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 Madmax.pt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)[reply]

• All that I can say is they should abide by WP:V and WP:N. Tours by well-known bands should have plenty of press coverage, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of an American Family Tour. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If you want to see completionist tour information, check this example out. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I know. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I prod tagged a few for you. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't Speedy, I Prodded. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That'll just annoy folks at AfD, they'll say, "Didja try prodding first?". Blast Ulna (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• There's really no set criteria for that as far as I can tell. As long as it's a major singles chart, it should be good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so if it's on a chart, it's okay? -Freekee (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That seems like a good approach to me as well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Added it in; [1]. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But it's documented in sources it's notable anyway? --neon white talk 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, first, tell me which currently applies to singles: WP:MUSIC#SONGS, or WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS? dude527 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 :

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (discogs.com 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)[reply]

Seconding both Tuf-Kat and Neon white here. :) Redirecting is a good option. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AMG and the Times have him writing music for that horrid 1988 film, Vibes.[2][3] 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.[4] 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.[5][6] A Miami New Times article doesn't seem to think he's anyone worth saying anything about.[7] 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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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)[reply]

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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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)[reply]

I agree, I think the former one is the better of the two, and makes things clearer. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Change to notability tag made to ORG. Thanks for your input! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 radioandrecords.com? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I think WP:MUSIC#Songs should be clarified. It currently states "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. 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. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

I've seen many users make the mistake of thinking that the article is implying that if an article contains enough verifiable information, its notable.

I propose clarification, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. 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, but a separate article for a notable song is only appropriate when the article meets one of the three previous rules and enough verifiable material is contained in the article to warrant a reasonably detailed article."

Any other thoughts, suggestions? --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between your proposal and the original text does not come out clearly to me after an initial read, and I am reluctant to spend time on a word-by-word comparison. Could I propose that you strike out the removed text and underline your additions, then it will be much easier for us to judge your proposal. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, done. I'll explain them, too. I didn't change anything in the first couple sentences; those are perfect. The only gripe I have is that some users are assuming that a detailed article for a song automatically implies notability. My additions try to clarify the three things that make a song notable: 1. ranking on a significant chart, 2. being performed by several different artists, and 3. winning significant awards. In other words, I'm trying to place a bit more emphasis on the three rules, and less on the whole "detailed article" thing, while also trying to clarify a bit that having a detailed article does not assume notability. I'm proposing that we clarify and emphasize the three song notability rules, and make sure its known that having a detailed article does not imply notability. I'm also inviting anybody to come and modify my little rough re-write of the guideline. Cheers to you, too. --The Guy _complain ^edits 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with your proposed rewording is that those aren't rules. :) Those are possibilities--"probably notable", it says. The acid test of notability for a song is WP:N: "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." A song may be notable without having met any of those possible factors. It may meet all of them without being notable (though that seems unlikely). I think the real problem is that as songs & albums have been once again sub-divided, people lose sight of the actual rule. I think it might be helpful to put songs & albums back into one section. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still propose the re-write to avoid confusion... Maybe like this? "Articles on songs should meet the general notability guidelines, but most other songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. 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, but a separate article for a notable song is only appropriate when the article meets one of the three previous rules and enough verifiable material is contained in the article to warrant a reasonably detailed article.--The Guy _complain ^edits 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support the revision as worded, since there may be songs that meet the notability guidelines but that do not meet one of those three points (which, again, are not rules; they are examples to help guide, but are not meant to limit inclusion only to such songs). What you're proposing there narrows down the field of notable songs. :) What's wrong with simply altering what exists to say, "A separate article is only appropriate on a notable song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"? That alters the existing "only appropriate when there" to "only appropriate on a notable song when there"--a change of three words that does not alter the actual notability requirements. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I'm proposing a clarification to make it clear just what the standards for inclusion are, and differentiate them from anything else. Please, you re-write it to your standards, cause I don't exactly understand what you mean. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to clarify. :) In your revision, you are saying that it is a rule that a song must have (a) ranked on national or significant music charts, (b) won significant awards or honors, or (c) been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. What I'm saying is that these are not rules. Those are listed as examples of things that might suggest a song meets notability guidelines. There may be notable songs that do not conform to these three points. There may be songs that do conform to those three points, but which do not meet the notability guidelines. What matters is whether a song has been covered in substantial, independent, reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well when I re-wrote that, I didn't "re-write," I just added a sentence to the beginning of it. Hmmm..... Maybe you should re-write it? I'm a bit stumped. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←The problem is in words like "when the article meets one of the three previous rules." The article doesn't need to meet any of those three points. It needs to meet WP:N. That's why I suggested the much simpler revision above to address your concerns, although I still think that putting songs & albums back into one section called something like "albums, singles and songs" is a very good idea since many people seem to miss that WP:N is the governing guideline for songs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles on songs have to meet the general notability guidelines, but a separate article for a notable song is only appropriate when the article meets the general notability guidelines and enough verifiable material is contained in the article to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Songs that are not notable usually do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." --The Guy _complain ^edits 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that may suffer a bit from unnecessary verbiage.:) The guideline already says that songs must meet WP:N. Your proposal there repeats that several times. We already have a bit of problem with "instruction creep" here since "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles". What we have already steps over into limiting content. If we're going to add more, I think we need to keep it minimal. If the language I suggested above doesn't work for you, what about "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works. --The Guy _complain ^edits 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current proposal to alter the "songs" guideline in the following way:

• To add "Notability aside," before the currently existing "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

The editor who proposed clarifying that passage indicates that some contributors are mistakenly believing that verifiable material equals notability. Obviously, this is going to be true when that material is verifiable to reliable, secondary sources, but could be a problem if we're talking the official myspace. :) I have no objections to this change. Any other comments? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to see that while I went away from my computer and lived my other life, you guys sorted it all out faster than the speed of light - a rarity here on wikipedia :-) Thanks anyway The Guy _complain for replying to my initial request for clarification. – IbLeo (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start out by saying I am not asking nor questioning the notability of W. A. Mozart. I understand his position in music history (and adore a good many of his works). I am questioning the notability of every single one of his works. Understand, we have articles that are shorter than this message on some of his works. Mozart is great, but a stand alone article about a 15 second piece of work... with no references? I can't see the justification in this. The only reason I didn't go straight for CSD is W. A. Mozart's reputation and general importance. Can someone explain to me why every single composition by him is notable enough for it's own article? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the notability guideline? Songs are governed by WP:N, and accordingly they require significant coverage in reliable sources. But "notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Going straight to CSD wouldn't do much good, since "songs" are explicitly excluded from CSD for notability reasons; only people (individually or collectively, as in companies) and web-content can be speedily deleted for notability concerns (see WP:CSD#A7). But you might want to consider proposing a merge to address your concerns, though if the parent article is long enough, the material may have been split for space concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually one of the contributors to the current argument on WP:N which is what brought the concern to mind. I didn't realize that CSD#A7 was restricted like that (I guess I've only used it in appropriate situations... by accident), so thanks for pointing that out. As for merging to the parent article, there is no parent article. These were created as stand alone articles, all 626 compositions by Mozart are stand-alone articles. Can I propose a merge with a non-existent article? Or, I'll have to find an article to make the parent. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to this notability guideline, actually. It doesn't say all songs are notable; quite the contrary. :) Mozart would be the parent article, I would imagine. Alternatively, since that one is almost certainly too long (I'm guessing; I haven't investigated), you might create an article that logically groups these compositions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about the notability mix-up. As for the logical groupings of compositions...there already is one. That's right, there are two exhaustive lists of Mozart compositions along with stand -alone articles for each of the 600+ compositions. That's gotta be some kind of record. I think I'm gonna start tagging. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear. :) Good luck with your clean-up efforts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Simple Plan article there is an argument over whether they should be listed as a specific genre or not. I currently have three references to back up the statement but one particular editor is refusing to allow it to be included, arguing that it constitutes Undue Weight. The sources in question are not small fringe-sources but Rolling Stone, Indie UK, and Blender Magazine. If such prominent sources can be found to back up the statement is it really "Undue Weight" or does the statement merit inclusion? Aurum ore (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have no particular opinion on the matter, but I wanted to note that this may not be the best place to seek feedback, as it doesn't relate to the notability of the band. You might want to ask that one at WP:NPOVN or WT:NPOV, which governs WP:UNDUE. Alternatively, if there are only two of you involved and other contributors to the page don't choose to weigh in, you could seek feedback at WP:3O, but in that case please be very careful to word your question so as to avoid indicating your own stance. Have to watch out for canvassing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, I wasn't sure whether to post it here or in WP:NPOV but eventually decided on here, since the contributors would probably be familiar with the sources in question and genre disputes in general. However, if this really isn't the place for this discussion, then I'd be happy to move it. Aurum ore (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a venue familiar with music topics, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Music would be helpful. I would suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres, but that one seems to have gone inactive. Of course, it's always possible that somebody monitoring this page will way in, but as it's a fairly narrow focus (music notability), you may not attract as many viewers as you might like. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like there's actually an active discussion on whether to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres into WikiProject Music. On reconsideration, WP:NPOV probably is the best place for this, since as you said, they cover WP:UNDUE. Thank you very much for your feedback. Aurum ore (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]