Albums
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

	Songs
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Propose Remove "Has won or placed in a major music competition." from the list of signs that a subject is notable.

This opens the door to a lot of non-notable subjects. Every contestant from every season of every televised music competition could argue notability on a few references and this guideline. At best this guideline is superflous at worse its an argument for circumventing WP:GNG Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how would that be? In order to prove that they won or placed in said competition, they would need sources saying so, would they not? None of the criteria are intended to circumvent GNG, but rather give indications of when a subject is likely to be discussed in reliable sources. In my experience, the charting guideline has been much more problematic than the competition guideline, anyway.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take 12th place in season 7 of american idol. Someone writes a stub about me. this guideline says I'm notable even if the only coverage I've ever received is verifiable evidence I was 12th place on season 7 of american idol. Arguing that it hasn't been a problem is a cop out, if you want to be a reactionary editor go to AFD not discuss guidelines. this standard sets a lower bar than GNG since it doesn't require significant coverage to place in a major music competition. look at average American idol contestant article it's not encyclopedic it's just indiscriminate information about contestants who are deemed notable by this guideline. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: While I agree, nowhere in the guideline suggests (and even some of the verbiage seems to contradict) the view that this guideline is for identifying potentially notable subjects within the scope of WP:GNG and not providing alternate sources of notability in opposition to the WP:GNG. Perhaps an amendment regarding that point is in order? --Izno (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, I think a caveat explaining that point would be a very good addition. In previous discussions regarding the music notability criteria, it always seems to be the consensus that the criteria are guidelines for when GNG can reasonably be assumed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support additional or modified wording to that end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never agreed with the "placed" aspect of this guideline. It's never served the notability guidelines well. Mkdw^talk 05:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Proposal makes no sense. Not every televised music competition is a major music competition, and the majority of contestants on such programmes do not place anyway. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That I think raises a more relevant point - what are we defining as a major music competition? Something like Eurovision would definitely be a major competition. American Idol I think would be as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No evidence that this criterium has ever been problematic. "Every contestant from every season of every televised music competition could argue notability" is a personal consideration which is way different from what is actually written in the guideline. I don't remember cases in which the criterium was misused, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cavarrone 10:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Tell me about a case where the criterium was needed? the argument " it's not bad so keep it" is not impressive. Notability guidelines outside GNG either raise or lower the bar, this one lowers the bar. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as it prevent folks from nominating Eurovision winners or second/third-placed, it is useful. Yes, "it's not bad so keep it", we don't delete reasonable notability criteria just because some folks say they "lower the bar", YOU have the burden to prove that this criterium is/was so problematic as to be removed. And your argument that "Every contestant from every season of every televised music competition could argue notability" is not just not impressive, but highly misleading. Cavarrone 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's look at it this way. can you win a major music competition without receiving significant coverage. yes or no. I say you can because we turn Idol stubs into redirects. So your criteria is not in line with GNG. That's why we change it. If you want to argue that it's impossible to place in a major music competition without being notable just state that's your stance.Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've commented above, but am officially placing a vote now. My rationale is three-fold: 1. It is a stretch to read "major music competition" as "any televised music competition." In fact, below the criteria there is an italicized note which states, among other points, that "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable." (emphasis added) 2. Removing a criterion because it might be problematic is a slippery slope fallacy. If there are several actual cases given where this criterion was problematic, than an argument could be made for removal. 3. The intro for all the criteria says that satisfying the criteria listed may indicate notability. Which means that a subject could potentially meet even several of the criteria and still not be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• what a catch 22, "the law isn't problematic because it's the law" How can a guideline be problematic? people just follow it, why are there no arguments in afd about it? because its the guideline so those articles are immune for afd so they don't go there. like most SSG they are just used to lower standards for non encyclopedic content. If winning a contest was impossible without being notable there'd be no need for this guideline, the only reason it's used is to lower notability requirement. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of where it is being used to lower the notability requirement of GNG. In the case of criterion 2 for recordings, charting on a national music chart, there was a point where that guideline included genre-specific charts, and that was abused for notability claims. Something could chart at No. 34 on some genre chart and editors would claim that the work in question was now notable. The bit about genre charts had been added without clear consensus in the first place, and was ultimately removed. My question is thus: Are there similar cases of editors abusing criterion 9 for musicians and ensembles? Your objection: "How can a guideline be problematic? people just follow it, why are there no arguments in afd about it? because its the guideline so those articles are immune for afd so they don't go there." That is an unfalsifiable position. With that rationale, I could claim that the GNG are themselves too low a threshhold, and use the fact that people use those guidelines to support keeping an article in an afd as an example of how so many editors are allowing poor content just because the rules allow them to. What concrete reason, not based in hypotheticals or slippery-slope arguments, do we have to challenge this criterion? And keep in mind, the criterion is not an absolute bench-mark. As I noted in my comment immediately above, something can meet criterion 9 (or criterion 1, or 4, or 12, etc.) and still be deemed unreliable. So I really don't see the point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Haven't got much more to add myself, but I agree that this is a proposal searching for a problem that does not exist. Major music competitions, be them televised or not, generally get a lot of coverage, and those who obtain notable positions within the results will generally get coverage of their own. Bryce, I see you here again trying to stir up a storm for no good reason. Previously, it was "Criticism of" articles. Now it's this. Could you please stop looking for crusades to fight, and instead just edit Wikipedia normally? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Favor - I think there are great arguments on both sides of the question here. I come at it from perhaps a slightly different perspective. I was, until recently, pretty involved in the AfC process. In that area two of the biggest issues were of notability and advertising. Regarding notability, the two biggest issues were always the "genre charts" and "major competition winners or placers". And the folks who write these articles are avid fans of the folks they are writing about, so it is never simply, "except for the person being in the first Idol episode and not making it to the next round, there is no notable coverage...", it would almost always turn into an argument. In fact, it was one of the factors with my deciding to no longer be involved with AfC, it was too tiring and time consuming to attempt to explain to these editors, who simply wanted to argue their case. Onel5969 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be frank, how does that experience extend to "we must remove this clause"? There are rabid fanboys of anything. The existence of people wishing to promote musical acts (or anything) should not mean that we can no longer have an article on them. If the criteria is too woolly, it should be tightened, not removed altogether. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the air of frankness... let me give you an example. There are Grammy winners who do not get significant press coverage, usually in the more obscure categories, but sometimes even in the more significant (or "popular") ones as well. I accepted several of these, simply because they were Grammy winners, even though the other references were scant. However, in this day and age of reality awards shows, anyone who wins one of those contests always receives significant coverage, if nowhere else than in the industry trades. When a criteria must be tightened to the point where that criteria no longer is needed (because the person would qualify under simply GNG criteria), why have it? Onel5969 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because General is not specific. the standards set out in GNG (Significant, reliable, secondary, and independent) can use with clarification. In academics what constitutes independent? if a professor works for a university and writes a paper and another professor from the same university cites that work. is that independent? questions like that can be clarified in SSG. the point of SSG should be to clarify GNG not to circumvent.

• Favor removal Until and unless we have consensus for a precise definition of what is a "major music competition", this rule is functionally undefined; it opens the way to people arguing that any and every music competition is a 'major' competition, and hence that the people involved are notable. I've said it before: any rule that gives results that contradict WP:GNG is an incorrect rule, and will be overturned by the general Wikipedia readership in AfD discussions. We should not have rules where a large proportion of the supposedly 'notable' people would fail WP:GNG. LK (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per nom. If it is a "major award" the artist will be covered in point one, surely? And...let's be honest... nobody is entitled to a WP article without significant (or even semi-significant) independent coverage. Makes me wonder how many of the other points after No 1 can be removed too. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong remove Nmusic has rules that are some of the lowest bars for including articles on Wikipedia. This one as written is just ridiculous. Makes me think that music agents or publicists or something is hanging around here lowering the bar. It doesn't fit with the rest of the standards on Wikipedia. Remove it please. Darx9url (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove In practice, this has been used to fuel the Eurovision editing machine, which attempts to hold that each and every entry at each and every level of Eurovision is notable.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The pro-removal arguments hare are missing the point. If some editors are claiming non-major competitions as major, these can be dealt with by specifying these in the guideline. The problems with relying on significant coverage are firstly that it only really helps to write a more detailed article, and secondly that part of the guideline is often interpreted by (sometimes lazy and/or incompetent) editors as the whether or not significant coverage was found from a Google search. There are undoubtedly many major music competitions where due to the period or location in which they took place we will have great difficulty locating significant coverage from a Google search. As long as we can confirm that these are indeed major competitions, deleting articles purely based on the GNG would be stupid - evidence of notability should mean we cover a subject, the amount of verifiable content should guide us on whether this is in a standalone article or within an article on the competition. --Michig (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment response It is not up to pro-removal people to come up with ways to fix the rule. The onus is on pro-keep people to fix the rule, and to justify why it should be kept. Can you point to AFD arguments where a notable article would have been removed except for this rule? If it serves no function it should be removed, per WP:Avoid instruction creep. Darx9url (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone wishing to change a long-established guideline that clearly makes sense needs to demonstrate that the guideline is wrong, not simply that some poor editors are claiming minor contests as major. Someone who wins or places in a genuinely major contest is obviously suitable for inclusion, and nobody has yet come up with a good argument against that. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very simplistic view of the proposal. My support for the removal is based on that it adds nothing to the first guideline. If something has won a major award then it will pass GNG. All the discussed wording adds is wriggle room with what is "a major award." The guideline GNG doesn't need or deserve wriggle room. If there is an instance where something has won a "major award" but does not pass GNG then I should reconsider... --Richhoncho (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole point of subject-specific notability guidelines is to provide sensible criteria and balance to the deeply flawed GNG. As I stated above, the GNG is usually interpreted as whether or not significant coverage has been found, not whether it exists or is likely to exist. The SNGs allow us to keep articles on subjects that are verifiably encyclopedic but where we may not be able to find the significant coverage that would demonstrably pass the GNG right now. --Michig (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The viewpoint that the GNG is "deeply flawed" is a bit problematic, especially if you think the flaw is that it doesn't permit articles to be created. I've always viewed the purpose of this SNG as defining exclusion criteria because the GNG is ridiculously broad when it comes to pop music. In general, an SNG should never be seen as a method to bypass the GNG, as they are a method for gaining consensus about general rules for applying the GNG to a subject area (such as this guideline's indication that mentions of songs in the context of an album review doesn't indicate that the song itself is notable).—Kww(talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section for musicians starts with "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". The sections for composers, others and recordings have no introduction. This seems to imply that in those sections, all the criteria must be passed and not just the one for musicians. I'm also not happy about 'it' in that intro as used to refer to a musician. I'm a musician, and definitely not an 'it'. Comments, please. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose a change in wording.

In short, the section should not imply that anyone who meets the criteria could be notable, but that the criteria implies that there may be sources related to those things that will help the subject to meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I need some extra eyes on an article at AfC. The article in question is Draft:Watch What U Wish.... The sourcing on it isn't the best- I removed a Sputnikmusic review that was written by a random user and there are a few other sources that have some issues, like Faygoluvers and HotNewHipHop, the latter of which seems to be a press release added by a random user. Now what shows some notability is the HipHopDX review and the Billboard Heatseekers chart placement. The other sources (most of which are from HipHopDX) are kind of brief and shaky, so this is essentially being decided on two sources. Is the Heatseekers chart enough for this to pass NALBUMS? I'm leaning towards yes, but the sourcing here is so weak that I want to make sure about this before accepting the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw this past discussion and I've seen some argument for its notability at AfD, but nothing that is really definite and concrete. AfC articles tend to be pretty heavily scrutinized, so I want to make sure that this is kosher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the sources out there are things like this one. XXL Mag is reliable but the article puts off huge press release vibes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, WP:CHART doesn't currently list Heatseekers as either an ineligble chart or a recommended one, so I think we're left making a judgment call. My own view would be that if charting on Heatseekers is the only real claim of notability, then that isn't sufficient in and of itself — it would be fine if there were other claims of notability to bolster it with, but if it's standing alone as the sole real pillar of notability then it's just not enough. The group is notable enough — spinoff of an earlier notable group — that a good, keepable article about the album would probably be possible, but an album doesn't automatically inherit notability just because the artist who recorded it is notable, and the quality of sourcing just isn't there yet as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a review, but this is pretty much a case where I'm looking at it in an "absolute notability" sort of claim. In other words, that this chart alone would be strong enough to pass criteria on its own. There is a review, but if this is a chart that would only give partial notability then that'd just leave us with two sources, which isn't really enough in this instance to where I'd be comfortable accepting it into the mainspace. I figure that I'm going to decline to decline the article and look to see how others at AfC feel about the article. It's just in that weird, inbetween stage with notability and I can't help but get the feeling that if I were to accept it, it'd likely just get nominated for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Swagg Man notable by virtue of having a song that charted at #189 in Singles Fusionnes for one week per SNEP? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not. If charts started listing the top 5000 songs, would someone that was #4879 for a week be notable? Come on, we have to draw the line somewhere. I favor sticking to WP:GNG, discussion of the person in multiple reliable sources. LK (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it should be. I was considering AfDing the article -- but saw the language about "charting" in our notability criteria. At the same time, since I wrote this the article creator has been edit-warring over maintenance tags, regarding the reliability of some of the sources. Epeefleche (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did it get any media coverage as a result of charting? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance, but is 'Singles Fusionnés' the same as the French national singles chart? Even if it is then #189 isn't really a hit, it just means that some sales were recorded, probably not many at that level in the chart. Even for major music-buying countries I would suggest that charting outside the top 100 these days isn't much of an indication of notability in itself. The coverage in Le Monde, however, may be. --Michig (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. Google translate tells me it is "merged singles". Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Le Monde is definitely a start, but one good reference doesn't satisfy WP:GNG by itself if it's the only reliable source in the entire article — everything else here is an unreliable (blogspotty and/or promotional) source, and there's no claim in the article that's substantive enough to satisfy this guideline by itself in the absence of more solid sourcing than has been shown. I consider that deletion bait.

"Singles fusionnés", for the record, does appear to be the "overall" singles chart — all of the other singles charts listed on SNEP's website are on specific criteria like radio airplay, sales, downloads and the like, so the "fusionné" chart would be the Billboard Hot 100 equivalent, calculated by weighting all of the other criteria to arrive at the overall rankings. So while a #189 peak would be enough if the article were sourced properly (this guideline already clarifies that it grants no freebies for unsourced articles just because the topic technically meets one of its criteria), it's not enough if the article is resting entirely on one source.

I'll take it to AFD. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I was considering whether or not to write an article on this annual summer event. They have been around for over two decades, and feature popular regional artists. Weekly attendance is in the thousands, but coverage is almost exclusively in California papers. Any thoughts on whether it would meet notability guidelines? I think it might, but I might be biased since I would really like to create the article. :) -Pax85 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern would be as to whether the local coverage was also WP:ROUTINE. Would it be possible to demonstrate that the coverage from these sources are not part of their regular current affairs programming? Avoiding things like arts and music sections, morning programs, etc. Mkdw^talk 06:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I had not thought of that. Thank you. I will take a look around and see, but I think that the chances of the article being created are getting even more slim. I may, however, be able to add more info about the event to the venue article, which I know is here. Thanks again! -Pax85 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]