I could boost the number of music-related articles I handle in the speedy deletion queue if I had a list of "notable" labels, per: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." List of record labels isn't a list of notable labels (in this sense), is it? - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say unless a label has two or more notable artists (circular references disallowed), it's not notable. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone like to make a list of the labels with two or more notable artists? If we had that list, then the people who patrol the speedy queue could handle a lot more requests. (Of course, if you guys would rather make these calls, I don't mind bringing the labels I don't know over here.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to an A7 speedy. All it takes to avoid an A7 speedy is a claim of importance. If an article claims the song or group is important, it has to be PRODed or taken through AFD. AFD is the only time where meeting this guideline is going be be discussed.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "I've released my album on the Dogcrap label" an assertion of notability or importance? How about "We're the greatest band in the world"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither counts. An assertion of importance is an assertion that, if supported sufficiently to meet WP:V, would meet the GNG or an SNG, like WP:BAND. An assertion that a single has charted staves off speedy; an assertion that a single has been published does not. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Agreed. I don't really have a point of view on this, I only want to find and execute consensus on how Wikipedians want A7 to be handled for band-related articles, because they're the most frequent type of A7 article, the hardest to make the call on, and the kind of article that it's hardest to get help with by asking around. If you can give me and others a list of which labels count as an assertion of whatever needs to be asserted, it would make life a lot easier for people at AfD, since not as many articles would get dumped there by mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question with regards to the notability of netlabels. Netlabels are fast becoming a popular way for musicians to promote and establish their music to more listeners. A page was set up for "Rack and Ruin records", I am the site owner, and had no idea - I just came to add this today, only to find that the page was created, and later removed. Two of the artists "Dublin Duck Dispensary" and "The Macadamia Brothers" have Wikipedia entries, and the label is one of the most active netlabels around today (with over 130 releases), our artists/tracks have appeared on radio shows, podcasts, blogs, physical magazines, and even short film soundtracks.

At present, Allmusic does not list netlabels - only labels that produce physical goods, this format is new, but highly exciting and I feel that it does have a place on Wikipedia. I wondered what could be done about retrieving the said article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynci (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was here, discussion got sidetrack'd. OK, here's a potential problem. Suppose:

• There are artists A, B, C ... G, all of which have released 2 or more albums on label X.
• None of them satisfy any other notability criteria.
• There are no other artists on label X.

This quickly becomes circular logic - either:

• all of A-G are notable, because they are on an important indie label; X is an important indie label, because there are a number of notable artists on it

or:

• none of A-G are notable, because they are not on an important indie label; X is not an important indie label, because none of the artists on it are notable

Now, the most obvious solution would be to tighten the criteria so that an important indie label is required to have artists on it that are notable thru some other criteria. But I'm not sure if this is what should be done. 2-3, 8-12 are very tight criteria; while 6 and 7 are potentially capable of just reiterating the logic loop (e.g. artist A is a member of band H, and band B features member I! But H and I are part of a similar ambiguously notable setup of artists H-O on label Y…) That leaves 1 and 4, and the latter of these is basically a stricter variant of the former.

Would requiring criterion #1 (or stricter) from its artists be an OK definition for "important indie label"? Or is there any possibility that a cluster of artists that hasn't even been covered in independant media could be notable enuff? If yes, what specific extra conditions should be specified then?

I can provide a variety of real-life examples (ambient netlabels, generally speaking) if you think this question is too academical.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about 1-3 or 1-4? Even if a label has bands that meet #2 somehow without making #1, they'd seem like a notable label. I can see your point about circularity.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all falls back to WP:V. If there are no independent, reliable secondary sources that attest to any of this, the house of cards collapses. You can't be a "major label" if no news outlet has ever written about you or your artists. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. But can you be an "important indie label"? Either criterion #1 is identical to verifiability, in which case it should go without saying, or it isn't, in which case we might run into this loophole.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have run into it today while addressing copyright concerns. Are The Sissies notable? They have two albums on Plan-It-X Records. Are Plan-It-X Records notable? They release albums by bands like The Sissies. Maybe they are; maybe they aren't. I haven't got time to investigate. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google News shows nothing in mainstream media, except for coverage about one incident where a band's sticker caused a bomb scare. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The label article has no sources but there seems to be enough coverage (Google News) to indicate that the label is notable. Does that mean it's important enough for criterion 5? Maybe - it's been around for about 15 years with lots of releases. I would like to see some coverage of The Sissies for that article to be convincing regarding notability - we need to use WP:BAND as a rule of thumb but add our own judgment - it doesn't work if we try to follow it to the letter.--Michig (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this one make me question criterion 5 altogether. Of course, with niche music, it might be very hard to document notability in mainstream media. Plan-It-X does seem to have coverage at blog site http://www.punknews.org/. That site publishes stories submitted by the public and notes: "Don't worry if the label is not listed. You can submit the story and we'll add the logo later." But maybe these bands truly are notable in the niche community. I don't know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded, so I AfD'ed it. We'll see what the community thinks of it. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking like there are likely enough sources for this. I'd say it's probably sufficiently notable, and it looks to be SNOWing keep, which I won't protest since it is garnering footnotes to places other than the label's own website, if slowly. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why it doesn't seem to be mentioned. Is it just assumed that WP doesn't suffer from fans of obscure people inserting them? Peter jackson (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria apply to composers and musicians of all genres, including classical - other genres are not mentioned either, as the criteria are not genre-specific.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time is the great sieve. Either something has been written about in multiple reliable secondary sources by now, or it has been forgotten. Not so with most of today's forgettable music. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the notability criteria apply to all types of music, but those criteria are already given in the main notability page. The purpose of this page is to give more detail, which it does entirely in terms of pop jargon: bands, songs, singles, albums.

Actually, people are still writing new classical music, & rediscovering forgotten stuff. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, winning a competition is a criteria tailored to classical musicians. There aren't any major international competitions, for, say, bass guitar. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a good deal of my work was reverted despite the fact that it was intended to be a clarification of language and not a policy change. Could we have some identification of what, in particular, was objectionable?

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. First of all, I reverted this edit as the change made would allow a label with no releases by notable artists to be considered sufficient to confer notability via album releases on another artist. We discussed this recently and agreed on the wording.

2. The changes here removed the important clarification that failing WP:MUSIC is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion and that any assertion of importance or significance is sufficient to make speedy via A7 inappropriate. Such inappropriate speedy-tagging of music-related articles is a constant problem.

2a. The change also suggests that musicians who "only have a local following" are not notable, which could well conflict with the agreed notability criterion of "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city".

2b. This edit also removed the clarification that this guideline is a "rule of thumb" rather than a set of rules that should be slavishly followed, which also addressed a common problem.

3. This edit substantially changed the section about "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" to only include press releases and material published by the artist(s) or associates, thus suggesting that interviews with no independent content other than simple questions could demonstrate notability.

This guideline page is very widely used in deletion discussions (in arguments both for and against deletion) and changes that could give weight to arguments in those discussions really need to be agreed via consensus before being made.--Michig (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: I refactored Michig's responses to include numberings so that we can discuss them in shorthand

My responses:

1. I don't see how that change makes that difference. Multiple notable artists are required by both wordings.

2. I view this as a desired change, but you knew that based on our recent disagreement. That is, asserting something that meets one or more parts of this SNG is not too high a bar to set, and deleting articles that don't even meet that low bar is a good thing.

2a. I can't see this being an issue, with criterion 7 being intact. If anything, criterion 7 sets the minimum threshold for area notability, which is just fine, and the introduction specifies that things below that threshold don't merit inclusion.

2b. Not sure why that's all that important, given that WP:IAR is still policy.

3. That might be a problem, but I think it can probably be rectified by a rewording. I don't see it as a particularly large one, since AfD'ers can suss out RS'ing, and anything without editorial oversight wouldn't pass muster on that count.

Thanks for providing a prompt and detailed set of issues that you perceive in these changes. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 1. This is a subtle change, but if several artists on a label can be demonstrated to be notable, that is slightly diferent to the whole roster being notable, which is how the change could be interpreted.

Re. 2. The change is slightly inconsistent with WP:CSD policy, and if someone comes along with an article that asserts importance in a way not covered by these guidelines, the article should not be speedied. Criteria for notability and criteria for speedy deletion are two separate sets of issues, for a very good reason.

Re. 2b. The old wording was important because many editors often fail to use these guidelines simply as a rule of thumb. Given that some AFD discussions only have a handful of contributors, a few editors failing to understand this distinction can give us serious problems.

Re 3. It is probably best to discuss the sort of coverage that would/would not be accepted as significant independent coverage and spell this is out as far as is possible in the wording of this criterion. The revised wording excludes anything not issued by artist(s) or their agent. If we don't feel that we can be this prescriptive, let's leave this as a more general statement.--Michig (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of my changes was to make the policy more understandable. The problem that I see when I perform page deletions based on tags placed by others, is that people who come here just to add their favorite band to the encyclopedia don't understand the policy after reading this page. Therefore, they struggle unnecessarily. A major goal of my current participation at Wikipedia is to make it more welcoming to newcomers, which is why I work in deletion -- often the first place newcomers get stuck. Broadly, I'm more sympathetic to the argument that we are now deleting too much stuff than I am to the argument that AFD is too much work, and so it's certainly not my goal to expand the speedying of music articles. On the other hand, the policy page serves newcomers as well as administrators, and having a bunch of counterexamples to try to rein in the administrators also serves to give false hope to the newcomers creating an article on their favorite band.

The two major misunderstandings that I see among newcomers who write band articles are these: 1) they believe that the "played in two or more independently notable ensembles" and "had two or more independently notable members" provisions carry far more weight than they do or should; and 2) they come away from the page thinking that they only need to satisfy enough criteria to save their article from a speedy when in fact the "speedy or not?" question is merely one of venue and process. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I haven't seen as many disagreements about criteria 6 (two notable members) since the last wording change. That's simply anecdotal, of course, but I'd like to think the wording change we hashed out here a few months back may have helped.

As far as speedy deletions being too much work, that's really beyond the scope of this page. What I can tell you is that I often see 100-200 pages pending speedy deletion, and typically 2-10% of them are bands, the same percent athletes, and a somewhat larger number other people tagged for A7. It is relatively rare that I find a page tagged for A7 that clearly asserts notability meeting any SNG, but many have some sort of assertion of importance not rising to the level of GNG or an SNG were they sourced--people more so than bands, interestingly enough, hence my favoring a bright line of an assertion of GNG/SNG level notability for retention. 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I regularly find articles on bands/musicians at C:CSD that with a few minutes searching online can be sourced to a level where deletion at AFD is unlikely. The two biggest problems I see are editors who believe that a band merits an article simply because they exist (I doubt that many of these editors read this page before creating such articles), and editors who seem to search out as many articles as possible to tag for deletion, without considering the potential for those articles to be improved. Editors should only have to put some basic assertion of importance or significance into articles to save them from speedy deletion. The guideline under discussion is here to be applied after those articles that have no hope of reaching an acceptable standard have been filtered out by speedy deletion. If we change the guideline to allow adminstrators to summarily delete articles that they think do not meet a notability criterion, that is both in contradiction of the speedy deletion policy and detrimental to the project. It is common in AFDs for an article to be kept because there is consensus that the subject meets the notability criteria, despite an individual administrator believing that it doesn't - such articles that would be kept at AFD could get deleted by these admins if the revised wording was followed. The problem of editors citing one criterion such as C6 as a reason that their article should be kept are misunderstanding the fact that the guideline is a rule of thumb and that (often arguably) passing one criterion does not automatically mean that the subject is notable, which I believe was clearer in the pre-changed wording. --Michig (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If the speedy userification tool ever gets developed, I'd be happy to use that on A7's of all stripes. Failing that, though, there's simply no way with the current administrator staffing (such as it is) to go through {{db-band}}-tagged articles with that much thoroughness and keep the speedy deletion queue short enough that other issues can be dealt with in a timely manner. I wonder if it's possible for someone to code a speedy disposition timer, to see how long it takes articles to get dispositioned? I know I've seen articles left for more than 24 hours on a couple of occasions. Increasing the burden on speedy deletion evaluation simply increases the risk to Wikipedia from defamation and copyvios, which I judge a much larger risk than potentially losing an article on a band that will be eventually written again if it is truly notable--WP:TIND applies to articles, not to the regulatory world in which we live. I realize this may range a bit, but I'm not advocating "WP:BAND or dustbin" simply because I don't like music, but because I view it the lesser of two evils. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of the cleanup tags was to deal with that. The idea was that something that didn't get cleaned up in a reasonable period of time would be speedied or go to AFD. This line of reasoning was a victim of its own success, because articles needing cleanup arrive at a greater rate than responsible editors can perform a thorough analysis as you describe. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm not an adminsitrator, but I do spend a lot of time checking articles tagged for speedy deletion to see if they can be rescued, which is probably a lot more time than it takes an admin to go through deleting them - I know some admins do some checking before deleting but others don't. I don't see the backlog of articles tagged for speedy deletion as particularly problematic, nonetheless, and certainly not as problematic as the speedy deletion of articles on notable subjects, and the discouraging effect that this can have on new editors. I agree that articles with copyvio or other legal implications should be dealt with quickly but this could surely be achieved by simply flagging these particular CSD categories for more urgent attention. An article tagged with A7/db-band hanging around for 24 hours or longer really isn't a problem. Discouraging inappropriate speedy-tagging would be another approach to reducing the workload. This article on this band, for instance was tagged with an A7 within 20 minutes of being created (I just removed the tag), and Quasar (band) would probably also have a good chance of being rescued. --Michig (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]