Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Individual Notability

I wanted to have another go at better defining when an individual band/group/orchestra members require an article seperate from the band/group/orchestra. I don't think the current guidelines suffice on this point. Points to remember are that notability should not be inherited so a group member does not necessarily gain notability for being assosiated with a group who's notability has been established. These are my suggestions for when a seperate article is necessary : -

  • Formatting and display. The info is too large are cannot be contained in the parent article.
  • The individual was previously part of another notable band/group/orchestra.
  • The individual has demonstrated notability according to WP:BIO that is independent of the parent group. i.e something that would have made them a person of note were they not assosiated with a notable group.

I think the main problem point with this and where most conflict arise is defining when coverage is independent. I would suggest that independent, in this context, should mean that a significant amount of the coverage does not concern the parent group. For instance an interview with an individual that mainly discusses the parent group, in my opinion, is not independent. --neonwhite user page talk 18:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support clarifying this and agree that currently the guidelines are too nebulous. I like the basic idea of the above, though I know some may see instruction creep. I occasionally see articles on marginally notable band members come up at AfD.
I think this is a good idea and am surprised that it's gone several days without any kind of comment. :) I guess other contributors here, like me, have been distracted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I watch this page and yet somehow I missed the OP until neonwhite left a note on my talk page. I too, support the above, especially Moonriddengirl's succinct wording. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Individual musicians may be notable as individuals if they have received coverage as individuals, even if the reason for that coverage is membership of one band, so I wonder if the "something that would make them of note without the association to the parent group" qualifier is really needed?--Michig (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That was meant to be the substance of the footnote, to incorporate Neon white's note above. :) I should probably clarify that by constructing the footnote rather than just putting in placeholder text. How about something like Footnote: "Reliable source coverage documenting work with the notable band may be sufficient, if coverage focuses on individual contribution rather than group activities." On the other hand, I'm not averse to removing the qualifier, although I see Neon white's apparent concern that an interview with a band member would be used as supporting individual notability even if the interviewer has nothing to say about that band member's specific contribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that, in the example you give, since the coverage of the person would be trivial (i.e. the main point of the interview is the band, not the person), it couldn't be used to show notability. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that, too, but people grasp at straws. :D As I said, I don't have any problem with removing the qualifier. It may be unnecessary to anticipate problems of that sort, and it can always be added later if we find a lot of article creators defending problem articles this way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this can be tied down too tightly here. It's a guideline rather than a policy, so perhaps shouldn't aim to be something that's followed too rigidly (not that it would stop some people trying). I think the suggested footnote is fine - I've seen several articles about bands where pointless articles have also been created about the members of the band, but there are also very high profile bands where the members do merit articles even though they may have done little outside of that one band. Significant coverage that discusses them as an individual is the key, I think.--Michig (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for the qualifier—it's short and to-the-point. I think adding a one-sentence footnote in this case is definitely an ounce of prevention. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It always should be about the sources. I can imagine a scenario (jazz) where the musician is notable, but none of the bands he has played in are. The guideline should also dovetail with WP:BIO. Blast Ulna (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the third bullet point is the important one. The first one doesn't apply if the third can't be met. If the section on the individual is too large, without independent notability established, the section is saying unimportant things, and should be trimmed. The second bullet point is a little more important, but is still subordinate to the third.
So I'd say that these criteria are not necessary. But where did you want to put them? -Freekee (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The main point of contention in discussions has always been defining independent notability. I have always look at it like this: - If the info can be merged into the group article, i.e. All the info relates to the group and there is no info that is not, then it probably should be merged as long as it isnt too long. In the end an article should assert it's notability clearly and i don't think being part of a notable group is always noteworthy. --neonwhite user page talk 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This proposal sounds reasonable, as long as there's instructions in the standard that individuals from band should each be allowed a succinct section in the article. Specifically, I'm thinking a section about the individual band members with subsections for the band members. How about stating in the standards that the names of individual band members may be redirected to the band's article? Royalbroil 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think redirecting is covered by general editing guidelines. We dont really need to cover it here, as is the fact that members can be mentioned in the group article. That is more about article content than notability. We don't want it the become a set of instructions. It has to remain a guide only. --neonwhite user page talk 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More on "More on unreleased albums"

I posted this a week ago and received no response. It was a bit far up on the page, and after seeing how folks (including me) missed neonwhite's above post, I'll repeat my post:

Since consensus appears to have been reached, with no dissenters, could the "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have independent coverage in reliable sources." be changed to "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis only to show change in wording) be added to WP:MUSIC#Albums? Thanks —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, until and unless somebody points out a problem I'm not thinking of. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So added. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tribute albums

I'm just wondering what's the position of wikipedia on tribute albums. How do we determine notability? By the band the tribute is for or by the bands the tribute feature? I asked because of the seven tribute albums that are listed for Burzum. Those albums generally consist of non-notable bands, most of which do not have an article page on wikipedia and are unlikely to. --Bardin (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I previously asked if tribute albums were notable, but to no reply. I say they're generally not. Just click on a random article at Category:Tribute albums and chances are it'll just be "X is a tribute album to Y. This is the infobox and track list". Spellcast (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the artist being paid tribute to is irrelevant for notability purposes. If the artists paying tribute are sufficiently notable, however, and there is evidence of significant coverage or charting of the album , I would say that such albums are notable. A good example would be the Carpenters tribute If I Were a Carpenter (album).--Michig (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Spellcast and Michig. Without media coverage or chart success, it's highly unlikely that it's actually notable. In recent years the tribute album is far more often an attempt to ride the coattails of a popular artist, rather than to actually pay tribute. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Track times in album articles?

Not a notability issue strictly speaking, but I don't know where else to ask this. (I'm still quite new around here, so please cut me some slack.) What about playing times for individual tracks in album articles? Every album article I looked at seems to have them, so I assumed it was standard practice. Yet, another user keeps deleting track times from some articles I've written without any explanation whatsoever, even when I asked him on his talk page. Is there any written or unwritten rule against them? Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Welcome. :D They're part of the guideline, yes. You can find the guideline at WP:ALBUM. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick help. :) BTW I stumbled across the page you mentioned myself within minutes of posting this here... Life's strange sometimes. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be hard to navigate. :) I'm glad you found it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about notability for musicians

This may have been discussed previously -- please forgive me for not wading through the talk page & archives. Do album reviews in newspapers or magazines count as "multiple non-trivial published works" for the purpose of establishing notability for musicians? If yes, would it be possible to state that clearly in the guidelines? Seems to me there is some ambiguity here that would be good to clear up for editors who don't follow the details of this subject area very closely. Thanks Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of Albums

I could be wrong, but the "notability" guidelines for musicians seem to have been tightened since I first looked here many months ago. I remember specifically that only one album needed to be released by an artist to meet the cut for notability. IMHO, if these guidelines are going to have any meaning, they should be able to stand alone, i.e., any recording artist whose notability is beyond dispute should easily meet all of them. There are, however, plenty of such artists who have released only one album; some quick examples just off the top of my head are Blind Faith, Climax ("Precious and Few") and Karen Carpenter.

In the mid-1960s and before, albums were not nearly so important to a recording artist's success or notability – Elvis for one only released two albums before he joined the Army, and the Beatles had many more singles sales than albums sales. I didn't add this to my message, but it seems to me that 10 or 12 sides on singles on major labels should be equivalent to an album. Shocking Blue (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a guideline, right? Personally I disagree with any statement of the type "X albums means notable". Notability comes from how much coverage a topic has gotten in sources, not by some made-up criteria we invent here. Friday (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To the users who link to it from AFD it is bloody serious business which must be followed to the letter. I don't know where they get this idea. Any chance this and similar pages could be re-written to look less like the DSM-IV without being summarily reverted? — CharlotteWebb 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's changing the guidelines without consensus that I object to. If you want to post a proposal listing the changes you want to make, I'd be more than happy to consider them. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree. I don't think that obvious artists should have to be able to meet every criterion. Artists whose notability is "beyond dispute" will easily meet more than one of the criteria, why should they have to meet all of them? You are correct that singles used to be more important than LPs, but it is unlikely that an artist would have released five or six major label singles without charting or getting enough media attention to pass WP:MUSIC. Also, I take issue with your unilaterally changing the guideline then starting a discussion. As long as I've been dealing with music notability issues it's been two albums. Granted, I haven't been here as long as you but it's not like someone just changed this last week. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to break protocol; this is my first time participating in a discussion like this. I don't really think of myself as having been around that long either as far as that goes. But anyway: I wouldn't have brought this up if there wasn't an article of mine, on Milan, being challenged as not notable enough. He has released an LP and 7 or 8 singles and was a songwriter and producer on several more; as a garage rock artist, he qualifies as far as I am concerned, and I wrote up the article several months ago. (I guess I shouldn't have had the audacity to self-rate it as a "B"!) My particular interest is garage rock bands from the mid-1960s, and I am trying to put in some articles on bands and artists that are plenty notable in that narrow field but that still haven't gotten a lot of coverage out there in published sources. I am not trying to put in something on every band that put out one single no matter how great it was (although others have done that). Rolling Stone wasn't started until 1967, if memory serves, and the other rock-journalism organs came along about the same time. The garage rock era had pretty much played out by then. Even the mainstream band that I have written about, the Outsiders ("Time Won't Let Me") released four albums on Capitol and had several hit singles, yet even All Music Guide showed ratings on only 3 of the 4 albums and no reviews at all (although there was a nice biography). I couldn't find anything anywhere else, other than the little reviews on and such. For any bands of this era, passing that publication hurdle will not be easy, so I am trying to see if we can't ease up on the number of albums criterion. Shocking Blue (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the Milan article is that the references are not reliable sources. I would probably agree that he is notable enough if you could prove that everything in the article is true—but even his real name is in question. But that is a discussion for the Milan talk page or AfD or whatever. Trying to change WP:MUSIC in order to save an article you wrote is kind of a crummy thing to do. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember distinctly looking up the music criteria at one point (fall of 2006 maybe), and I am almost positive that it said one album from a major label at that point. Anyone else remember that, or is it just me? That is the whole reason that I brought it up here – although it seems to me that the two-album requirement is a lot to ask of a recording artist from the 1950s or 1960s or even 1970s. That is the reason in fact that I proceeded with the Milan article (once I found out he had released an album), because he has always been a particular favorite of mine, and I knew that there wasn't much out there on him. As I mentioned already, the reliable sources in popular music started up after the garage rock scene was history, and they invariably talk about new music. Collectables Music has released retrospective albums on several garage rock bands that I own that have had decent sales – are they not notable either because they weren't around long enough to record enough music to fill up two CDs? There are plenty of anonymous musicians out there; at least he uses his picture, unlike, say, the Residents. While it's no big deal now, getting a record company to release an album in the mid-1960s was pretty difficult; the Outsiders' first album wasn't given the green light until they had a second hit single. I can poke around and try to find more definitive info on Milan, but even a lot of the stuff that I used before has dropped off the web, including (for some reason) the All Music Guide entry on the Head Shop. Shocking Blue (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to page histories, we don't have to rely on memory. :) I didn't look through every edit, but in September of 2006, the requirement was for two albums. So it was in December of 2005 and at its founding in January of 2005. At some point, somebody may have changed it to read "one album", but it seems that generally two has been the agreed upon standard. I think its a good benchmark, particularly keeping in mind as Mdsummermsw points out just below me that this is just one criterion. Using your example of the Outsiders, based on what you say they would be notable based on criterion #2 even if they had only ever released one album. And even if material has dropped off the web, print materials are still usable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think it was worth bringing up, but I can live with this. I have issues with other aspects of the way that music articles are handled, but that is for another day. I appreciate your taking the time, Hello Control to look over the Milan article for me; and thank you for saying that I have made a prima facie case in the article that he is notable. Also, regards to Tuf-Kat for the Google Books idea. I am going to hunt around and see what else I can come up with; actually, I have already started doing so. But honestly, what other sources do I really need? The "Discography" section was by far the most difficult portion of the article to assemble, and I pieced it together from at least 8 different sources; it gives me genuine pleasure to look at it, since I dare say this is the first time that all of these recordings have been listed together in a public setting like this. But I cannot recall ever seeing a discography section footnoted; artist name, song name, songwriter, record label, and catalogue number are truly basic data that come right off the record label; and the release date is usually not that hard to find either. The only information in the article that is really questionable, as I see it, is the identity of Milan. The footnote to the "forced exposure" site is a reference to promotional information for the reissue of The Head Shop album by a decent sized record company (and I can certainly clarify this); this would seem to me to be fairly reliable as to something like this. The LP shows the songwriter as "M. Rodell", and its liner notes mention that Milan wrote all of the songs; while the associated single (I saw a photo of it just last month) gives the artist as "Milan Rodelle". Beyond the patently obvious misspelling on the single, this would seem to me to cinch the surname at a minimum. As a reliable source for garage rock information, Greg Shaw is second to none; unfortunately, he is the one who never gives a real name. On the discussion about the identity of the Residents, by way of comparison, that article cites only one source that qualifies as "reliable" (William Poundstone). (For what it's worth, a user named "Darinkarodell" changed the real name that I had listed for Milan from "Rick Rodell" to "Richard [Rick] Rodell"; this gave me some comfort that the article was right, but beyond the likelihood that this was at least a relative of Milan, this user is as mysterious as Milan himself, since that is the only contribution listed from that person). I don't think there is much doubt that every "Milan" that is given on all of the recordings that are mentioned in the article is referring to the same person; Milan was obviously enough of a pro not to let something like that happen. There were many "one-name" artists active in the 1960s – Donovan, Jennifer, Keith, and Cher (not to mention Sonny), to name a few – and there were never any impostors that I heard about. Thanks again for your time, folks, and it has been a pleasure swapping ideas and notions with all of you. Shocking Blue (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One point that seems to be missing from this discussion is the fact that the two albums bit is merely one of several ways of passing. Yes, Blind Faith had only one album, but given their membership, they were certainly "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". They also would qualify because they "had a charted hit", probably "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour", certainly "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (each one of them fits that bill) and, IIRC, "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" (granted, late night PBS fundraisers are like that). Blind Faith's one album, in my humble opinion, sucked and should have ended up on the scrap heap at the studio. But it was notable, and the criteria capture this pretty solidly, in my opinion. Climax and Karen Carpenter also make the grade (though they sucked too!). The real question is whether there are notable acts that are failing the criteria when they shouldn't. I haven't seen any yet. Anyone? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that there are "notable acts" that none of the people who have contributed to this discussion have ever heard of – or that we might all think sucked for that matter. If there is room in Wikipedia for (as we have all been hearing about lately) an article on a 16th century English goldsmith and painter (written in Hungarian no less) – and I am perfectly fine with that – then what is wrong with creating a history of popular music that goes beyond the obvious? (Not that Wikipedia hasn't long since done that!) Looking over the list, except for the part about being a prime example of a local scene or winning music competitions or maybe getting Grammy nominations, the three examples I gave meet all of the other criteria pretty easily – and they should; the bar should not be all that high IMHO. The reliable sources (such as they are) in popular music journalism always talk about new stuff, and all of them were started about the time that Sgt. Pepper came along or later. Of course Blind Faith, etc. are going to get press there. When I first began collecting the Pebbles series of garage rock records, I remember being amazed that compilation albums could be released of music that was then barely 10 years old where no one had any idea of the source of the music beyond the solid fact that here it was on a 45 single. Now, some 30 years later, there are over one thousand compilation albums like that covering almost every nation on earth, and the original records can command $1000 or more in some cases – how about that for notable? Just last month, I heard a story on NPR about a band that was building their sound around the ethereal pop music released in Cambodia in the mid-1960s. There are a lot more Nick Drakes out there waiting to be discovered; what better place than here? Shocking Blue (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Along with notability, Wikipedia requires that its articles be verifiable. Without reliable sources, the information is not verifiable and does not belong here. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 11:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, it goes back to the inherent reliance on some primary sources in music articles. I think that without some standard regarding how much weight primary sources can carry in this field, this issue will come up over and over again. I'm going to go ahead and look into what's been done in other areas where primary sources are indispensable and see what may provide a useful example.J293339 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken that there are no reliable sources covering popular music from the pre-Sgt. Pepper era. See this on Chuck Berry, for example. Searching for garage rock on Google Books turns up a number of hits that may have verifiable info on obscure 60s garage rock bands. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on singles

Recently, I have tried to redirect some non-notable singles to their artists or albums, as is clearly highlighted in WP:MUSIC. One of the ones I tried to merge was Politics, Religion, and Her (song), which led to User:Wikibones' accusing me of "destroying" song articles — even though I've told this user several times that I'm simply following what WP:MUSIC says about non-notable songs. I have also gotten a ton of flack from User:Bwmoll3 on Talk:Send a Message to My Heart and various other Patty Loveless songs, many of which I tried in vain to redirect. Both of these users are accusing me (falsely) of vandalism and/or "destruction" of song articles, and saying that I'm using my own sliding scale for notability, which I am not. I have told these users that the songs I'm redirecting are not notable because they haven't been covered in any reliable third-party sources, but neither user will hear anything of it. What should I do? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, taking a look, it seems that Politics, Religion, and Her (song) was a charting hit, which qualifies it as notable, although if there's a shortage of information it should probably be merged. It's a little complicated since there's no article on the album yet. :) This is surprising, since it launched, what, four singles? It seems like there ought to be an article on the album, and maybe I'll get one out there later today. As for the other one, it seems that the RfC you've launched was a good choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to make pages on Sammy Kershaw's albums for a while. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the RFC would be a good idea on that one - it was sort of a test case to see what would happen if a wider range of editors weighed in. Unfortunately, like most RFCs on non-contentious topics, it didn't get a lot of traffic except from those with a vested interest. That's why I suggested coming along over here for a meta-discussion about the guideline itself.
I tend to feel that it states quite well: if it's an article that's going to wind up as a permastub, with no real sources or potential for expansion, then it should be merged and redirected. I'll be interested to see further viewpoints. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When I redirect a non-notable song to its album's article and someone reverts me, I just send it to AfD and suggest redirect (if the fans are particularly contentious, I suggest that if the outcome is to redirect, that it be protected as well). Works with the least amount of hassle, in my experience. That said, I usually let it go if the song has charted and is sourced. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Should I do that, seeing as these and the various Patty Loveless songs are all unsourced and likely to ever be sourced? Politics, Religion and Her (song) doesn't seem like it's been covered in any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

←Okay. I've created an album article for Politics, Religion and Her. Not the most detailed album article I've ever created, but this is not my usual field, and I'm on tight time today. :) Maybe the other editor would feel more comfortable merging the information into an album article instead of into the artist article. And, if not, at least there's a start article for a charting album. :D (Off to fold clothes!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The notability of a song?

Would an article be warranted for a song that was released as a single, and given full music video treatment as well as a commercial release by an international star (Shania Twain) despite the fact that the song did not chart? --Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the information you've given, I would say it does not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 08:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on an article about a one-off music festival[1] of some significance that took place in Cleveland, Ohio.

One of the links to articles about this event is here:

I've been working on drafts, but have been deleted twice. How can I assert significance of this entry, though over 400 people attended, 150 people participated, and though it received substantial media coverage?

Thanks for your time.

EAS Council of chiefs (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


We seem to have artists, albums, singles and songs covered, but what about tours? For example I came across Guns, God and Government (tour) earlier, and looking at {{Marilyn Manson}} there's plenty of other equally dreary articles. Similarly {{Metallica}} has a large number of articles about tours, from what I can see mostly created by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I'm tempted to go to AfD, but thought a second opinion or two couldn't hurt first? One Night In Hackney303 13:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The thing is - have the tours received much press coverage or just individual concerts on them? As if we're not careful, we're opening the door to say that any concert you can rustle up a couple of reviews on can have an article, which will be lunacy. So would WP:N need to apply to the tour as a whole, as opposed to reviews of parts of it? One Night In Hackney303 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All that is required is that one makes a good faith effort to find sources before nominating an article for deletion. Take Marilyn Manson's Grotesk Burlesk tour, for example. Here's a guy known for his shock tactics on tour, and yet, no Google news sources, one possible Google books source (which, on closer inspection, is not about the tour), and only a couple of MTV and Yahoo Music blurbs, which are about the album release party. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Tour Chronology navbox? You've got to be kidding me. Everything in that infobox (except the chronology part), and the opening sentence is (barely) notable enough to be summed up in a paragraph in the album article. Nothing else is notable. -Freekee (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I know. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well don't just stand there. Do something about it!</sarcasm> Uh oh. My closing tags aren't working... -Freekee (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's governed by WP:NNC for Marylin Manson. The consensus for the editors actually working on the article was to arrange it like that, so if there are problems, it should be discussed with them first. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Torc is right. We can't nominate the template for deletion. I have refrained from nominating the Marilyn Manson tour pages themselves for deletion because there are pages and pages of articles on bands and associated albums, songs, tours, side projects and so forth for bands that are only known to a couple of hundred people in Bumfuck Egypt that have to be addressed first. If anybody else feels like nominating tour articles for deletion, look over the 520 pages that use the infobox concert tour template for truly unheard of bands. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a very pertinent point, Torc, but my complaint was about the article itself. Since there is very little info in the article worth saving, I think it should be merged with the band or album article. No tour article, no tour template. Obviously, the question needs to be answered as to the notability of the tour.
Blast, I think the Manson tour articles would be perfect to nominate for deletion, depending on the outcome of a Notability search. Or if they turn out to be okay, let's find the highest profile tour we can, that doesn't show up in the media. Upon deletion, we can use them as a yardstick for deciding what other pages to Prod. Also, if these bands you mention truly are unheard of, why don't we just AfD them?
I really hate to sound like a deletionist, but I also hate for Wikipedia to become some kids' fansites. -Freekee (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I prod tagged a few for you. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The second line of this guideline is "Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion" —Torc. (Talk.) 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't Speedy, I Prodded. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I see that. My objection's the same: these aren't uncontroversial. There's no harm in taking these to full AfD. —Torc. (Talk.) 07:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That'll just annoy folks at AfD, they'll say, "Didja try prodding first?". Blast Ulna (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And you can say you did. I don't agree that these fail notability for reasons I've already outlined: they are simply content for articles about the artist and most, if not all the information should not be discarded. —Torc. (Talk.) 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not trying to be like Discogs or some other compendium. The Prod tag allows 5 days for editors to deprod or to transfer the information somewhere. So your deprodding is uncool. The community already said at AfD that Marilyn Manson's Portrait of an American Family Tour was not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The Prod tag allows five days for editors to deprod, and I did. Am I supposed to be excluded from eligibility to contest a prod with which I disagree? Your example is pretty meaningless since we have no idea what the content was. I can find plenty of AfDs for tours that resulted in keep, no consensus, or merge. There is no set consensus for tours, which is why I contested undiscussed deletion. —Torc. (Talk.) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also say that AFD being cited is far from definitive, 1 keep, 1 delete and one conditional delete. Ridernyc (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The lack of debate suggests that nobody cared, and that the admin chose correctly among the choices presented. You will also note that nobody complained when the tour dates and setlist were removed, leaving a rump article with nothing to say. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is, there really isn't much in terms of content restrictions for articles. The whole huge page could be merged with the main Marilyn Manson article, and then the contents would be considered entirely appropriate and notability of the tour itself would be irrelevant (per WP:NNC), but that would make the article too long and stylistically awkward, and force the content to be moved out of the article. We're trapped in a loop of two (or more) guidelines that cause identical content to be judged differently depending only on formatting, which makes no sense at all, but nobody seems to be in a rush to resolve the problem. WP:NOT is the closest we come, and that policy is ambiguous to the point of being essentially useless. So we keep the subarticle on the tour separate, just like an album. If somebody wanted to push for a resolution between WP:NNC and WP:SIZE/WP:SS/WP:FICT, etc., and some real guidelines on what is acceptable content, I'd love to see that get through. —Torc. (Talk.) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to the intent for which this section was created. I'm personally in favor of the synthesis between WP:NNC and WP:FORK, but I think it is beside the point. I percieve that some editors have the misconception that tours are innately notable, possibly through OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacies, I think, as per WP:N without sources that reflect otherwise, tours are not sufficiently notable to deserve an independent article. I think that often times, these tour articles are for tours that directly relate to the promotion of a specific album. Often times, the article for that album is no where near the limits of WP:SIZE. In those cases, I think it is sufficient to mention the tour as a subsection of the album article. I have no problem with a redirect, particularly when the name of the tour does not match the name of the album. However, my main point is, to save the trouble of taking people through this logical process, it would be much simpler and more convenient to have a section here explaining when it is appropriate for a tour to have it's own notable article, and when it is not. It's just easier to point people to WP:BAND#Tours than to point people to WP:N and then have to explain to them why it does not apply. How does that sound to people? -Verdatum (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Caught in a Mosh notability?

Yeah, that says it all. See its talk as well. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Great song but not really notable (except for totally rocking, which, unfortunately is not part of WP:MUSIC). Redirect it to the album. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I get any additional input from other uninvolved third parties? I generally agree with User:Hello Control, but I've been heavily involved in this article and would rather not be the one to piss on others' Cheerios. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any input; it would be appreciated. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it could have borderline notability in that it has been included in notable media (the videogame) as well as on the album and in that it has been singled out for specific attention by VH1, though such lists are not worth much for notability as they go. If the article were chock-full of sourced contenty-goodness, one might argue against a merger on that basis. But it's not. If you merge it to the parent album (it looks like all that needs merging is its place on that VH1 list), those doing a search on the song will be able to locate information about it there. I'd support a merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless it seems likely that there's more info out there, I'd support a merge as well. Even if it's theoretically notable, there doesn't appear to be a significant body of citable information on it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It should stay because it's arguably their most popular song, it's in a video game, and it's considered one of the best metal songs. However, this guy owning the article and making it horrible doesn't do it justice.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What's in this article that isn't already in or can't be easily included in the parent article? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. Not because of its notability, but PD's owning of the article and making it an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A charted hit on any national music chart - What's a hit?

I have a concern with the second criteria for musicians and ensembles.

  Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

The criteria itself actually doesn't really concern me, just the definition of "hit". Is it a single or an album? Does it have to be a "number one hit", a "top 10 hit", a "top 20 hit" or a "top 40 hit"? Does it have to reach a particular position, or is a musician which releases a single that peaks at 97 or 39 as notable?

I would appreciate if some-one could clear this up. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

so if it's on a chart, it's okay? -Freekee (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally, yes. (It might depend on the country and the exact nature of the chart in question in some cases) Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Typically, within the industry and speaking from experience, #40 or higher is the threshold most-commonly used. --Winger84 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be regionally specific, as the threshold is usually determined by the countries individual characteristics. Nick carson (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
If an artist charts an album and not a single on any national chart? Is the artist not notable? This is the case for several jazz musicians? I'd appreciate some help. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary worship music

I'm involved in some discussions regarding the notability of contemporary worship songs, which tend to have a very short "shelf life". The existing song criteria are not really relevant to this genre. This is my first pass at some more relevant criteria:

  • A song will be regarded as notable if it is at least five years old and has appeared in the CCLI Top 25 (issued every 6 months) at least 10 times in a single territory. The appearances do not have to be consecutive. (Reason - it is difficult to establish notability for recent songs, which may be popular for a few years and then fall into disuse, meaning they are probably not notable, and a song needs to have been popular for a prolonged period in the same region before it could be considered notable).
  • A song will be regarded as notable if it has been published in at least five songbooks (each containing at least 100 songs) over a minimum period of ten years (Reason - inclusion in multiple substantial books over a prolonged period suggests notability and will eliminate most ephemeral material)
  • A song will be regarded as notable if it is has been described as such (or as a "classic" or similar) by an authoritative independent verifiable source no less than five years after the songs inital release. (Reason - we should accept the views of experts but disallow premature claims to notability.)
  • A song may be regarded as notable if exceptional circumstances exist that are not covered by the above criteria.

I also felt that the "performed independently by several notable artists" criteria wasn't really relevant for music intended for congregational use. Most notable worship songs will have been recorded multiple times by different artists, but I'm not sure the inverse is true, unless the recordings have been over a significant time period.

Comments would be appreciated. Sidefall (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Regarding the first criterion: I may not be utterly opposed to it, but your argument is not convincing. The fact that recent songs have had little chance to chart and therefore become notable is a feature, not a bug. What does it take for a song to achieve that?
    • Second criterion: Sounds like it might be reasonable. Are such songbooks typically published by a division of major publishing companies?
    • Third and fourth criteria: I don't think either of these need to be stated. Notability criteria are meant to be used to gauge the likelihood of sources existing that can be used to flesh out an article. If authoritative independent verifiable sources cover a song, and our article cites them, notability is not a relevant issue. And exceptional circumstances could really only be proven by citing authoritative independent verifiable sources.
    • Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Major Competition

Is winning a battle of the bands notable?Saksjn (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on who is hosting it and how much coverage the competition receives in news sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 6, Limitations

Criterion 6 states that notability may be determined by a band which "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."

I'm thinking that we need to discuss limitations on this. Several times now I have come across issues on CSD'd articles that claim some tenuous grasp on notability through generational loopholes in this criteria. In other words: You have Band A which is non-notable except that Lars Ulrich from Metallica was a member for fourteen minutes when he got really drunk in High School. This is all and good on it's own. However, what happens when you have someone from Band B who is claiming notability because one of its member went on to be in Band A who gained de facto notability from the Drunk Lars incident. The logical conclusion of this train of thought leads us to a very real situation where the policy allows notability of a joke of a band because it has a member who was a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band who had a member who once played backup keyboards for Stevie Nicks.

I don't like a loophole in a policy which makes every single band in the world notable just by playing "Seven Degrees to Kevin Bacon."

Thoughts? Trusilver 04:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps adding "This criterion has commonsense limitations" would help? Since obviously the case above does not make much sense (assuming there was no other coverage and that is the ONLY claim to notability). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
dihydrogen monoxide's idea is fine. I think any extreme cases would have a lack of verifiable sources, and less extreme ones can always be redirected, as is already noted. Tuf-Kat (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a good approach to me as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It does suggest using redirects instead of an article. I don't think you need to add that as common sense and Ignore all rules intrinsicly apply to every policy and guideline anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Added it in; [2]. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are karaoke versions notable?

On RC patrol, came across an album which was simply the karaoke version (no vocals) of anther album. Are karaoke versions notable? Should they simply be speedy deleted with {{db-band}}? --John Nagle (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I strongly doubt a karaoke album is notable. I do not, however, see db-band as applying.
WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS says, "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." Are there third-party sources with anything meaningful to say?
"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable," Probably just studio hacks.
"Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Again, seems doubtful.
Without actually seeing the article, I can't be sure. But it sure sounds like a goner to me. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It could be mentioned on original the album's article that it was popular enough to have a karaoke version made of it. If you did, you'd need some justification, and therefore have to find references to back up whatever you said about it. -Freekee (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


As I see no consensus for this change, I have removed the disclaimer about mixtapes added today from the guideline. If any mixtape has sufficient sourcing to verify notability, whether original content or not, it may meet this guideline. If it doesn't, it probably isn't notable enough. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a "single" a "song"?

In a number of discussions, editors wishing to save an article that does not meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC#SONGS have argued that a "single" is not a "song", essentially saying it is more of mini-album or EP. I would like some clarity added to the #SONGS section to clarify whether or not the guideline considers singles to be songs. Thoughts? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, a song is an individual thing--"Amazing Grace" is a song. OTOH, I can see some confusion in how they're handled. Stronger (Britney Spears song) is kind of a munge between an article about a single, including track listings, and an article about the "a" side song. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There's actually a pervasive confusion between the two. Others editors establish context by identifying it as a "song" while others use "single". But for me, I use the former. After all, its not the single that gets reception but the song. The single is only a format. --Efe (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
They should not be confused. The same song may be recorded by many different artists and appear on many different recordings. A single is a particular recording of a particular song by a particular artist. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thus, how should an article on a single be treated? As an album or a song? I understand why an album or a song might be notable, but a single? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A single is notable if it sold well. A song is notable if it's been recorded by a number of artists, award winning, or just plain famous (like "Happy Birthday").
I think the real question is: when do we need separate articles for these things? In most cases, these articles are harmlessly combined. For example, Mony Mony is about a three notable things: Tommy James' song, Tommy James and the Shondells' single, Billy Idol's single. On the other hand, Somewhere Over the Rainbow is only about a song, with a tiny bit of info about who recorded it. Here, only the song is notable. Stronger (Britney Spears song) is about the single, with a tiny bit of information about the song. Here, only the single is notable. This is all as it should be.
These would be my suggestions to improve this guideline:
This guideline should probably replace the title Albums with Albums, singles and other recordings, and replace the title Songs with Songs and other compositions. That would be more comprehensive and logical, and would end the confusion that started this discussion.
The section on compositions should suggest that information about non-notable compositions should appear in either the article about the composer or the article about the most famous recording of the composition (i.e., the single or album), or both. The section on recordings should suggest that information about non-notable singles be added to the article about the song, or the article about the recording artist, or to the article about (the most famous) album it is included in, or all three. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd go a little further. Simply replace Album and Single with Recording, Performance or Session. Notability for assembling several recordings in a package (or worse, a re-release under a new label) is, to my mind, bogus. Song should be reserved for the composition. Under Somewhere Over the Rainbow one expects to learn about the composition. Of course that should include sections on notable performers (Garland), performances (Carnegie Hall, Baum's movie Wizard of Oz...), recordings, etc. Under Judy Garland one expects to see discussion of that song, it's milestone marks in her career, etc. Under Wizard of Oz one expects to see the songs, the performers, the dates of the recording sessions and film shoots, perhaps even the various release formats (35mm, 70mm, Beta, VHS, DVD, Bittorrent,...) But we don't need a separate article on her performance as rendered in each format.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support CharlesGillinghams proposal, it makes perfect sense to me and would help clarify the confusion between "song" and "single". However I would not go as far as LeadSongDog suggests in his first sentence. "Recording, performance or session" is in my opinion not equivalent to "Albums, singles and other recordings". An album (or even single, The Beach Boys' Good Vibrations immediately comes into mind) is often recorded over many sessions; a performance is often a live rendering. No, I don't think it is the same thing. – IbLeo (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Rereading my above, I see it was a bit ambiguous. It wasn't my intent that Recording, Performance or Session were equivalent terms to each other, but that one or another of the three would suffice to encapsulate most of the article types we would want, in a way that album and single don't quite do. The point is not that the three terms are the same, but rather that they are not independently notable. Would we really want separate articles for Good Vibrations (first session), Good Vibrations (second session) etc? I think the topic would warrant at most a section in the Good Vibrations (recording) article.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Maybe I wasn't clear either :-) I actually didn't think you meant "recording", "performance" and "session" are equivalent. They are not, and I believe we agree on that. However, I would say that the article Good Vibrations should be about the song (i.e. composition) rather than the recording. It should of course contain the story of The Beach Boys single which is obviously the most notable recording of that song (which it actually does). If any of the particular recording sessions were notable, I agree it should also be contained in that article (which is actually the case). Let's say that U2 recorded this song and released as a single and it became a hit. Then I would include that single into the article as well. If Barbara Streisand performed the song on the top of the Apple building, that would probably also be notable enough to go into the article. So yes, "recording", "performance" and "session" can each make a song notable, but I would still put that information into the article about the song – not in articles of their own. It's getting late - I hope I make sense. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Asserting Notability

My article on The Tuna Helpers was previosuly speedily deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. It was a poor article, only one paragraph and not doing much other than noting who performed on the second album. Please let me know if the current article fails to meet notability criteria, and what I can do to better assert notability, as some of the sources are as published on the band's site, though I used external references whenever possible. I'm checking with Adrienne about citing her orientation, because the info is on her personal MySpace page, which she doesn't post on her top friends for either her band or solo performer pages, and I feel this would be a violation without her OK. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

I have a concern about the section in bold, It seems pretty vague, what's a scene? how big a city? In my opinion this whole criteria is redundant as the only way to to prove this is to have sources which would qualify under criteria 1 anyway. --neon white talk 05:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's vague, but I don't think it's redundant with #1. I've seen articles (can't say specifically musical) deleted at AfD because the sources were too local in nature. I would interpret this criterion as saying that this is okay if those regional sources are documenting that the band is of unique notability within that locality. Frankly, I doubt that would come up a lot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The original point of it was that, if a field like Azerbaijani hip hop is notable, at least the one most prominent representative of that style is probably notable, even if there's no other reason for it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
But it's documented in sources it's notable anyway? --neon white talk 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of musical singles

The same principles of notability that apply to songs should not apply to singles.

Singles, as defined here on Wikipedia, are "[...] a song usually extracted from a current or upcoming album to promote the album," but the methods that singles are technically distributed says "[...] packaged as "single" records with one or two other songs and sold before the release of the album," completely redundant.

If a single is released as a "single" record, that technically means it's more of an album than just a song in itself, because it's released usually with a few other songs and has it's own track listing. In a practical manner, singles are usually released as physical CDs, they usually have their own jewel case, lyric booklet, CD, and their own track listing. Therefore, I think we need a new policy for notability on singles, as WP:MUSIC#SONGS doesn't seem to be a good judgment of these separate packages and articles for singles are often made as articles for songs, and not the singles themselves. In other words, a lot of articles are redundant for saying that the article is about a single, but then making the article out about a song or titling it about a song (for example: Psychosocial (song)), and that renders the "single" un-notable, simply because the song that's the main focus of the article, isn't notable. The song isn't, but the single itself, track listing and all, might be, so we need a new policy.

We need new policies that cover singles, and not just songs, as I have just proven that these are two very different things. dude527 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Is there some reason that WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS should not apply to singles? It seems based on your argument that it should. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! I think something like that should be the standard for singles. Not WP:MUSIC#SONGS, but WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, or maybe even create a new category for specifically singles? dude527 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that a new category would be perceived as instruction creep. I'm not sure it's necessary, unless you have in mind proposing some highly specific criteria that would only apply to singles. What did you have in mind? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, first, tell me which currently applies to singles: WP:MUSIC#SONGS, or WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS? dude527 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't. I'm not a definitive authority. :) I myself would apply WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS to them. It seems like you would as well. Based on the conversation three threads above this one, there are varying opinions on this. Stage one of any proposal is probably specifying which you propose should govern and working from there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(exdent) We have some undiscussed grey here.
For openers, we have performers challenged for not meeting the two albums on a major label criteria because they have one album and one EP. If a single with a b-side is, in effect, an "album", certainly an EP is as well.
Immediately following that is the idea that an actual album plus a single (now called an "album") is two "albums" (though the single is "from the album").
Next, some singles are nothing but the song. A digital-only single might be just that one song and nothing else. But here we are considering a new definition. For RIAA certification, a 7" 45rpm is the same single as a cassette single, CD single, 12" single, digital-only single, etc. which may have various b-sides/bonus tracks on the various forms. But we're now going to consider a single to be, essentially, an "album" under some as yet undecided circumstances. Is a digital-only single consisting of one song a "single"? Currently, it might be. This discussion might decide that the industry/RIAA considers it a single, but wikipedia does not.
Finally, we aren't entirely clear on when a song becomes a single. Certainly, there are clear-cut instances: an album is coming out, radio is serviced with the first cut, MTV gets a video, stores have a single for sale, etc. Other times, it isn't so clear. Maybe there's radio service (AOR often gets deeper cuts than Top 40) but no physical release and the individual song can be downloaded apart from the album. Is that "single" akin to an "album"? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why we need some middle ground. WP:MUSIC#SONGS obviously isn't cutting it for every single single that is released, yet you pointed out the obvious flaws in judging it by WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. We need a middle ground. A point that's accurate judgment for every single. dude527 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You raise some good points there, Mdsummermsw. If we were to specify that single notability is determined by the same criteria applied to albums, we would probably also need to specify that this does not mean singles are albums as that applies to the notability of a musician or ensemble. That said, the current definition of notability for albums seems to me to be applicable to "singles" anyway, since it boils down pretty much to: "Is the band notable? Is there independent coverage? If yes to both, then an article may be appropriate, provided sufficient information to sustain a separate article exists." I would think when there is no physical release, you'd be discussing "promo-only", which by the album criteria is generally not notable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the criteria applied to albums is also valid for singles, yet the points made above make me question if I consider a single to be an actual album. dude527 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that this a serious problem, though correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't really matter, does it? If a single meets one of the album criteria, it's probably notable; if it meets one of the song criteria, it's also probably notable, I think. I see "assigning" singles to one category or the other as a pointless exercise in semantics. The instructions on this page should perhaps be modified to make that more clear, but I don't see any reason to make any major changes. Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what we're doing, minor changes. But singles can't be judged by both categories, so we have to, in one way or another, make it a bit more precise, where singles go. This is to keep Wikipedia clean of articles that don't belong, and to make sure articles that do belong, stay. It is important, because Wikipedians are perfectionists, and we can't look at one thing and be able to judge it by two separate categories, because then if it failed one, but met the other, it could stay. We need the alternative of clarifying the standards by which singles are judged, because the current system for it, is not effecient by any means. It's just too confusing for users to make an article, have it get deleted because it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS, but then see some other article, with less notability and information, and see that it passed simply because it's artist was notable. That's a little confusing but if you get what I'm saying, great, and you see why we need an alternative. dude527 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As currently written, an album by a notable act is, by default, notable. If a single is a song, it falls under WP:MUSIC#SONGS and is, by default, not notable unless other conditions are met (i.e., it has charted, won a major award or been recorded by more than one notable act. - Mdsummermsw (talk)
But, judging by the comments made above and other Wikipedia stipulations, that seems to be your own judgment and not actual rules. We need actual rules for this stuff. dude527 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Plus, I think it should be more about digital, and physical CD releases then the number of tracks. dude527 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Would someone mind taking a look at all the new pages created by User:Hip Hop is Alive? I don't think most of them reach the notability threshold, but I'm not an expert here; if they are indeed not notable, I'd appreciate someone prodding or AfDing them.

Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of B-sides and unreleased material.

I have started to nominate several articles that list B-sides and unreleased material for deletion.

I have been successful in deleting/merging with Garbage B-sides and Coldplay's b-sides. Perhaps there could be more discussion in this policy on the notability of articles that deal with unreleased material and B-sides. I believe strongly that these are not notable. ASCAP and BMI searches yield plenty of song titles that bands have not released, but this does not make them notable. I feel that my current AfD's (ABBA unreleased songs, Kylie Minogue's leaked material, Björk b-sidesand List of unreleased Spice Girls songs) are being hampered by fan pride. A policy change would help in clarity, or at least some discussion on this, would make it clear in my mind whether it is worth nominating these kind of articles for deletion. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of b-sides and unreleased content should be merged into that artists discography, or the correlating album's track list. dude527 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


According to WP:N#SONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts,". Is there a specif regulation as to how high or long a song has to chart to be deemed meet Wikipedia's Notability standards? Given there are hundreds of songs that chart each month, does that mean that each of these songs can perhaps merit their own article? I'm currently involved in a discussion over whether to merge No More Sorrow (charted at 124 on Billboard 100) into talk:Minutes to Midnight (album), on the basis that the song does not assess much notability, and does not have much verifiable content. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Any song that has charted, and has enough verifiable information to merit it's own article, is noteworthy. If there's a small amount of verifiable information, but the song charted, then it's generally not notable. dude527 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Recording versus Song

Somehow, we've gotten the ideas conflated, causing no end of confusion. At least in the guideline, we need to disambiguate the concepts of Song (recording), Song (performance), Song (arrangement), Song (orchestration) and Song (composition). The vast majority of performances and recordings of a notable composition will not themselves be notable. Different orchestrations or voicings will almost never be notable, (except where they radically depart from prior ones, e.g. the early uses of string orchestration in rock by the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.) But virtually any surviving compositions by major composers (say, Maurice Ravel or Irving Berlin) and any compositions widely re-arranged or widely recorded (covered) would be notable on their own as compositions. Quantifying the criteria may or may not be helpful. Comments? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Would a supergroup have any special circumstances within the scope of WP:MUSIC? Especially since in most cases they are formed of otherwise notable musicians, but usually do one performance at all. I bring this up alongside a AFD for Automatic Baby. ViperSnake151 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a need for any special consideration for supergroups. Some, like the God awful GTR, are clearly notable (and, in this case, clearly foul). In other cases, such as Automatic Baby, "... it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects." There's precious little to say about this one performance, and it easily fits elsewhere. Will anyone who has never heard of U2/REM/etc. be looking for info on this "band"? Doubtful, and there's nothing to say about them, other than this song. A redirect covers the unlikely search term. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to the wording. Need consensus.

I am a bit disturbed that the demos for bands are not normally considered notable. I can see why mixtapes and bootlegs are not notable unless covered in third party sources, but a demo that is officially produced by the band should be considered notable. (now, this is assuming that the band is notable.) The current wording is

Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

My version would read like this:
Individual articles on albums need not recieve independent coverage if and only if the band has been deemed notable. Mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Demo albums are considered notable if the band has been deemed notable.

Now, here is my reasoning. If the band is notable, then the albums should not really need to have a lot of independent coverage. I work in the field of black metal and most bands in that genre do not recieve the biggest attention online or in text. I think, that if a band has recieved favorable coverage, then every single album by that band need not recieve individual coverage. The band has already been established as notable so the albums should be notable in that sense. I think that demo albums should be the same as regular albums in notability issues. A demo is the starting point of the band. It is released to the public to see how it does. It basically gives a preview of what is to come. That, in my opinion, should be notable. I also understand that my wording, my new proposal, may not be the best. If you think of a better one, I'd be happy to hear it. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I don't know enough about what you mean by "demo album" to comment on that. Few demo albums, surely, would gain commercial or public release, so would fail to be notable. How is a demo album different to a demo song? Both are rough, unfinished versions produced only as part of the creative process rather than to be part of an artist's catalogue. If my understanding of what you're discussing is correct, then I oppose demo anythings being classed as notable.
On your other point, that all albums by notable artists be deemed notable, I agree. But this was argued vehemently at the Album notability discussion above, without consensus. I think it really ended in a stalemate between inclusionists and exclusionists. The whole argument, and some of the purist attitudes by deletionists, wore me out so much I decided I couldn't be bothered creating any more album articles. Grimhim (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A demo album is a collection of songs put onto a format to be released to the public. Single demo songs normally aren't released on their own format, but are more likely limited to online release. Undeath (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by 'demo album'? I see this quite a lot in articles about metal bands, and it seems to have a different meaning to other types of demo. Demos are usually 'rough' versions of tracks that later appear on released albums, singles, etc., and demos themselves are not usually released - they're also rarely notable. Unsigned bands commonly sell demos until they get a record deal. With metal bands, the 'demo album' seems to be a self-released album more than anything else. Is that correct? I think the general guidelines about demos refer to the 'rough' versions that are not intended for release.--Michig (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to most metal bands, a demo album is self released due to a lack of money. Some bands release demos after a full length is released. I've noticed that some demos are being tagged with PROD. I have been undoing that until a consensus is reached here. I am not over exagerating when I say there are hundreds of demo album pages on wikipedia. The time it took to create those pages ammounts to something quite substantial. And, if anything, look at the fact that a demo album is still an album. If this is an encyclopedia the band would have a listing for it, and it's releases. A demo is an official release. I don't like the idea of having pages for bootlegs, but a demo is essential. For example, the demo Go Fuck Your Jewish "God" by Watain started the band. It's a relatively well known demo. (I have it, and I think it sucks, but it started the band) For fans of the music, and for people wanting to learn about the band, the demos tell the story. They show the progression of the band. Taking away a demo page gives a gap in the discography. Another example would be Behemoth's transition from black metal to blackened death metal/death metal. The early demos of the band were strictly black metal, but now, if you listen to them, they have changed completely. If you were un-educated towards that particular band, you would now know they were black metal. The demos need to be deemed notable if the band is notable, regardless of coverage. They tell a far too vital story for people needing the information. Undeath (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

and demos themselves are not usually released - they're also rarely notable

I have to disagree. Most demos are released, but as a limited edition. Being notable or not is the issue with wikipedia, and please see my above post in regards to that. Demos are essential to the story of how a band began, developed, and, in some cases, ends. Also, not all demos are rough tracks. The rehearsal demo from Dimmu Borgir is a great sounding tape. (one of my rarities in my collection) Undeath (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll type this out too while I remember. If a demo is non notable, why is an EP considered notable? Some EPs are basically a demo with a different standpoint to it. Also, a lot of full length albums by notable bands recieve hardly any coverage, but, in my opinion, that does not make them non notable. I whole hartedly agree that any official release, demo included, by a band that has established notability, should be deemed notable on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
'Demo' obviously has a different meaning in metal circles to elsewhere. Most demo recordings, in music generally, are not released nor intended for release - they're just (relatively) cheaply recorded versions of songs for the purpose of getting approval and budget from a record company to record them properly. If we're talking about self-released albums of studio recordings that a band have paid for themselves, then that's different because they are released, but I think there needs to be some evidence of independent coverage to have an article on them. Without such coverage, what can be said about the album apart from a tracklisting and release date without getting into WP:OR territory?--Michig (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't see that the "Jewish God" demo has much claim to notability under the guidelines on the project page. Why not create a "Demos" section in the Watain article and list them there? Grimhim (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at this. It is a demo released by a band called The Mandrake. It was released to the public, and this one did attract some reviews. However, at it's inception, the watain demo did not attract any attention. Today, though, it has. Just a simple google search shows this. I don't know if a separate version of notability should be established for metal bands. As of now, the way I see it, a metal band's version of a demo is a released piece of media that was not recorded at full potential. (i.e. funds aren't there) I don't know if we could amend the notability standards to incorporate a different section just for metal bands. I have many, many, many demos by metal bands. (over 1200) If other genres release things differently, I don't know, but when it comes to metal, and it's subgenres, (especially black and death), a demo is released. Undeath (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, this could be a new proposal. At Rate Your Music, a demo is normally falling under the category of an EP. This can be seen here. Maybe, and this is again me talking mainly about metal bands since they release their demos, we could put a longtype on the infobox that states demo. It would look something like this :
Go Fuck Your Jewish "God"
EP (Demo) by Watain
Released 1998
Genre Black metal
Length 18:47
Label Independent
Watain chronology
Go Fuck Your Jewish "God"
Black Metal Sacrifice
(1999)Black Metal Sacrifice1999

Once again, most metal bands do release their demos. (most release them on tapes, but some are on Cds or LPs) Undeath (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me a little is how broad our definition of 'demo' is. I think this should be worked out on a case-by-case basis- a lot of demos are never released or even mentioned to the public, and are strictly a behind-the-scenes thing. Conversely, other demos effectively become albums in their own right, and are only different because they were created in a slightly different way. I strongly oppose a blanket inclusion of demos, and feel that this should be done on a case-by-case basis. We do not have automatic notability of songs, music videos or even singles, and some demos are a single track, where as some singles (off the top of my head, Nine Inch Nails and Combichrist singles spring to mind) are as long as your average LP, and even longer than the shorter ones. As such, I do feel that a lot of the basically-an-album-but-sounds-more-grim-to-call-a-demo releases do deserve articles, but that many demos do not. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Undeath. Demos are not rarities in heavy metal music. The definition of demo provided in the wikipedia article on the subject does not really apply to heavy metal. We are not referring here to recordings that are made to get a recording deal with some labels - many heavy metal demos are already released on record labels. What we are referring to here are releases that are commercially distributed to the wider public. Like many other fans of heavy metal music, I have plenty of demo recordings in my collection. We can legitimately purchase many demo recordings of heavy metal bands when we can do no such thing for more mainstream pop or rock music. It is not uncommon to find professional reviews of demo recordings such as this or this. Look up a heavy metal band's discography on or offline and you'll find that their demos are generally listed alongside their albums or singles releases. Popular online databases like Rockdetector and Encyclopaedia Metallum list demo recordings. They even provide links for visitors to purchase the demo recordings where available. The latter even feature fan reviews of demo recordings. The fact that some of these demo recordings can attract multiple reviews from different fans indicate that they are quite commonplace in the heavy metal community. For instance, Pure Fucking Armageddon has nine different fan reviews here. I am fully aware that fan reviews are not reliable sources but that's not the point here. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that demo recordings in heavy metal are commonly treated as ordinary releases.
  • Other than semantics and length, there's really not much of a difference between a self-released album and a self-released demo for heavy metal. If a band only has self-released recordings, then they are probably not notable enough for wikipedia. But if a band is notable, then wikipedia policy suggests that their all their previous self-released albums may be treated as notable as well - so why not, as Undeath suggests, their self-released demos when these are commonly treated as normal, ordinary releases? The thing to remember here, to emphasise again and again, is that we're not referring to the sort of demo recordings that one find in other genres of music that are never intended to be commercially distributed to the public but only shopped around across record labels to get a recording deal. We are referring to demo recordings that are meant to be released to the public. In fact, many demo recordings in heavy metal are actually released on (mostly minor) record labels: eg. Hiidentorni, Obey the Will of Hell, Promo 2002, etc. Likewise, many demos that were originally self-released were later re-released by record labels: eg. Fhtagn nagh Yog-Sothoth, Satanas Tedeum, Epilogue, etc. Some bands even released demos even after they are already well-known (in their respective scenes): for instance, Einherjer and Horna.
  • Of course, if a band only has a demo recording, then they would not be notable for wikipedia. A band with multiple albums released might not be notable either. But if a band is notable, then policy here on wikipedia indicates that all the previous albums that they have released are similarly notable. What Undeath is suggesting here is that we extend this policy to cover the demo recordings for heavy metal bands because unlike other genres of music, demo recordings of heavy metal bands are commonly treated as normal, ordinary releases. I do believe it would be pointless having an article for a demo - or even an album - if all we can have is just a track listing but if (verifiable) information can be written about the release, then it really should not matter whether it was commercially released as an album, single, EP or demo. As long as it is commercially distributed. I would suggest then a rewording somewhere along the line of In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released recordings may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia if there are sufficient verifiable information to expand the article beyond a mere track listing. I feel that it should not matter what format these recordings are nor should it matter whether they were commercially successful or not. I feel that the only thing that should matter, as long as the band is notable, is that the recording is commercially released and that there is sufficient verifiable information that can be written about the recording. We should not have to demonstrate that the demo recordings from these heavy metal bands are notable in the same way that we should not need to demonstrate that album recordings from the same bands are notable. That's my two cents. --Bardin (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I strongly oppose both suggested changes to the WP:MUSIC criteria, and believe others are strongly exaggerating the notability of these demos - most only have a limited run of 100-200 copies. I'd also welcome the input of other editors here, as opposed to only a handful. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Important here, I think, is the opening sentence of the section: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." That general notability guideline says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." If it meets that guideline, it doesn't matter if it's a demo or an album. As the current album guideline says, demos "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." If it doesn't meet that guideline, it doesn't matter if it's a demo or an album. "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." A change to the album guidelines to grant official releases of notable bands blanket approval would need to either remove or modify that opening sentence, as otherwise the requirement for independent, reliable sourcing is the base test for everything. (And I really think that a change of that magnitude would need to be publicized at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remember that not all full-length albums recieve their share of coverage. For example, when Horna released Kohti Yhdeksän Nousua, it attracted no attention at all. It wansn't until their second album was there any information available. And, even if demos are limited in production, they still are a production of the band. If the band is notable, then each and every work by the band should be notable. It's that way for authors, why shouldn't it be that way for bands? Also, I just wanted to state this again, In the metal world, a demo is normally not a collection of songs not intended for a release. They are "rough" because of the money issue. Most, if not all, metal demos are released through the band's own finances.Undeath (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not that way for authors. Wikipedia:Notability (books) lists the specific circumstances for which books are considered notable. Point #5 is a special allowance, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable", and it is illuminated by a footnote that says, "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." This is not going to apply to the vast majority of authors. It wouldn't apply to most musicians, either. Otherwise, the criteria for books is (1) multiple, non-trivial, independent sourcing (with at least some intended for general audience); (2) major literary award; (3) adaptation into motion picture or nationally televised form; or (4) Subject of instruction at multiple schools. The book guideline also indicates that "In some situations, where the book itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I still think that if the band is notable, then the works by the band are notable. A demo, if released, is basically an EP minus the funding. I think, that if a demo is released, especially in the metal genre/the metal sub genres, and the band is notable, then the demo is notable. Most of, if not all of, the metal bands here that have released demo albums have some sort of coverage on that demo. It just takes some digging. I'd be happy to find sources for the ones that need them. But, if it is a valid release, if there is proof of it's release, then it should have it's own article. Horna is a great example. They released demos even after their first release. In the metal world, a demo is basically a non-record label funded album. I might put a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to change the wording for a blanket proposal. I do believe that if the band has been deemed notable, then their releases are automatically notable, regardless of individual coverage. Undeath (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
That would definitely be a matter for WP:VPR, then, as it would be quite a change from existing practice. You might want to put a note there drawing attention to the discussion here? Although given the length of the discussion, I'd be inclined to create a subheader. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a new suggestion. I think it is very logical and could be very satisfactory for both sides: A demo is not notable, unless it contains one or more songs that have not been released another way (studio album, compilation). This just keeps all the "notable" demos, and blocks the "non-notable" ones. I hope this helps.--  LYKANTROP  17:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel the criteria needs changing, and am in agreement with what Moonriddengirl has said. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I pretty much agree with Moonriddengirl too - there's no consensus that every recording (or every album, or every single) by a notable band can be assumed to be notable, so there's certainly no consensus for every (or any) demo (in any sense of the word) to be notable. If there's multiple independent sources on it, go ahead and make an article, there will be a consensus to keep it, regardless of if it's a "demo" in any sense. Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favour of applying notability to all officially released albums by notable artists. However, as noted above, this has been discussed at length but was opposed by many editors. The suggestion we're discussing is really a resurrection and extension of just that issue: (a) to deem as notable all albums by notable artists and (2) include demo albums within that policy. So long as consensus on the first issue is lacking, there can't be a change to the second issue. My vote, however, would be to support a change to deem as notable all official releases by notable artists, but oppose a change to deem as notable all demo albums by notable artists. Demo albums would need to be established as notable only by sufficient independent coverage. Grimhim (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea. Suddenly, we'll get thousands of articles on all the pathetic singles that never charted that a lot of bands release. I may support all official, full-length releases receiving articles (provided there is at least some information on them, probably not counting limited editions- I haven't fully thought this through) but trying to squeeze the guidelines to get articles on obscure and unimportant releases (any genuinely important release will have received coverage) is a bad idea. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Page break

  • How about a new wording to my original proposal. Demo albums are considered notable if they contain tracks that were not released on a full length album. Undeath (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No. No sort of album gets special allowance to have an article written. All albums must meet The requirement to have independent reliable coverage. Until this changes, demo albums (whatever that means for any given genre) are no more or less notable than any other type of album. And since you asked, your latest request doesn't make sense at all. Some band on the edge of notability gets an article. There is no press on any of their three lackluster albums, but one of them was a demo which had several songs that weren't good enough to be remade for one of their "real" albums, so that one gets an article? Besides all that, how do you define a demo album? -Freekee (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
A demo album, as define by me, is an album that lacked sufficient funds to be made into a studio album. I.e., the band did not have enough money to release a pro printed cassette, cd, or other format nor did they require the funds to record their music professionally. Honestly, if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, then each album, no matter of coverage, should have it's own page if the band is notable. The albums describe the band/gives the person seeking information answers. Let me explain. If someone knew about a band, but didn't know the name of the band, but knew the album, they could look up the album to find the band. If they did wanted to find an album by a certain band, and they knew the band, but they did not know the album, and there was no page for the album/no link to it from the band page, then they will not find out about the album from the encyclopedia. I know that might have got a bit strange to read, but try and stick with it. Undeath (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You can still redirect the title of any recording to the article on the band that made it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
A demo tape, by definition, is a demonstration of a bands music create for that purpose. It isn't an album. Notability isn't inherited so we cannot deem all albums notable unless an artist is of sufficient importance. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a directory of releases ( is for that). A cassette that a band once gave away at a gig can hardly have unquestionable notability. --neon white talk 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Seconding both Tuf-Kat and Neon white here. :) Redirecting is a good option. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to state that irrelevant of an artist's notability, all albums are not deemed notable as "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines". LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Seconding what has been said before by Moonriddengirl and others. I'd like to add: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to build a database of all recordings that bands have ever made. Leave that to allmusic and others. The recordings/releases should first be described in the band's article - supposing they are relevant of course -, and the search box will enable users to find them there, if they don't know the band's name. Only when an album has been discussed in detail in independent sources, so that enough material is available, we should have a separate article about the album. It is often assumed that enough sources are available for full-length released albums of notable bands. (Seeing that so many album articles are unsourced, however, I'm not actually convinced that the assumption is reasonable.) But for demo tapes that were never released - for lack of funds or whatever - you'd have to give a very convincing argument to show that substantial independent sources are present, so many that the material can't be covered in the band article. The best, of course, would be to name the sources. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a somewhat older topic but this seems to mainly be about metal/death metal and how "demos" are different. I would disagree with much of this topic, as far a demos and what is what. Overall a demo is something that an artist did in hopes of getting gigs, reviews and a record deal. That still holds true except now, because of the internet, almost any type of recording can be placed out there for the masses. Now there are "demos" that are nothing more than someone signing karaoke, and if that is the case it should not be mentioned, or allow someone to get a Wicki entry. Also a normal (professional) demo was only a few songs, a "three song demo" was most common as that is what A&R people request. However it is also common for an artist, once they are signed, to have to present songs for their albums - or "demo albums" - to the the label. While these are still demos they are often more polished than basic demos recorded pre-signing and certainly not, as described by some above, called "demos" because there was not "enough money to release a pro printed cassette, cd, or other format nor did they require the funds to record their music professionally". Likewise to simply push aside a recording because it is called a "demo" is not looking at a full picture. A great number of bands have been signed and the resulting release may become the bands "demo" for other countries. Also recording of one song may end up on a regional compilation, however at that point few people would call the track a "demo" as it is released even though it may actually have been a demo or recorded in the same manner as that artist's demo.
Outside the scope of only metal and/or death metal many recordings that were "demos" have turned up on legit releases. Dramarama released their entire demo album for "Stuck in Wonderamaland" under their pseudonym name The Bent Backed Tulips, first in Europe and then in the U.S. The Who have seen a certain amount of demos eventually released, especially demos from the Lifehouse rock opera. Christina Aguilera, who had recorded an albums worth of material before she was signed, was flying high on her hits when Just Be Free was released, under the threats of lawsuits. My point here is that as long as there have been "tape traders" an artists demos/unreleased studio tracks will find their way out and it is not exclusive to one genre. Also we live in a day and age where one can listen to songs from almost any artist, at any time, directly from that artist. Some of these are clearly "demos" while others are fully produced tracks that are simply put up on an artists website or myspace for fans to listen too. These tracks may or may not be on an upcoming album. Or, if the band in not signed, these could be tracks that could be considered "demos" however are being released to the public simply because the act isn't signed. I would go back to the original concept because overall a "demo", in any genre, is not in itself cause for notation. But I also tend to agree, genres aside, that in this day and age where "downloads" or "listens" can add up perhaps what makes a band "notable" should be slightly expanded to include things such as online sales via Snocap and IndiePendance Music and listens/downloads via an artists or labels myspace site. Soundvisions1 (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Record labels

Any guidelines for notability of recording companies?--  LYKANTROP  13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, they'd go under WP:ORG, but there is a hint of what makes a notable independent label: "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Osvaldo Barrios

Can someone look at this article, and comment on whether Barrios meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AMG and the Times have him writing music for that horrid 1988 film, Vibes.[3][4] Certainly not something to be proud of, and only a minor indication of notability, IMO.
I don't know any Spanish, but it looks like he co-authored a book that's now out of print.[5] Again, minor notability points there.
Other than that, I see some coverage that might cobble together for a notability argument. I find him playing a lot in Atlanta (which seems moot) with some gigs across the U.S., but no coverage of a tour, per se. Since much of it is in Spanish, I would want someone who knows the language to see the sources. I don't see enough in English.
A few of the mentions don't really support notability. When a flyer promoting an event merely mentions a name in passing as one of the people there, it doesn't seem to indicate we're talking about someone people would actually be hoping to see specifically.[6][7] A Miami New Times article doesn't seem to think he's anyone worth saying anything about.[8] I found nothing mentioning the "2007 Coca-Cola Artist of the Year" award.
I don't see notability, but a few sources might convince me. Looks like some COI in the creation. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea!!!!!

what about creating a template-like thing to Bands.I mean there is an automatic thing in the "Person" article (age --), so why don't you create a (active for -- years) automatic thing to "Band" articles?(Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

That's an interesting idea. You might want to propose it at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, though. Since this is the talk page for the notability guideline, it may not be widely monitored by the members of that project. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Strengthen wording?

Right now the album section reads "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." People are using the "may" there as an excuse to create individual articles for every last album an artist has recorded, even if all it has is an infobox and a tracklist. This, to me, does not add to or improve the value of Wikipedia at all, and such articles are no better than a catalog listing. I think the section needs to be worded better, so as not to give carte blanch to infinite album creation. Yes, there is the line at the end that "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 people immediately pounce on the "space permitting" as an excuse for why such articles can't be merged into discography (even if the artist has less than 10), and tracklistings are generally not allowed in discographies and artist pages, so people don't want to merge. So how can we reword this to better reflect that no, every album doesn't get an article just to be able to put its tracklist somewhere and just because the artist is notable. Instead, an album should have an article if it has the necessary coverage and information to provide more information about it that just release and tracklist, such as production and reception information. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section starts off with "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." That incorporates WP:N by reference, and WP:N says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The albums have received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then I would guess there would usually be enough material to write more than a tracklisting? If all the coverage that exists on an album is a tracklist, then it would arguably not be "significant." Do you think that incorporation by reference is insufficient? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think most people skip the "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." part or they presume that the line stating "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" negates it. In a way, they do seem contradictory, as the second does not reemphasize that it must meet WP:N with significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see two quick & easy ways to address that. First, the opening sentence might be revised as so: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Explicitly incorporating the language should give it more impact. Alternatively, the existing prose could be re-arranged: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia, but all articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." I prefer the former if either were to be implemented, since the latter gets a bit convoluted. :) I don't believe either represents instruction creep or significantly adds risk of TLDR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think the former one is the better of the two, and makes things clearer. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Since it's only linguistic and doesn't change the meaning of the policy, I've been bold. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Emo as a B Class Article

Emo is currently assessed as B-Class, but it would not seem to meet the necessary criteria. The article is a solid length and reasonably well written, but has an enormous amount of unreferenced claims. I would change the rating myself (the article seems more in line with C-Class criteria) but I'm not a member of any music related wikiprojects so I'm not sure it'd be appropriate. Aurum ore (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to bring that one up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. I'm not a member of that project, either, or I'd be happy to help out. But this particular talk page is for the notability guideline, so I'm not sure how many members of that specific project are hanging out here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reissue label

I have concerns about a label, Proper Records, which appears to be a reissue-only label. I am uncertain of its inherent notability, as its notability is dependent on the significance of certain artists' releasing material through them. Any guidance here would be very helpful! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as this guideline goes, independent record labels are notable if they have "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". This one has been around since 1996 and seems to have some notable artists in their roster. But while that might make qualify them as "one of the more important indie labels" (and it might not; the guideline doesn't address whether re-issues count) in terms of evaluating the notability of their artists, it doesn't address at all their notability in terms of deserving a separate article. This notability guideline says its topics include "artists and bands, albums, and songs." Record labels are presumably still governed by WP:ORG, which indicates (as you know) that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources."
I took the liberty of changing your single source to a "primary source" tag, since those are useless in asserting notability. I did not change your notability tag, but I would suggest you consider changing it. I really thing WP:ORG is the governing guideline in this instance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Change to notability tag made to ORG. Thanks for your input! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you asked. I didn't even realize you could specify a notability guideline with the notability tag. :) Learn something new every day! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Does a promotional single get rated under WP:MUSIC#Albums or WP:MUSIC#Songs? --The Guy complain edits 02:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen them listed at WP:ALBUMS, but given the guidelines I suspect they belong at WP:SONG. WP:SONG hosts the single infobox, for instance. Unless it's long-play, I'd tag it {{songs}} and request assessment there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Clarifying "notable single"

A common disagreement on Wikipedia when it comes to song articles is whether or not a particular record is notable as a single. Part of the current policy states that a song must have charted in order for it to be considered notable. I am seeking comments in regard to clearly defining the term "chart" / "charting" / "charted." Working in the music industry as a Program Director of a Top 40 radio station, I know from personal experience that the industry-accepted definition of the word "chart" is a position of #40 or better on either the Mediabase 24/7 or BDS airplay charts, which - in turn - feed data to Radio and Records for their R&R charts. The Hot 100, while useful, takes downloads into effect for its chart. I'm bringing this up because it is not uncommon for a song to be a highly-downloaded record, but never be released by the record label to radio for airplay (at least, officially). Also, it is not uncommon for a high-profile album to be released and see each song on that album be downloaded by digital music store users as they purchase that album... which inherently throws off the numbers on the Hot 100, making it seem like a record was more popular than it might have actually been.

My proposal is this - Effective at the conclusion of this RfC, the term "chart" - when used to define notablity - should relate only to airplay and not downloads. Official charts, to define airplay levels, should be Mediabase 24/7, BDS, or R&R in the United States and the corresponding national airplay charts of those countries outside of the United States. --Winger84 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Specifically, the guideline says, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." It doesn't say that they are, but that they probably are. This is not an establishing criteria but a general rule of thumb. As it notes in the section above, notability of songs & albums is governed by the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. If a song has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it's notable. If it doesn't, it isn't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct, but the purpose of this RfC is to clearly define the term "chart", or in relation to policy, "rank." Song X "ranking" #99 on (insert chart here) does not make it notable, but Song Y "ranking" #40 on that same chart would make it notable, under what I'm proposing. Again, I'm seeking to make the airplay charts the key, effectively eliminating the Hot 100 / etc as charts to be used for determining notability. Their use as measures of popularity is not in dispute, however. This is an issue of "notability" verus "popularity." --Winger84 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you, then, actually seeking to remove the governance of WP:N over songs? As the guideline currently stands, a song that doesn't chart in any way may be notable if sufficient sources are available. A song that charts at #40 is not if (unlikely as it is) sources aren't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No, what I'm proposing actually strengthens WP:N, as it applies to songs. Reliable sources would still need to exist and be cited for any song that meets the "charting" requirement that this RfC seeks to enact. If a song does not chart, under the new definition, it would exist (if, in fact, it did) as a redirect to the associated album and any notable information about that song (using the example below of an artist being sued over a song) would be covered by a brief mention in the album's article, rather than an entirely new article being created solely on the basis of that fact. --Winger84 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well, in terms of practical application, it seems like mediabase is not a searchable database, as Billboard is. (Perhaps it is for registered users; perhaps it is, but the search bar is buried). That would seem to make it less than ideal You don't identify what BDS and R&R are, but I presume you mean Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems and If so, are these searchable? How would users verify standing on these charts? In terms of on-Wiki applications, how would this affect, say, articles like Beer Barrel Polka or Helter Skelter (song) or Once in a Lifetime (Talking Heads song)? Are there real world examples of songs which meet the current notability guidelines (with significant coverage) that would not qualify? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally I thought notability was defined by multiple and non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Not a pop chart. RFerreira (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that if there is anything that has to do with the single as facts, charting, etc. There should be an article for it. Like I created an article for "Playing with Fire" by Lil Wayne because he was sued for the record and I thought that was good fact. Also, I feel that you must have reliable sources, which has been a rule.

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many songs which are very notable that never saw any chart action, for one reason or another. I don't think it is smart to rely too heavily on where any particular song was ranked on a national chart - and I think giving specific weight to airplay alone isn't a good idea. As radio formats are more and more fragmented and, in general, contain a smaller and smaller number of songs, it would seem to me that sales would more clearly define the "popularity" of a song, whether physical or digitally. Still, I think this is a grey area: both sales and airplay are important, and in some cases, a single seeing little or no chart action can be notable when put within the scope of the discography of a notable artist. Some very notable bands, singers, etc. have released singles that bombed, yet it makes no sense to delete a song article because it peaked at #41-or-below when all of their other singles charted higher and have an article. Additionally, I feel uneasy about defining the notability of a song based solely on the airplay component charts in the United States, particularly as other high-profile charts are based on sales not airplay, i.e. UK Singles Chart. - eo (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it has always seemed to me that much of WP:MUSIC creates artificial notability. Every album, every single, every potential album, every potential single, ends up with an article. If there isn't significant coverage in independent, reliable sources what can we really say about a single/album? Song names, length, unsourced release dates... basic catalog stuff. We quickly degenerate into discussions about a song on a band's poorly documented forthcoming album that might be a single because KROQ played it, so it might be released, so it might chart, so let's give it an article full of cruft. IMO, no substantial coverage = no article, substantial coverage = article PERIOD. Anything else invites articles about pebbles stuck in my sneaker that, gosh, might be notable someday. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Songs such as "Playing with Fire" by Lil Wayne should have articles. Poorly documented album that might be released shouldn't have articles. Just a release date is not good enough. I believe if a album track charts then it deserves an article with logical information. The track shouldn't not appear in the singles chronology but over excited fan will add it. Charmed36 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I've removed the RFC here, as the user has retired. It can be restored, of course, if he returns. Or if somebody else wants to champion his proposal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)