generally the same flesh. Where it was recorded, when it was recorded, contextual material about the parent album, contextual material about the supporting tour, etc. —Kww(talk) 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Kww makes a good point. The key to notability with songs is independent articles for album tracks need to have some form of unique coverage i.e. been covered several times etc. before being created. If you look at any Beyonce or Rihanna album you'll find that nearly every song has an article and nearly every article contains 50% of the same information i.e. background to the album etc. The information added to make an article notable should be unique and specific to that subject. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was trying to capture in:

*Please see the latest version below

WP:BAND and WP:NBOOK lead off with: Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the song/single itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the writer, singer, musician, band, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] They key word being the subject or primary focus of the publication and not a source about an album or the artist and mentions the song in passing. Michig, as I said above this policy does not include any of the feedback other editors expressed above. Mkdwtalk 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My final concern would be one that has been raised many times at AfD, even with the above working, it still leaves people the scope to create a WP:STUB for a song that has charted, because charting alone makes the song notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence states that articles unlikely to grow beyond a stub; articles with out enough content to warrant their own article should be merged. Would that not cover this issue. Technically this line is already in the existing policy. Mkdwtalk 10:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess as long as the words "primary subject" when referring to 3rd party coverage are included then I guess this amendment to the policy is better than the existing one. and I won't have any qualms. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Three serious issues:
    1. The phrase "published works whose sources are independent of the song/single itself" doesn't make sense. It should probably be something like "published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". All works are independent of the song/single other than any liner notes it may have been published with. And is there really any reason to spell out "writer, singer, musician, band" when "artist" will do?
    2. "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" is very problematic; some charts go up to 200 or more. It needs to have a cut-off point, such as top 10 or top 20. Being #200 on a 1-200 chart doesn't make a song notable, it makes it utterly forgettable trivia that nearly no one ever listened to.
    3. "Traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis..." is logically nonsensical. I think you mean "Articles about traditional songs" or more accurately "Editors of articles about traditional songs".
      — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree as to changing artist and label including the notes. In regards to the chart positions, the policy does state that the listing makes it notable but requires there to be enough material to warrant a non-trivia standalone article. If the song made a national chart, many people are listening to it and its quite an achievement. I agree about the specificity of "Articles about traditional songs". I've made these changes to reflect in version 6. Mkdwtalk 01:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
We still need a cut-off. Billboard could (probably does) publish top 50, top 100, top 200 maybe even top 500 charts. They could at any time produce a top 2,000 chart. That does not mean that everything appearing on them is automagically notable. From a strict WP:N perspective, such charts do not help establish notability at all after maybe the top 10 (i.e. proof that the song was a major piece of pop culture for a while), as the charts are simply raw data, and do not reflect any form editorial intent. Charts do not constitute non-trivial coverage at all; they're like phone books. Also, depending on the size of the country and which chart we're talking about, it may border on trivially easy to make it into the top 200 or even top 100. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is something that should be brought up regarding music notability in general and not specifically for NSONG to pass? The main reason is that WP:BAND cites 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The current NSONG also already has this clause as well. If this change needs to be specified, then it should be proposed to both guidelines and probably in a separate proposal. I could not see changing only NSONG and leaving BAND wherein the problem seems to affect both. Mkdwtalk 00:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest version

Version 6

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

Songs and singles may be notable if they meet some of the following criteria (must satisfy #1):

  1. Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[4]
  2. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
  3. Has won one or more significant awards or honors.
  4. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
  5. Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position.
  • Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
  • Note2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed on secondary content. Wikiversity and WikiBooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues.
 Done That's a great idea. I'll add this to the current latest version. Mkdwtalk 01:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I don't know if iTunes is on there, but categorically speaking, there's no reason to exclude a chart, that accurately reflects popularity, simply because it's online instead of printed on dead trees. By way of analogy, we regularly cite RottenTomatoes.com for movie review aggregate data. See also my comments one subsection up about problems still remaining with this charts language. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - much improved on the existing confusion. But no need IMO for the first sentence, which is basically a repeat of point (1) and WP:GNG. It is good that the sentence "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate... " is made prominent, because it stops music fans adding articles on any download that's registered an impact on iTunes (etc). Sionk (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You;ve misunderstood the reason why sales charts are excluded, that's because the iTunes chart is not static, it moves every minute of very day and reflect sales from just one retailer. A song can be number one on iTunes for just one hour, and the chart is never archived, plus it doesnt reflect airplay etc. thus a song which is number one on iTunes probably won't be number on say the Billboard Hot 100. My point was that the wording of the text seems to give rise to an edit conflict whereby over at WP:CHARTS we exclude single network/sales charts in favour of charts with a concrete methodology but then over here we are saying such charts are ok to use. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added it back for now. Michig did bring up a good point that people look at these policies in isolation in AfD's and tend to not see the WP:GNG part of it. Mentioning it in the lead is fairly common for other policies. Mostly because #1 is about requiring multiple sources where the song/single is the subject of the publication. Mkdwtalk 00:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for working on this y'all. I like the emphasis on independent coverage & I don't think 'charting' should be the main criterion for the significance of music. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Criteria number 2 "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts" really bugs me. It seems to me ridiculously easy to satisfy compared with the other criteria. Official UK Singles Top 100 lists 100 singles updated weekly. Many other national charts also list 100. Does anyone really believe that just because a single has been on such a list, it is by default notable enough for a stand alone article? Many of these songs won't have any independent coverage. FurrySings (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
But the rest of the guideline mentions that if an article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub, and significant independent primary coverage is missing than that overrides any notable and tips it in favour of not creating an article. Although with your point I do agree, the Gaon Chart in South Korea for example, it is easy for an entire album to chart, as did Alicia Keys' Girl on Fire, where every song on the album notched up a place on chart. We're not at a liberty to say only the top-fifty/twenty/ten etc is notable but I do think the wording should reflect that a chart position alone doesn't make something notable. How much independent coverage/information do we assume is necessary to prove notability? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The issue of whether charts established notability should be moved to a separate blanket proposal. The reason for this is that we cannot say that charts do not establish notability where in other guidelines such as WP:BAND state that they do. As such I have started #Charts to start the discussion for such a proposal. If that proposal passes then the corresponding changes can be made to NSONG and the rest of the music notability guidelines in a uniform way. Mkdwtalk 21:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue of charts has been moved to #Charts. The results of said discussion will be applied to WP:NSONG and WP:BAND separately. If there are no other issues directly at hand, then based upon a series of editor contributions, it would be nice to see this proposal go through. Mkdwtalk 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It doesn't really make sense to have three alternative criteria for notability, and then open it with a statement which basically says that the first one must be met. I suggest dropping the first sentence. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done I had originally included it because you had suggested adding it since you had mentioned people look at these policies in isolation, but since #1 does say it then it does seem redundant. Furthermore, I'm going to make the change to 'some' instead of at least one, as all articles should satisfy #1. The discussion has been up for awhile and I think adding this proposal will do good for the community. Any changes such as the chart can be talked about here and of course changes to the policy. It's a new year and feeling good about this proposal! Mkdwtalk 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In speaking with issue about editors looking at this policy in isolation, when we say at least it sounds like the guideline is saying if it won an award it doesn't need to satisfy #1 which is a more detailed outline of GNG. Is there some wording we can put in where #1 has to be met? Either moving #1 to the lead paragraph or changing the at least part? Mkdwtalk 21:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
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.

Merging of non-notable albums

;General comments:
  • Users have expressed interest in keeping the tracklists somewhere in Wikipedia. The first option mentioned was the artist article, using a collapsible table or something similar.
  • Several users have expressed their desire to keep album articles that only include tracklists, using the organization of content as the rationale to support this claim. Notwithstanding, this goes against the current notability guidelines for studio albums, and cannot be implemented.
  • Some users supported the idea of adding the tracklistings to the discography pages, but the examples given go against MOS:COLLAPSE, which means that cannot be implemented.
Result
  • After analyzing all the comments in this request for comment, I have assessed that consensus is to Keep current wording and merge or redirect album articles that only contain an infobox and a tracklist. Given the comments above, such merges should be done in compliance with current policies and guidelines, and when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included. — ΛΧΣ21 06:38, 14 February 2013 (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 policy says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." But far more often, what I see is the album being redirected without merging the tracklist. Most of the instances I've seen of non-notable albums being merged to the artist did not include merging the track listing as well. In fact, I don't think I ever have seen a tracklist merged into a musician's article or discography due to that individual album not being notable on its own.

Most of the time, though it's just not practical to throw a track listing on to the article. For instance, Collin Raye discography mentions an album called Fearless, but its article was merely deleted instead of merged. Given that he has a fairly lengthy biography and a long discography, it's just not practical to merge any content that the Fearless album had, particularly not a track list.

I bring this up also because, at this AFD, an editor is using a literal interpretation of "may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article" to keep articles on non-notable albums from being merged or redirected.

In short, I think this part of the policy needs to be re-examined. Merging a non-notable album just seems impractical to me in all possible situations, and I think this wording should be altered. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that merging a tracklist is usually inappropriate. Generally, all that should be done with such albums is to mention them in discographies and similar locations.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Sustain existing policy - As discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_15#Template:Kevin_Fowler, "four such merges to an artist's page tends to be too messy", in this case, referring to merging four album track listings. If the combined length of all of the album articles (including track listing) would be lengthy, then splitting the artist article off into one article per album may be the correct thing to do.
The goal of The Wikimedia Foundation is to expand the sum of human knowledge (or something to that effect). IMO, implied in this is placing the track listings for all significant albums of a notable artist in some Wikipedia article, be it the artist or the album. If we wouldn't want the track listings for five albums in an artist article, then the album articles should remain as content forks and/or size splits. If the track listings are available on a reliable source, then there is no good reason to completely remove them from Wikipedia in their entirety once they are on Wikipedia. Information about albums from notable artists and musical ensembles including the track listings can be placed on Wikipedia, because the albums have been published, and the artist is notable. Whether the albums themselves are notable is not necessarily the issue. I respond to "But far more often, what I see is the album being redirected without merging the tracklist" with WP:OSE. The aforementioned album Fearless having its own article would basically amount to a size or content split, similar to 38th Street and Washington Street (GateWay Community College) (METRO Light Rail station).--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The tracklist of every album by every notable artist is appropriate encyclopedic knowledge. How that is presented in Wikipedia should be logical and consistent, and really shouldn't be dependent on the album having its own article. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • TPH has it right. A non-notable album should simply be redirected to the discography page or bio if no discography article exists. This has been the practice and should continue to be. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fact that a track listing might get dropped is certainly not a basis for retaining a separate article on a non-wp:notable album. The fact of the matter is that individual track listings are borderline regarding being good content for an article on the artist. And by "borderline" I mean not categorically a good or bad idea in an artist-level article. I tend to think that they are a good idea if they are informative in some way beyond just telling the reader what the names of the songs on the album are. As a practical matter, I tend to say that if someone wants them there, let them be there. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Exactly, once the track listings (which are "appropriate encyclopedic knowledge") are on Wikipedia, they should not be removed in their entirety from Wikipedia. Discography articles are not based on whether or not the compositions are notable, they are based on either the percentage of the artist or ensemble article that they take up, or are based on whether the article would be too large with that discography (case in point, Five Finger Death Punch, whose artist and discography articles are both about 27 kB and 21 kB, respectively). The discography section was likely split off because it took up about half of the article. Track listings for songs for multiple articles could potentially do the same. If the artist has one non-notable album, there is little problem with adding the track listing to the artist or ensemble page. If there are multiple albums, then making separate articles simply amounts to a split.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree, assuming that by "should not be removed" you mean in cases where somebody wants it in.North8000 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The tracklisting is encyclopedic information and should be preserved. Tracklistings should be merged into the artist articles. If a discography in an article on an artist gets too long, standard practice is to split it off into a separate article and list the studio albums in the artist article. Traclistings don't have to take up as much space as they usually do in standalone articles, i.e the vertical lists that can be deemed "too messy" - a simple Trackname1/Trackname2/Trackname2/.../TracknameN format should take up no more than two lines under the album title, e.g. using the example above:
  • Far from Everything (2003), BMI
Twenty Four Days / Only You / The Toast / House of Pain / Feels Like Rain / Three Verses / Devil's Road / Turn To Smile / Far From Everything / Self-Expression / Shine A Light / Mexican Morning

Not messy at all and wouldn't swamp the artist article. --Michig (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not just use a collapse box as many articles already do? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Reply - If the track lengths, authors, guest musicians, etc. are in the track listing, they should also remain.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing is another possibility. We tend to get a lot of articles that are just infoboxes and tracklists - these could be summarised as above. Where there is more verifiable detail, collapsing, or moving the detail to a separate discography article are options, and better ones than simply deleting. --Michig (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep existing policy, so as to retain album info, but enhance it so as to include Michig's sensible options for condensing or collapsing the info. However, I also think that there are cases where WP better serves its readers, just in terms of readability and organization, by keeping these albums as standalone articles. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I very much like the idea of collapsing - doing so would retain information that many consider worthwhile and encyclopedic while also not dramatically impacting the appearance/functionality of the pages. For my part, any general reluctance in merging album articles to discographies had been based out of a desire to keep discographies from getting like this, a format which I agree would be impractical in those many instances where an artist's discography (e.g., Paul Revere & the Raiders) has 20+ total albums to their credit. Collapsing seems a sensible option that can be applied to discographies regardless of size.  Gong show 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It would make more sense to have a separate article for Fearless given that the other albums have standalone articles, but unfortunately this wouldn't be accepted as a lot of people here can't see beyond whether a subject is 'notable' when it comes to organizing content. If the tracklisting was to be included in the discography, presumably it would be right by the existing entry for Fearless rather than 'randomly in the middle of it'. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this illustrates the problem. Whether or not we have a standalone article is a content organization issue. Even 'notable' albums should be merged if the content makes that appropriate. Those essays both deal with content that shouldn't be retained, and nobody has yet put forward a good argument that tracklists are content that should be deleted altogether. --Michig (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - As stated in the discussion, track listings of albums from a notable artist should be kept in some form once they have been placed on Wikipedia, unless there is an excellent reason to delete them. There are also arguments against collapsible lists being the norm for track listings in the article of an artist or ensemble, which is something that I can agree with due to printing issues. With those two things being said, if there is only one album from the ensemble, it may be prudent to put the track listing in the artist/ensemble article. Once there are several albums, it then becomes a content organization issue, which may imply separate articles for each album.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I really think that it would be beneficial to come up with an accepted way of incorporating tracklistings, and maybe other details, in discographies. It would probably help in deterring editors from creating countless separate articles for every album, EP, and single that an artist releases, with little more than a tracklisting and infobox, and we could then recommend in the guideline that standalone articles should only be created when there is more verifiable and encyclopedic content than can be accommodated in a discography. Think how much time and effort this could save at AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Show/Hide templates are good for incorporating things like extended discographies without cluttering up an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Kaldari (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reword so that redirecting is allowed, no collapsed lists. Article body content should almost never be collapsed. This is an encyclopedia. If the information is not notable enough to show in the article, it should not be included. See MOS:COLLAPSE. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are reproduced in lots of other formats besides webpages (PDFs, print, etc.), in which case collapsible content doesn't work. Finally, I would like to assert the mandatory slippery slope argument: If we start including collapsed track lists, lots of other un-notable cruft will soon be shoehorned into articles and eventually Wikipedia articles will consist mostly of collapsed lists of trivia and mind-numbing minutia (as can be seen in older versions of the article Gangnam Style). Kaldari (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Track lists are not trivia, minitia or non-notable cruft, and including them has no bearing on whether other information is included. We routinely list an artist's releases; The tracks on these releases are intrinsically relevant - just including the title of an album without details of what's on it isn't doing our readers any favours. --Michig (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep existing wording I would support "just redirect" but I have seen so much content deleted by domino effect that I feel this would be unwise. What happens is, for example, a record label article is deleted, then the category for the albums is deleted, then the singles and albums themselves are deleted, then the artist categories are deleted, finally any discography and the artist themselves are deleted. While the individual decisions may all be correct (and sometimes one or two incorrect decisions can be amplified by this mechanism) the net result is often loss of enough information on a notable subject to create a substantial article. Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC).
  • Just redirect - If it's not notable the listing isn't significant to be listed on the main article. The argument above (and similar ones used elsewhere on this project) is a particularly obvious example of the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. If there is enough information on a notable subject to have somewhere, then we will have it. It's ludicrous to hold onto non-notable information for fear that 10 or more deletions of worthless stuff might lead to deletion of something good down the line. And track listings absolutely are examples of trivia, minutia and non-notable cruft. On their own they add no meaningful information about the main topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... that's a key principle of one of Wikipedia's key pillars. This shouldn't be new information to anyone editing here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Disagree - If the artist is notable, but the album is not notable, then IMO this falls under the same category as a notable album with a non-notable single, or a single that is a "perma-stub". Non-notable singles are often merged into the album or band article, sometimes with a description of the music video/lyrics, the name of the video director, and the time length of the song in the infobox. For the same reason, encyclopedic information such as the track listings, the time lengths of the songs, the names of the songs, and bonus albums should be listed in the album article, or in the artist/ensemble article, and should not be removed from Wikipedia just because the album article has been redirected or removed from Wikipedia.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - BTW, I just updated No Justice. This is how it will look with all of the album articles merged into it. Lemme know what y'all think.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the infoboxes are redundant and should go. I also think that the tracklistings should go in the existing table and the personnel sections should go as they are redundant - any changes of personnel in the band should be summarised in the band history section. The prose on the individual albums should also be summarised in the text before the discography. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's how I would do it. I would probably also try to condense the track lists down a bit to take up less space. The other two albums could also be covered within the one article. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Is this discussion going to be archived any time soon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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.
  1. ^ a b The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
  2. ^ a b "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way interested in any third party source.
  3. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its writer, singer, musician, band, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  4. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_15&oldid=1166144371"